Long-term follow-up studies: worth waiting for? A case study of middle-class offenders

Long-term follow-up studies can be expensive and time-consuming with results which sometimes seem to be out-dated. However, do these projects produce empirical riches which cannot be delivered by other research designs, such as cross-sectional studies? The paper first considers some classic examples from the literature, including the Cambridge Development Study developed by West and Farrington, the Gluecks’ study completed by Sampson and Laub and the 25-year follow-up of sex offenders by Prentky et al. Next the paper focuses on a recent 35-year criminological follow-up of a consecutive series of 388 offenders who were seeking white-collar employment between 1 January 1970 and 31 March 1973. Hence, their class position – defined in occupational terms – is quite clear. However, they may or may not have been engaged in what can be described as conventional white-collar crime. In fact, when they were originally interviewed, there is evidence that approaching one-half (or 49%) of the series had had convictions for offences committed against an employer. However, the pivotal question is what, if anything, is gained in criminological knowledge with a very long-term criminological follow-up of such offenders.