Introduction To Juvenile Justice: 1200 words and three scholarly references

https___dftj9wb4gc6c5.cloudfront.net_Bethel_Courses_CCJ_4300_Unit_2_read1.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >Introduction To Juvenile Justice: 1200 words and three scholarly references

Chapter ObjeCtives After studying this chapter, you should be able to

• explain how the political economy of the United states influences delinquency

• Describe the key role that the family plays in the socialization of children and the relationship between child socialization and delinquency

• Describe the importance of parental economic or workplace power, parental criminality, and family conflict, and explain how each of these factors may influence delinquency

• explain the connection between parental abuse, neglect of children, and delinquency

• explain the connection between school performance and delinquency

• Describe how schools and societal factors contribute to student failure

• Describe the phenomenon of “social disorganization” and how it can encourage the creation of a delinquent “culture” in neighborhoods or urban areas

• explain how youth peer groups and gangs differ from one another and how youths’ peer associations encourage or discourage delinquency

• Describe how the development, management, and distribution of political and economic resources influence both youths and the operation of the social institutions that make up the juvenile justice process

Chapter OUtline introduction

the political and economic Context of juvenile Delinquency and juvenile justice

the Family and Delinquency

schools and Delinquency

the Community and Delinquency

peer associations and Delinquency

the social Context of Delinquency theories

Theory and Research the social Context of juvenile Delinquency and juvenile justice

chapter

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ introduction

Delinquency and the practice of juvenile justice occur, not in a vacuum, but in a social context. This does not mean that individual factors, such as biological makeup and psycho- logical functioning, do not play a role in delinquency or the operation of juvenile justice. Nor does it imply that individuals do not make choices, often conscious choices, to engage in delinquent behaviors. However, it recognizes that individuals, and the choices they make, cannot be adequately understood without considering the social contexts in which they live and act.

Social context helps shape our views of juvenile crime and the operation of juvenile justice through the portrayal of delinquency and juvenile justice in the media. In fact, much of what most people (including the makers of juvenile crime policy) know about juvenile crime and juvenile justice comes from the media. However, the social context of juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice comprises more than the media. In the United States, juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice are influenced by a variety of factors found in the political economy of the United States and in communities, families, schools, peer groups, and other important socializing institutions. How political and economic arrangements and socializing institu- tions, such as families, communities, and schools, influence delinquency is a primary focus of theory and research in the field of criminology. Indeed, courses in criminology, juvenile delinquency, and criminological theory focus attention on how factors such as economic inequality, school failure, residence in a high-crime neighborhood, child discipline practices, child abuse, association with criminally involved peers, and many other factors are related to delinquency. Explanations of criminal behavior that refer to such factors compose a sig- nificant body of criminological theory. Moreover, theories are important, as Stephen Pfohl has noted, because they “provide us with an image of what something is and how we might best act toward it.”1 The development of good theories of delinquency, then, could be used to develop policies that reduce or prevent it.

Although the purpose of this text is not to examine the many theoretical explanations of delinquency, it should be kept in mind that delinquency is the product of a complex set of factors and that juvenile justice exists in a complex social context that has real and profound effects on the practice of juvenile justice. Importantly, juvenile justice practitioners often spend considerable energy attempting to help their clients develop more law-abiding responses to the social context in which their clients live. Many practitioners also spend considerable energy

the social Context of juvenile justice

the influence of the political economy on the practice of juvenile justice

the influence of the local Community and the Media on the practice of juvenile justice

Chapter summary

Key Concepts

review Questions

additional readings

notes

50 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

attempting to manipulate or alter various aspects of the social context in ways that will lessen the likelihood of continued delinquent behavior.2

This chapter discusses some of the important components of the overall social context that influence juvenile crime and the operation of juvenile justice. It begins by considering the effects of economic and political factors on delinquency. Next, it explores a variety of important social institutions (i.e., families, neighborhoods, schools, and peer associations) and individual traits (i.e., low verbal IQ and low self-control) and their relationship to delinquent behavior. It then examines how the social context influences the development of delinquency theory. It closes by looking at the ways in which the social context influences the practice of juvenile justice.

■ the political and economic Context of juvenile Delinquency and juvenile justice

The term political economy refers to the basic economic and political organization of soci- ety. The political economy determines the ways in which economic and political resources are developed, managed, and distributed. The development, management, and distribution of these resources are important because they directly affect the ability of basic socializing institutions, such as families and schools, to meet people’s needs. For example, the distribu- tion of job opportunities and the pay earned by workers influence the amount of economic resources possessed by families and the quality of life experienced by family members. As the National Commission on Children noted in a 1993 report, “Economic security is fundamental to children’s well-being. Children need material support to have a better chance to grow up healthy, succeed in school, and become capable and caring adults.”3 Furthermore, decisions regarding the development, management, and distribution of economic resources do not occur in a social vacuum; rather, they are products of a political process in which different groups with conflicting concerns and varying degrees of power try to protect and further their interests.

the political Context

The forms of political organization found in most modern societies can be separated into two main categories: democratic forms and authoritarian forms. The United States, although relatively democratic, is not a pure democracy in which every person has an equal voice in decision making and not every political decision is intended to maximize the common good. Instead, governmental decision making is regularly influenced by powerful special interests that seek to maximize benefits for themselves at the expense of others. These special interest groups consist of individuals, families, corporations, unions, and various other organizations, and they use a variety of means to obtain tax breaks, favors, subsidies, and favorable rulings from congressional committees, regulatory agencies, and executive agencies.4

Although the government can and does act in ways that benefit the majority of Americans, it is not always neutral.5 When government entities decide to regulate certain activities and not others, when they enforce certain laws and not others, when they select which resources to develop and how to manage and distribute these resources, their decisions and actions invariably favor some groups and interests over others. Whether to provide or withdraw government support for abortion, whether to increase or reduce regulations concerning gun ownership, whether to reduce or eliminate support for summer jobs programs for youths, or whether to make it more difficult for low-income youths to receive loans for higher education while providing a range of tax breaks and subsidies to large corporations are hardly neutral decisions. In determining what should be done, government is generally biased toward policies that benefit the wealthy, especially the big business community and corporations.6

The ability to influence political decision making is a form of power. power is the “capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others.”7 However, power is not

political economy The basic political and economic orga- nization of society, including the setting of political priorities and the manage- ment and distribu- tion of economic resources. People’s economic status largely determines the opportunities that are available to them, their feeling of political empower- ment, their ability to access the political system, and their ability to influ- ence political and economic decision making.

special interest group An organiza- tion consisting of persons, corpora- tions, unions, and so on that have common political, and often economic, purposes and goals. These individuals or groups come together to use their influence, mon- etarily and politi- cally, to persuade politicians and other persons in power to act favorably toward them.

power The ability to influ- ence political and economic deci- sions and actions; the ability to force, coerce, or influence a person’s actions or thoughts.

the political and economic context of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice 51

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

equally distributed across individuals and groups in our society. Instead, it is concentrated among those who possess substantial economic resources—resources that can be used to directly and indirectly influence government decision making. The expenditure of those resources to influence government decision making is seen as a reasonable cost because the decisions reached partially determine the development, management, and distribution of resources within society and typically benefit those who possess substantial economic resources.

From a juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice standpoint, the question we must ask ourselves is this: To what extent do present political arrangements contribute to the well- being of children and to the healthy functioning of other socializing institutions, such as families and communities, that have an important effect on children’s lives? We also must ask to what extent do present political arrangements encourage delinquency, either directly or indirectly?

Decisions to invest our resources in ways that encourage the healthy development of communities, schools, families, and children are political decisions. This does not mean that families, communities, schools, and other organizations do not share responsibility for the welfare of children and for the problem of delinquency. Community decision making and school decision making are inherently political activities. However, it must be kept in mind that government decision making does have important ramifications for the quality of life experienced by many Americans and for the level of delinquency that exists in our society. The following section examines one important outcome of decision making in the United States—namely, economic inequality, as well as the relationship of economic inequality and delinquency.

the economic Context

There are two primary forms of economic organization in the modern world: capitalism and socialism. Although pure capitalism and pure socialism do not exist, the economic organization of each country tends toward one form or the other. In the United States, the predominant form of economic organization is capitalism. This form of economic organization is charac- terized by three basic principles: private ownership of personal property, personal profit, and competition. In addition, according to those who favor pure capitalism, government interfer- ence in economic life should be kept to a minimum. The basic view of capitalism’s supporters is that “the profit motive, private ownership, and competition will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number in the form of individual self-fulfillment and the general material progress of society.”8

Clearly, many people in the United States are able to achieve considerable prosperity. Yet it is also true that many others have relatively few material resources. In fact, the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate have been increasing. In 2010, it was estimated that 15.3% of the U.S. population (46.2 million people) were officially poor.9 Most of these were white; however, African Americans and American Indians and Alaska Natives were more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty.10 Fur- thermore, 2.6 million of those persons classified as

poor worked full time, and another million worked all year but less than full time.11 However, other estimates of the number of poor persons—estimates not based on the official poverty line—suggest that the number of people who lack an adequate income to meet their basic needs is much higher than official data indicate.12 Even using official data, the number of persons with incomes of 125% of the poverty level was estimated to be 60.4 million in 2006.13

capitalism An economic system

based on three fun- damental principles:

(1) private owner- ship of property, (2) competition

between economic interests, and

(3) personal profit as a reward for

economic risk and effort.

socialism A political and

economic system based on democratic

decision making, equality of opportu-

nity for all, collective decision making

designed to further the interests of the entire community, public ownership

of the means of production, and

economic and social planning.

photo © claudia Dewald/iStockphoto

52 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

F Y i OFFiCial pOvertY

the poverty line is defined as three times the amount of income necessary for a minimally nutritional diet. In 2010, the official poverty line for a family of four with two children younger than 18 years was $22,113.14 Many economists and others argue that the official poverty line underestimates the number of poor persons because those earning slightly above the poverty line still lack access to adequate shelter, diet, housing, clothing, and medical care, but they are not considered officially poor. Moreover, researchers indicate that families in some places would need to double the income used to calculate the poverty rate to meet their basic needs.15

It is important to note that poverty is not equally distributed within the population. Minori- ties, children, and families headed by women are disproportionately represented among the impoverished in the United States. In 2010, 9.9% of whites had an income below the official poverty level, compared with 27.4% of African Americans, 26.6% of Hispanics, and 12.1% of Asian Americans. Although most officially poor people in the United States are white, African Americans and Latinos are disproportionately represented in poverty statistics. Similarly, 22% of persons younger than 18 years and 31.6% of families headed by women were below the poverty line in 2010.16

The gap between the wealthiest Americans and the poorest Americans has widened since the 1970s. Indeed, by 2007, the top 1% of American households controlled 34.6% of the country’s net worth, whereas the bottom 90% controlled just 26.9%. The increase in income inequality appears to be related to a number of factors: (1) the shift from better-paid manu- facturing jobs to lower-paying service jobs; (2) technological advances that have increased the demand for highly skilled workers at the expense of less skilled workers; (3) globalization, which forces American workers to compete with foreign workers, driving down American wages; (4) immigration, which drives down wages among less-skilled workers; (5) a decline in unionization that decreases the ability of workers to bargain for higher wages; (6) the segregation of poorer people into areas where their opportunities for economic well-being are lessened; (7) the creation of a tiered wage structure where newer jobs, including jobs in traditionally well-paying industries, begin at lower wages than before and carry fewer benefits; and (8) substantial increases in the pay of top executives.17

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y COMparative FOCUs On inCOMe ineQUalitY

Myth—the United States has less income inequality than other countries. reality—the United States ranks near the bottom in countries with respect to income inequality and has greater income inequality than europe, canada, australia, South Korea, India, russia, and many other countries. countries with the least income inequality are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Germany.18 to view an interesting video on income inequality in the United States, see the pBS presentation Income Inequality at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/332/index.html.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y COMparative FOCUs On the QUalitY OF liFe experienCeD bY aMeriCans

Myth—the quality of life experienced by americans is greater than the quality of life in any other country. reality—although many americans live in much better conditions than many other people in the world, other americans are not as fortunate. One way to see how the United States compares is to examine its rank on the human Development Index, which is based on life expectancy, educational attainment, and income. accord- ing to the 2011 human Development report prepared by the United Nations, the United States ranked 4th in

the political and economic context of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice 53

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

terms of its potential to offer its citizens a quality life that includes a long life, high educational attainment, and a high income, but ranked only 23rd when actual levels of attainment are considered. countries that ranked at the top of the rankings were Norway, australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, and Denmark.19 also, a comparison of 31 member countries of the Organisation of economic co-operation and Development (OecD) that looked at social justice (measured by examining six target dimensions: poverty prevention, access to education, labor market inclusion, social cohesion and nondiscrimination, health, and intergenerational justice) found that the United States ranked 27th.20

For most Americans, the economic resources of the families they are born into play a criti- cal role in their future economic status. A person born into a poor family will likely remain poor or close to the poverty level, and a person born into a wealthy family will likely remain wealthy.21 This does not mean, however, that everyone’s economic circumstances remain static over time. Even individuals from middle-class families experience some unexpected changes in their economic circumstances at some point in their lives, and most will experience peri- odic, though predictable, changes in their standards of living during their lifetimes. Divorce or separation, the death of a spouse or parent, becoming a family head or spouse, unemploy- ment, work loss because of retirement, health problems, and a reduction in the work hours of individuals and family members can lead to financial hardship. Thus, it is not only the poor who are likely to suffer economic hardship during their lifetimes; they are merely more likely to suffer longer and more acutely because of their economic situation.

An important key to economic well-being is the ability to find and hold a job that pays a decent wage. Yet many Americans have a hard time locating such jobs. Periodic economic recessions in the 1980s, 1990s, and the 2000s; decisions by U.S. companies to move their pro- duction operations to other countries; reductions in the workforce as a result of automation; efforts to make businesses more efficient; the development of a tiered wage structure that pays lower wages for newer jobs and provides fewer benefits; and a shift away from the produc- tion of goods to the provision of services have reduced job opportunities and have affected the wages and the future employment prospects of Americans. Although these trends have influenced people of all racial groups and ages, they have had a profound influence on people living in urban areas, many of whom are minorities, and children.

The shift from manufacturing jobs to service jobs; the movement of entry-level jobs in manufacturing, retail sales, and customer services from urban areas to the urban periphery or overseas; and the relocation of high-tech jobs to cities have resulted in fewer job opportuni- ties for low-skilled urban residents. Moreover, a lack of affordable rental housing in the urban periphery, coupled with racial residential segregation, prevents many poor and low-skilled workers from relocating to areas that are closer to these jobs.

Furthermore, low levels of automobile ownership and poor public transportation mean that poor low-skilled urban residents find it difficult to commute to jobs.22 Indeed, research indicates that distance from home is a major factor that influences workforce participation for both men and women, but it is particularly strong for women, who are often hesitant to take jobs that are far from home because they do not want to be too far away from their children’s caregivers. Simultaneously, many new jobs that have been created in urban areas require a high degree of skill and are not well matched to the skills of many urban residents. The result has been a high degree of economic segregation characterized by concentrated pockets of poverty, particularly in urban areas,23 at one extreme and areas of affluence at the other.

Economic resources are important because of the material goods and opportunities that such resources can procure. For those living in affluent areas, it means having a range of public services and private resources. It means well-funded schools, recreational and cultural facilities, programs for youths, and access to a range of private resources that can be used to support and respond to family and individual problems. In poor communities, it often means an absence of resources or a lack of quality resources for youths and families. It means that

54 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

those who are disproportionately exposed to the stress of life have the fewest resources to help them deal with the problems that they encounter.

Adverse economic conditions, such as unemployment and declining wages, place a strain on many families. For example, research on unemployed men has found them to feel less sat- isfied with themselves and with their lives in general. They also tend to feel more victimized, anxious, depressed, and hostile toward others than men who are employed.24 Financial loss appears to be related to changes in men’s attitudes and parenting practices, and many fathers whose earnings decline become more tense, irritable, explosive, arbitrary, and punitive in responding to their children.25

Of course, women are also affected by financial hardship, and financial hardship is particu- larly acute for families headed by single women. In 2010, 31.6% of all female-headed families lived in poverty.26 Moreover, life for single women who head families is often complicated by the many responsibilities that these women have. Indeed, females who head families have multiple responsibilities and demands that go beyond their own immediate needs. They are responsible for providing food, shelter, and clothing for their children; seeing that they get to school; keeping them healthy; supervising and monitoring their behavior; meeting their emotional and psychological needs; managing family finances; and meeting a wide variety of other demands that emanate from employers, relatives, and others. In addition, they must deal with issues of gender discrimination, poor labor market prospects, and welfare policies and programs that provide minimal relief and are often seen as humiliating.27

F Y i alMOst 1 in 10 ChilDren in the UniteD states laCK health insUranCe

In 2010, 9.8% (7.3 million) of all children in the United States under 18 years of age lacked health insurance.28

Economic hardship also affects the young. Poor infants are much more likely to suffer low birth weight, to die during the first year of life, and to suffer hunger or abuse while growing up. Compared with non-poor children, children who are below the poverty threshold are also less likely to receive immunizations and other health care and to have poor health. Moreover, poor children are more likely to experience learning disabilities and developmental delays, have lower school achievement, and experience a wider range of emotional and behavioral problems.29 And there are negative psychological and social effects that are associated with poverty. Long-term exposure to poverty is related to increased levels of anxiety and unhap- piness among children, and current exposure to poverty is associated with behaviors such as disobedience and aggression.30

Economic resources clearly influence the ability of people to obtain those things that are necessary for survival and that are desired in our society. Such resources influence an indi- vidual’s life chances. As Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills noted, life chances involve “everything from the chance to stay alive during the first year after birth to the chance to view fine art, the chance to remain healthy and grow tall, and if sick to get well again quickly, the chance to avoid becoming a juvenile delinquent—and very crucially, the chance to complete an intermediary or higher educational grade.”31

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y COMparative FOCUs On the Well-being OF ChilDren

Myth—children in the United States enjoy a greater level of well-being than in any other country. reality—Out of the 21 nations in the industrialized world, the average ranking of the United States on child well-being is 20, just ahead of the United Kingdom. the countries that have the highest rankings in terms of material well-being, health and safety, education, family and peer relationships, behaviors and risks, and subjective well-being are the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark.32

the political and economic context of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice 55

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Furthermore, economic status is an important factor from a juvenile justice perspective, because it appears to be strongly related to delinquent behavior. Indeed, many theories of crime and delinquency stress the role of economic inequality in the production of crime, and these theories have received some support in the research literature. For example, ethnographic studies of low-income neighborhoods,33 large-scale self-report studies of the link between social class and delinquency, and research on the relationship between persistent childhood poverty and delinquency have found that poverty appears to have an effect on delinquent behavior. In a large-scale study of social class differences in delinquency, Delbert Elliott and David Huizinga found that, although class differences were almost nonexistent when minor types of delinquency were examined, lower-class youths reported significantly more involve- ment in serious forms of delinquency.34 In a more recent study of the relationship between persistent poverty and delinquency, Roger Jarjoura, Ruth Triplett, and Gregory Brinker found that exposure to persistent poverty is associated with delinquency. Moreover, they also found that exposure to persistent poverty during early childhood is related to an increased likelihood of delinquency later in life.35

Political and economic arrangements that foster inequality among Americans influence the types of lives that many people, including children, experience. As noted, there is evidence that political and economic arrangements have an important effect on delinquent behavior. In addition, they provide a context that influences the operation of other important social- izing institutions, such as families, schools, communities, and peer groups, that are related to delinquency. The remaining sections of this chapter examine the role of these socializing institutions in the lives of children and the research that has looked at the relationship between these socializing institutions and delinquency.

■ the Family and Delinquency

There appears to be widespread agreement among both social scientists and the general public that the family plays a key role in child development and socialization. The family can be a place where members love each other, care for one another, and provide a mutu- ally beneficial environment for healthy human growth. However, the family can also be characterized by conflict, a lack of mutual support and nurturance, and violence. Like other major socializing institutions, families are profoundly influenced by the political and economic context within which they operate. As D. Stanley Eitzen, Maxine Baca Zinn, and Kelly Eitzen Smith note, a family’s placement in the class system is the most important factor in determining family outcomes.36 For example, a family’s placement in the politi- cal and economic structure shapes the family’s access to and interconnection with other institutions, such as work establishments, schools, churches, and voluntary associations. These institutions can function as resources for the family and can facilitate access to other resources.37 Thus, children from wealthy families will have a definite advantage in life, whereas children from poor families will face a variety of obstacles in their efforts to achieve the American dream.

Not only does the family determine the economic conditions in which children live, but it also plays a primary role in shaping a child’s values, personality, and behavior. Not surpris- ingly, a variety of criminological theories suggest that the family plays a significant role in the production or prevention of delinquent behavior, and numerous studies have examined various aspects of the family that appear to be associated with delinquency. As Walter Gove and Robert Crutchfield note, “The evidence that the family plays a critical role in juvenile delinquency is one of the strongest and most frequently replicated findings among studies of deviance.”38 Essentially, this research has focused on two broad areas—family structure and family relations—which are felt to have a strong influence on juvenile delinquency and later criminality. Indeed, one important conclusion that can be drawn from this research to date is

social class A person’s or family’s

economic, social, and political stand- ing in the commu-

nity. Social class can be directly related to type of employment, neighborhood, circle

of contacts, and friends.

family A collective body

of any two or more persons living

together in a com- mon place under

one head or manage- ment; a household; those persons who

have a common ancestor or are from

the same lineage; people who live

together and who have mutual duties to support and care

for one another.

56 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

that the individual’s experiences during infancy and early childhood influence behavior over the life course.39

Family structure and Delinquency

Family structure refers to the ways in which families are constituted. For instance, are both natural parents present, is a stepparent present, is the family headed by a single parent, and how large is the family? One element appears clear: The structure of the American family has changed dramatically over time.

The Effect of the Single-Parent Home on Delinquency One important fact is that children today are more likely to live in single-parent households than in the past. For example, in 1970, about 12% of all children lived with one parent, typically their mother,40 but by 2011, the percentage of children living in single-parent homes was 27%, and another 4% lived in households where neither parent was present.41 There are two primary reasons for the increase in the number of children who live in single-parent homes. First, the divorce rate has been rising over the past 20 years. The United States has the highest divorce rate in the world, with about half of all marriages ending in divorce. Moreover, the majority of all divorces involve children. A second reason why more children are living in single-parent homes is that more children are being born out of wedlock. The number of out-of-wedlock births has increased significantly since the 1960s, especially among teenagers, and the rise has contributed to the increasing number and proportion of children in single-parent homes.42

Of course, the high rate of marital dissolution and the growing number of out-of-wedlock births have not occurred in a social and economic vacuum. Rather, they are influenced by a complex set of social and economic factors. Although most Americans indicate that they value marriage, there is considerable evidence that the importance given to marriage and two- parent families has eroded in recent years. The result has been a relaxation of social constraints on divorce, out-of-wedlock childbearing, and single parenthood.43 At the same time, the eco- nomic prospects of many young men, particularly those who are minorities, have worsened. This has not only led to joblessness, but also influenced marital dissolution and made these men less attractive as marriage partners who can support a family.44

The relationship between single-parent families, which are sometimes referred to as broken homes, and juvenile delinquency has been the focus of considerable debate in the fields of criminology and juvenile justice. Indeed, some research has discovered statistically significant relationships between single-parent homes or nontraditional families and delin- quency.45 However, research also suggests that the effects of coming from a single-parent or nontraditional home may not be the same for all youths. For instance, some research has indicated that coming from a single-parent home is associated not with serious delinquency, but with status offenses like running away from home and truancy.46 Also, some research has found that white youths, young females,47 and youths from high-income families48 are more likely to be affected in more adverse ways by parental absence. Yet other studies have reported that minority youths and children in low socioeconomic communities who lived in single- parent families were at greater risk of delinquency.49 Clearly, the research here has produced conflicting results regarding the characteristics of single-parent families that are related to delinquency.50

F Y i

the United States, along with the cayman Islands, has the fifth-highest divorce rate (3.4 divorces per 1,000 per- sons), according to the United Nations Demographic Yearbook. Only russia, Belarus, Ukraine, and Moldova have higher rates.51

broken home A home or family in which at least one natural (biological) parent is absent.

the Family and Delinquency 57

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Although there does appear to be a relationship between living in a single-parent home and involvement in delinquent behavior, the research indicates that the relationship is not as strong as some people believe. Furthermore, much of the early research uncovering such a relationship was based on official data. A potential problem with using official data is that authorities may treat youths from single-parent homes differently from youths from intact homes.52 For example, police may be more inclined to formally process youths from single- parent homes than youths from two-parent homes. The existence of such a bias is suggested by the fact that studies relying on self-report data have often failed to find a strong relationship between single-parent homes and delinquency.53

Research that has not discovered a relationship between single-parent homes and delin- quency suggests that what is most important is not whether youths come from a single-parent family or a two-parent family, but the quality of the relationship that exists between those parents that are present and their children.54 For example, a recent study using a national sample of youths that looked at various family structural and family process variables and their relationship to delinquency found that youths’ attachment to their mother was the most powerful predictor of delinquency.55

F Y i brOKen hOMes anD DelinQUenCY

One problem with examining the relationship between broken homes and delinquency is the vagueness of the concept of a “broken home.” according to the standard definition, a broken home is a home in which at least one natural (biological) parent is absent. however, this definition ignores the potential differences in types of broken homes and variations in parental absence. For instance, a number of events might cause the absence of a parent, including death, divorce, separation, disability, military service, and job responsibilities. the length of parental absence can vary as well. Unfortunately, the effects of different types of parental absence on youths and their relationship to delinquency are not known.

F Y i MUltiple FaMilY transitiOns anD DelinQUenCY

Many children experience family breakups or the remarriage or reconstitution of their family one or more times during their lives. research indicates that children who experience one or more of these events, such as the transition from a single-parent to a two-parent blended or cohabiting family, during their lives are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior.56

The Effect of Family Size on Delinquency Another aspect of family structure that may influence delinquency is family size. In his classic study of delinquency, Travis Hirschi found that, even when controlling for academic perfor- mance, parental supervision, and attachment between youths and their parents, family size was related to delinquency.57 This finding is supported by research conducted in England, although the relationship discovered was much weaker for middle-class families than for lower-class families,58 which suggests that it may be economic resources rather than family size that is most important. Perhaps parents of larger families who have substantial economic resources may be better able to meet their children’s needs in ways that reduce the probability of delinquency. Some researchers have questioned the relationship between family size and delinquency, arguing that a more important variable is having a delinquent sibling. Their line of reasoning is that having a delinquent sibling is related to delinquency and that in larger families, youths are more likely to have a delinquent sibling.59

58 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Family Relations and Delinquency The term family relations refers to the quantity and quality of interactions and relationships among family members. Like family structure, however, family relations are also influenced by the larger social context in which families reside as well as the economic condition of the family itself. As noted earlier, families have changed in a variety of ways in recent years in response to political and economic developments. This section begins by examining how changes in the family may have influenced family socialization. It then discusses different aspects of family socialization that have been linked to delinquency.

the Influence of Women’s employment on Family relations and Delinquency In 1960, less than 7% of married women with children participated in the paid labor force.60 In 2010, this had increased to 69%.61 Indeed, one of the most important changes in the American family has been the growing number of women, including mothers, who are entering the workforce. The effects of mothers’ employment on children are not entirely clear, however. By working outside the home, mothers are able to improve the economic well-being of their families. Indeed, in poor families and many middle-income families, the mother must work if the children are to receive adequate care.62 A working mother can make a significant contribution to the economic well-being of the family; however, it also means that the mother has less time to spend interacting with her children. This is a problem that single working mothers share with parents in dual-earner families when both husband and wife work outside the home. In response, many families have come to rely increasingly on child care or leave children to care for themselves for at least part of the day.63 Children who care for themselves for part of the day are often referred to as latchkey children.

F Y i latChKeY ChilDren

In spring 2010, it was estimated that more than 4.8 million youths, ages 5 to 14 years, spent time in self-care. the majority of these youths were in families of married parents.64

Although many people feel that a decline in the amount of parent–child interaction can obstruct child development, the extent of the effect is far from apparent. Some research indi- cates that there is virtually no developmental difference among toddlers who attend day-care programs and children taken care of at home, although there may be some negative health outcomes for infants.65 Moreover, quality child-care programs can facilitate children’s cognitive, emotional, and social development, particularly for disadvantaged children.66 Nevertheless, more recent research on the effects of child care indicate that although there are some positive effects for some children in high-quality programs, children who spend more time in day care displayed more behavioral problems compared with those who spent fewer hours.67

Even self-care does not always result in poor outcomes. Many children who are left unsu- pervised become more independent and learn to become more responsible for themselves over time. In contrast, however, other children who care for themselves experience loneliness and isolation and may be significantly disadvantaged by a lack of adult supervision. Further- more, they may be at greater risk of accidents, injuries, and involvement in risky and problem behaviors.68 The importance of good adult supervision has been noted in a study by Thomas Vander Ven and his colleagues, who found that mothers’ employment had very little effect on children’s delinquent behavior when they were adequately supervised.69 Thus, having good adult supervision for children appears to be a key factor in limiting delinquency.

Researchers also have examined the ways in which parents’ roles and experiences in the workplace influence their relationship with their children. Criminologists Mark Colvin and

latchkey children Children who care for them- selves at least part of the day due to parental unavail- ability because of employment.

the Family and Delinquency 59

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

John Pauly argue that parents tend to reproduce at home the authority relations they experi- ence in the workplace. The problem is that the differences in power characteristic of a capitalist economy result in workplace experiences that are authoritarian and coercive. In turn, these experiences engender coercive and authoritarian relationships in many homes—relationships that are not conducive to the establishment of intimate bonds between family members and increase the likelihood of delinquency.70

The relationship between the economic sphere and the family is also the focus of John Hagan’s power control theory. According to Hagan, “Work relations structure family relations, particularly relations between fathers and mothers and in turn relations between parents and their children, especially mothers and their daughters.”71 Data collected by Hagan and his colleagues in Canada tend to support this hypothesis. From Hagan’s perspective, the power that parents have in the workplace is typically reproduced in the family. Hagan argues that when both parents are in positions of power in the workplace, the parents share power and the family structure is egalitarian. In such families, male and female children are socialized in similar ways, which results in comparable levels of delinquency among male and female children. However, in traditional patriarchal families, in which the mother remains at home, as well as in single-parent families, daughters are more likely to become the objects of control by mothers, who socialize their daughters to avoid risk. One outcome is that in such families, males tend to engage in more delinquency than females.72

As the preceding discussion makes evident, the broader political and economic environ- ment in which families exist influence the types of relationships found in families. Moreover, a wealth of information exists indicating that certain types of family relations are associated with delinquency.

Family Socialization and Delinquency An important process through which family relations are developed is socialization. Socialization refers to the ways that a child is taught cultural roles and normal adult responsibilities, and it involves a variety of interactions, such as touching, holding, hugging, kissing, and talking to the child; listening to the child; feeding and clothing the child; and taking care of the child’s need for safety, security, and love. All of these interac- tions convey important messages to children.

One important aspect of socialization—one that is associated with delinquent behavior—is the process by which social control is developed and implemented in the family. One form of social control consists of the bonds that children develop with the family and family members. Indeed, research indicates that youths who lack closeness to parents or caregivers, or who feel there is little family cohesiveness, are more likely to engage in delinquency.73 In addition, some researchers have uncovered a relationship between family conflict, hostility, a lack of warmth and affection among family members, and delinquency.74 Others have found a relationship between parental criminality and delinquency (the children of parents who are involved in criminal behavior are more likely to engage in delinquency than youths whose parents are not involved in criminality).75

Family crises and changes also have an effect on family relations and appear to be related to delinquency. There is some evidence that disruptions in family life, such as moving to a new residence, separation or divorce of parents, and family conflict, can produce pressures that push youths toward acting-out behaviors.76 Overall, these studies suggest that when the quality of parent–child relations is poor, and when there are significant disruptions in family life, delinquency is more likely. They also suggest the converse: Positive parent–child relations act to control delinquent behavior.

Of course, parents exert other forms of social control, including the imposition of discipline. There is considerable evidence that inconsistent discipline, as well as overly harsh or lax disci- pline, is related to delinquent behavior.77 Unfortunately, some parents’ responses to their chil- dren’s objectionable behavior are not simply lax or overly harsh; they are neglectful or abusive.

60 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

child abuse consists of acts of commission—things done to children. Types of child abuse include physical, sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse. Neglect consists of acts of omis- sion; in other words, a parent or guardian fails to meet the needs of his or her child (e.g., the need for food, shelter, medical care, clothing, education, or affection). Neglect can be physical, emotional, or psychological. However, although child abuse and neglect consist of different forms of behavior, they often occur simultaneously. That is, children who are abused are often neglected as well, and children who are neglected are often abused.

F Y i aCtUal level OF ChilD MaltreatMent is UnKnOWn

In 2008, an estimated 3.3 million referrals involving allegations of child maltreatment of approximately 6 million children were made in the United States.78 however, because many incidents of abuse and neglect are not reported to the authorities, the actual level of child maltreatment is unknown.

The sad fact is that many children are subjected to abuse and neglect by their parents. Moreover, abuse and neglect have been found to be related to a variety of health, cognitive, educational, and social difficulties, including brain injuries, mental disorders, poor school performance, fear, anger, and antisocial behavior.79 In one of the most comprehensive studies done on the relationship among child abuse, neglect, and criminality, Cathy Spatz Widom and Michael Maxfield found that youths who were abused or neglected were 59% more likely to be arrested as a juvenile and 28% more likely to be arrested as an adult than youths with no abuse or neglect history. Moreover, youths who had been abused or neglected were 30% more likely to be arrested for a violent crime.80 These findings support the idea of a cycle of violence (a cycle in which those who experience violence as children are more likely to engage in violence as adults).

Aside from child abuse and neglect, another indicator of the quality of family life is conflict between parents. Such conflict sometimes takes the form of domestic violence, which usually, although not always, involves males abusing their female companions. Like child abuse, the actual extent of domestic violence is not known because much of this behavior is not reported to the police. Nevertheless, domestic violence is a significant problem.

F Y i intiMate partner viOlenCe is a signiFiCant prObleM

the actual extent of intimate partner violence in the United States is not known. Nevertheless, there may be as many as 12 million men and women affected each year. Moreover, data indicate that as many as one in four women have experienced domestic violence at some time in their life.81

Like child abuse, domestic violence rarely occurs as an isolated incident, possibly because each act of violence tends to reduce the inhibition against violence.82 Also like child abuse, domestic violence has negative effects on children. Research indicates that children who observe domestic violence tend to be more withdrawn and anxious; they are more likely to perform well below their peers in school, organized sports, and social activities; and they are more likely to exhibit aggressive and delinquent behaviors.83 In addition, research suggests that domestic violence and child abuse are related. For example, research on the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment indicates that there is a 30% to 60% overlap between violence directed at women and violence directed at children in the same families,84 and that dual exposure to domestic violence and maltreatment is related to a variety of nega- tive outcomes, including depression, delinquency, and aggression.85

child abuse Nonaccidental acts directed against children that result in physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional harm.

neglect The nonaccidental failure of a caregiver to meet the physical, psychological, or emotional needs of a minor or another person in the charge of the caregiver.

the Family and Delinquency 61

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

There is an undeniable connection between violence in families and violent children. Parents who physically abuse their children teach them that it is okay to physically confront other people when angry and that physical violence is an acceptable form of interaction between people. Men who abuse their wives or girlfriends teach their male children that it is acceptable to hit women. By their behavior, they also teach female children that it is acceptable for women to be hit by men and that women should expect and accept physical abuse by men.

In a similar manner, children who have been sexually abused, especially those victimized by a close family member or a person who has authority over them, often become perpetra- tors themselves. The inappropriate form of social and sexual contact inherent in sexual abuse teaches the child victim all of the wrong lessons about appropriate sexuality and, just as importantly, breaks down natural or societal taboos regarding sexual behavior.

■ schools and Delinquency

School is another institution that has a profound influence on the lives of young people. Today, a much larger percentage of the youth population attends school than in the past. For example, in 1940, only 79% of youths between 14 and 17 years of age attended school, but this figure had increased to 96% by 2009, largely as a result of compulsory school laws.86 Moreover, the amount of time that youths spend in school has been increasing. For example, in 1940, only 38% of persons in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 years had completed high school. By 2007, the percentage of persons between the ages of 25 and 29 years who had completed high school had risen to 87%.87

Clearly, school is an important institution because it gives young people the academic skills that are critical for effective participation in today’s society. Yet school is important for other reasons as well. It has become the primary socializing institution “through which . . . commu- nity and adult influences enter into the lives of adolescents.”88 It is in school that youths learn values, attitudes, and skills, such as punctuality and deference to authority, that are necessary for participation in economic and social life. For many families, a substantial amount of the interaction between parents and children revolves around school-related issues.89 Indeed, school is generally acknowledged to affect “the lives of youth in ways which transcend the more obvious influences of academic knowledge acquisition.”90 It is, among other things, the place where youths develop a better sense of who they are and how they stand in relationship to others, both peers and adults.

Aside from its role as a major socializing institution, school is important because it is a primary determinant of both economic and social status. It is, for many people, the primary avenue to economic and social success because it confers the credentials necessary for entry into well-paying jobs. Consequently, higher educational attainment is associated with higher earnings, and this is true regardless of gender or race and ethnicity.91

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y Overall, the beneFits OF eDUCatiOn varY bY genDer anD raCe

Myth—education is a path to social and economic equality for all americans. reality—arguably, there are many benefits to receiving an education, because income tends to improve with educational attainment. however, not everyone with the same amount of education does equally well. For example, men with professional degrees can expect to earn almost $2 million more than women with equivalent degrees over the course of their lives. also, non-hispanic whites, on average, earn substantially more than african americans or hispanics during the course of their lives at every level of educational attainment.92

62 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Although clear benefits are tied to educational attainment, many youths live in conditions that place them at risk of school failure. Poverty, particularly living in an area characterized by concentrated poverty, a lack of health care, and little exposure to literacy-building activities in the home, place children at risk of school failure.93 As a result, many youths find schooling to be a stressful and unrewarding experience. A further consequence is school problems, such as violence and disruption, and school dropout. Moreover, there is considerable evidence that failure in school and other school-related factors are related to delinquent behavior. The remainder of this section examines some of the school-related factors found to be associated with delinquency.

school Failure and Delinquency

As Gary Jensen and Dean Rojek note, “One of the most persistent findings concerning the school and delinquency is that students who are not doing well in school have higher rates of delinquency than those who are faring better.”94 After reviewing a number of studies, John Phil- lips and Delos Kelly found a strong relationship between school failure and delinquency. They also discovered that, opposite to the view held by some, school failure precedes delinquency and not the reverse.95 Moreover, a review of the research in this area by Eugene Maguin and Rolf Loeber found that children who were not doing well academically were almost twice as likely to engage in delinquency as youths earning good grades.96

Considerable research has been done on a number of other factors found to be related to school failure and delinquency. For example, research on students’ feelings of belonging, attachment, and commitment to school reveal that these factors are related to school vio- lence, vandalism, and delinquency. Studies also have found that students who do not like their teachers or school are more likely to report involvement in delinquency than those who claim to have a strong attachment to their teachers or school.97 Similarly, in the 1978 Safe Schools Study Report that was produced by the National Institute of Education and delivered to the U.S. Congress, student alienation was found to be an important factor linked to school violence and property loss.98

It is hardly surprising to find that students who are less committed to school, who are less attached to their teachers and schools, and who feel alienated are more likely to engage in disruptive or delinquent behaviors in and out of school.99 However, a lack of attachment and commitment to school should not be seen simply as a product of individual failure, but as a product of the position students occupy in relation to others in school and as a product of the differences in opportunity available to students in the educational environment. One factor that determines the position that students occupy and the opportunities they may be exposed to is social class.

Social Class, School Performance, and Delinquency The importance of social class to the school failure–delinquency relationship was first made explicit by Albert Cohen in his 1955 book Delinquent Boys.100 According to Cohen, school is the one place youths of all social classes come together and compete for status. However, working-class youths are at a disadvantage in this competition because they lack the neces- sary skills to be successful and because success is defined in middle-class terms. One tempting response available to working-class youths is to form a delinquent subculture (with its own status system) that adheres to nonconventional values and encourages delinquent behavior.

Although Cohen claims that the social class position of working-class youths acts as a stumbling block, other evidence indicates that school practices constitute barrier to achieve- ment for many students.101 Indeed, various practices make it difficult for some students to succeed academically or socially in the school environment. Moreover, a number of these practices have been found to encourage delinquent behavior.

Schools and Delinquency 63

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Tracking, School Performance, and Delinquency Tracking, the sorting of students according to ability or achievement, is one practice that fos- ters inequality among students and has been found to be associated with delinquent behavior. Common in American schools, tracking typically begins early in students’ educational careers. Once assigned to a particular track, students tend to stay in that track.

Although tracking is common, a variety of negative consequences are associated with this practice, including delinquency. Research has found that students in college preparatory tracks get much higher grades than those in noncollege tracks.102 Also, being placed in a noncollege track has been found to be related to a lack of participation in school activities, lowered self- esteem, school misbehavior, dropping out, and delinquency.103

Irrelevant Curricula, School Performance, and Delinquency Today, school curricula are designed primarily for students who are planning to attend col- lege, whereas noncollege and technical programs are frequently of inferior quality. As a result, many students have difficulty understanding how much of what they are taught will help them in the future roles they will occupy. This appears to be particularly true of low-income, noncollege-track students, who often feel that school is a waste of time. Research indicates that when students feel that school is not relevant to their future job prospects, rebelliousness, school violence, property loss, and delinquency tend to increase.104

School Dropouts and Delinquency For many students, dropping out is seen as a solution to the problems they face in school. Yet dropping out has substantial negative consequences for the individual. Because of continuing technological sophistication, the skills that people need to function effectively in society have increased. Consequently, dropouts are often woefully unprepared to compete for and maintain positions requiring even basic skills. As a result, they face diminished job prospects and often experience difficulty meeting subsistence income needs.

In addition to the economic consequences of dropping out of school, there are psycho- logical and social consequences associated with leaving school before graduation. Research indicates that dropouts usually regret their decision to drop out,105 and dropping out appears to be associated with further dissatisfaction with themselves and their environment.106 In addition, dropouts typically have lower occupational aspirations than those who graduate, and they also have lower educational aspirations for their children.107

Not surprisingly, there appear to be important differences between youths who remain in school and those who drop out. Compared with students who stay in school, those who drop out tend to be from low socioeconomic status groups, to be members of minority groups, and to come from homes with fewer study aids and fewer opportunities for nonschool-related learning. Dropouts also are more likely to come from single-parent homes, to have mothers who work, and to receive less parental supervision. In addition, compared with those who stay in school, future dropouts are more likely to receive poor grades and low scores on achieve- ment tests in school, are less likely to be involved in extracurricular activities and school in general, and are more likely to have school discipline problems.108

As noted earlier, dropping out of school clearly makes it more difficult for the individual to obtain a well-paying job in an economy that requires increasing technological sophisti- cation on the part of workers. Not surprisingly, many people assume that there is a direct relationship between dropping out and involvement in delinquency. However, research on the relationship between dropping out and delinquency has produced conflicting results. For example, research conducted by Delbert Elliott and Harwin Voss found that youths who drop out of school engage in more delinquency than those youths who remain in school. Yet their research also found that the level of delinquency among youths who drop out was greatest right before they dropped out rather than after. Also, the reasons youths gave for dropping out were directly tied to their negative schooling experience. Specifically, dropouts tended to find school alienating, they were not successful academically, and they associated with peers who

64 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

were involved in delinquency.109 The finding that delinquency tends to decrease after youths drop out suggests that negative school experiences encourage youth to engage in delinquency and leave school. After the condition for these negative experiences is eliminated, however, the motivation to engage in delinquency tends to decrease.

In contrast, other studies have uncovered evidence that when youths drop out of school, their involvement in criminal activities tends to immediately increase. For instance, research conducted by Terrence Thornberry and his colleagues found that dropouts, compared with students who stayed in school, were more likely to engage in crime soon after leaving school. Furthermore, they found consistently higher arrest rates for dropouts until the two groups reached their mid-20s.110 Thornberry and his colleagues argue that delinquency immediately increases for school dropouts because leaving school severs ties with an important conventional socializing institution—namely, school. Similar results have been noted in a more recent study by Marvin Krohn and his associates, who analyzed data from the Rochester Youth Development Study. Their analysis revealed that school dropouts tended to engage in more delinquency and reported more drug use than youths who remained in school.111

The literature on school dropouts clearly has policy implications. Some have suggested that compulsory education laws be relaxed, based on research findings that dropping out leads to a decrease in delinquent behavior.112 However, others are strongly opposed to such a policy. They argue that the research is not clear on the relationship between dropping out and delinquency. Their position is based on the research that indicates that dropping out of school is associated with a variety of negative outcomes, such as poor labor market outcomes and increased involvement in criminal behavior.113 Consequently, they maintain that the focus of policy should be on reducing the dropout rate by improving the ability and willingness of schools to meet the educational needs of all students.

F Y i

according to data compiled by the National center for educational Statistics, in 2009, 8.1% of persons between the ages of 16 and 24 years were school dropouts. however, among blacks and hispanics between 16 and 24 years of age, dropout rates were 9.3% and 17.6%, respectively.114

■ the Community and Delinquency

As Robert Bursik and Harold Grasmick note in their book Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control, concern about the influence of the neighbor- hood on delinquency and crime is hardly new.115 Indeed, since the development of cities in the United States, considerable emphasis has been placed on the negative influences found in some areas of the urban environment—influences believed to be related to delinquency, adult crime, and a host of other social problems, such as poverty and drunkenness.116 However, particular attention began to be devoted to some of the more negative aspects of the urban environment around the turn of the century, and it was then that sociologists, such as Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, started their pioneering work designed to understand the influence of the community on delinquency.

As part of their efforts, Shaw and McKay mapped areas of Chicago where official delin- quents lived. The maps indicated that the highest rates of delinquency were located in dete- riorating inner-city areas characterized by decreasing population, a high percentage of foreign-born persons and African American households, low levels of home ownership, low rental values, close proximity to industrial and commercial establishments, and an absence of agencies designed to promote community well-being.117 Also, they discovered that, despite changes in the ethnic composition of these high-delinquency areas over time, the delinquency

the community and Delinquency 65

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

rates remained relatively constant. This convinced Shaw and McKay that the high delinquency rates in certain areas could not be attributed to residents’ individual pathologies, but resulted from a set of conditions that added up to, in their terminology, social disorganization. They believed that these transitional neighborhoods typically suffered a breakdown in social control characterized by a lack of community cohesiveness, common values, and institutions that prevented delinquency. They also thought that, in these neighborhoods, gangs and delinquent groups formed in which delinquent traditions were passed from one generation to the next (i.e., through “cultural transmission”). According to Shaw and McKay, cultural transmission accounted for high rates of delinquency in these areas, despite changes in their ethnic com- position over time.118

A number of more recent research efforts have documented the importance of commu- nity influences on delinquency. Ora Simcha-Fagan and Joseph Schwartz examined the effects of both community and individual factors on delinquency in a study of 12 New York City neighborhoods and found that communities characterized by low organizational participation by residents and the existence of a criminal subculture are likely to experience high levels of delinquency.119 Robert Bursik examined delinquency rates, and a variety of other variables, for 74 communities in Chicago from 1930 to 1970. In many of the communities studied, the results were similar to those found by Shaw and McKay: Delinquency rates remained high even though the racial and ethnic composition of the communities changed. Some communi- ties did not exhibit this pattern, however. In one community, an increase in delinquency rates appeared to be influenced by rapid changes in adjacent neighborhoods.120 This finding suggests the importance of examining the ways in which communities are linked together as well as possible causal factors outside the community. Still other research has found that neighbor- hoods go through cycles of change.121 Although some of the changes, such as neighborhood deterioration, have been found to be related to increases in delinquency, other changes, such as neighborhood revitalization, may be associated with decreases.122

Research on the relationship between community characteristics and delinquency has found that communities play an important role in the encouragement of delinquent behavior. Communities that are economically deprived appear to be particularly susceptible to high levels of criminality. Indeed, economic deprivation appears to interact with a variety of other community and family characteristics that produce increased levels of delinquency, and this appears to be true regardless of the racial makeup of community members.123 Poor, physically deteriorating communities, where drugs are readily available to youths, where residents avoid involvement in community organizations, and where criminal subcultures exist, are likely to experience high rates of delinquent behavior.124 In such communities, there appears to be a lack of close personal ties between residents and a variety of criminal role models that result in a lessening of restraints on illegal behavior.

F Y i the ChiCagO area prOjeCt atteMpteD tO tUrn theOrY intO praCtiCe

Not only did Shaw and McKay want to understand the ways in which conditions in communities influence levels of delinquency, they also were interested in creating programs designed to help disorganized communities respond to delinquency. In 1932, clifford Shaw initiated the chicago area project in three high-delinquency neighborhoods; the project eventually grew to include more neighborhoods and lasted for approximately 30 years. the intent of the project was to get local residents to respond to local problems, including delinquency, by developing social programs, such as sports and recreation, gang intervention, counseling, discussion groups, and community improvement campaigns.125 Unfortunately, however, no systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of the chicago area project was conducted. although some researchers claim that the project likely had little real effect on delinquency because it failed to address the underlying causes of community disorganization,126 others have suggested that it may have increased community cohesion and led to reduc- tions in delinquency in some areas.127

social disorganization

The state of a neighborhood in

which it is unable to exert control over

its members. Social disorganization

can result from a decrease in popula-

tion, a large tran- sient population, the

existence of groups with differing values,

little home owner- ship, low property

values, proximity to industrial and com-

mercial establish- ments, and a lack of

agencies designed to promote a sense of

community.

66 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ peer associations and Delinquency

Concern about delinquency as a group phenomenon is hardly new. In fact, concern about youth groups that threatened citizens was a major impetus for the establishment of the first juvenile courts in the United States, which occurred around the beginning of the 20th cen- tury. Furthermore, early efforts to study delinquency using a sociological approach typically focused on the group nature of delinquent behavior. The early research of Shaw and McKay in Chicago, as well as some of the more popular theoretical work on delinquency through the mid-1960s, focused on gangs and other types of delinquent subcultures. There is consider- able evidence that youths’ peers exert a strong influence on their behavior, and such influence seems apparent when groups engage in delinquent behaviors. There is some evidence that the larger a youth’s accomplice network (the pool of potential co-offenders a youth associates with), the more likely a youth is to engage in delinquency.128 Moreover, other research on the relationship between peers and delinquency indicates that many, though not all, youths pass through a progression from no delinquency to more serious delinquency that involves the fol- lowing steps: (1) youths interact with mildly delinquent peers before the onset of delinquency; (2) minor delinquency results from this association; (3) involvement in minor delinquency leads to interactions with more delinquent peers; (4) this interaction leads to involvement in more serious forms of delinquency.129 However, peer influence may also be present when an individual commits a lone act of deviance. Conversely, simply because two or more youths in the same location are engaging in delinquent acts does not always mean that their illegal behavior is a product of some group dynamic.130

F Y i MOst DelinQUenCY OCCUrs in a grOUp COntext

Studies that have examined the group context of delinquency suggest that between 62% and 93% of delinquent activity occurs in group settings. a recent study that examined data from a nationally representative sample of youths discovered that 73% of their delinquent offenses were committed in the company of others. this included 91% of all burglaries and alcohol violations, 79% of all drug violations, 71% of all assaults, 60% of all acts of vandalism, and 44% of all thefts.131 Interestingly, the percentage of delinquency committed in groups is higher in official arrest data than the percentage shown in self-report data. the discrepancy is possibly explained by the group hazard hypothesis, which holds that delinquency committed in groups is especially likely to be detected and to result in a formal response. If youths who engage in delinquency in groups are more likely to be arrested than lone delinquents, then official arrest data would overestimate group delinquency rates.

group hazard hypothesis The hypothesis that delinquency com- mitted in groups is more likely to be detected and to result in a formal response by the authorities.

One type of peer group that has received attention in both the research literature and the popular press is the gang. However, there is little agreement among researchers regarding the proper definition of the term gang. Sometimes, the term is used to describe any congregation of youths who have joined together to commit a delinquent act. At other times, it is used to refer to more structured ongoing groups that hold or defend a particular territory. Indeed, some communities do have highly structured groups that fit the popular conception of a gang. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that research on gangs has discovered that gangs vary in a number of ways, including their involvement in delinquent behavior.132

Other researchers have noted that some groups actually have very little organization and cohesion. Lewis Yablonsky has argued that a more accurate description of many youth groups involved in crime would be “near group.” Such groups are characterized by (1) diffuse role definitions, (2) limited cohesion, (3) impermanence, (4) minimal consensus on norms, (5) shifting membership, (6) disturbed leadership, and (7) limited definition of membership expectations.133 Yablonsky draws our attention to the fact that not all youth groups that engage in delinquent activities are highly organized and cohesive.

accomplice network The pool of poten- tial co-offenders with whom a youth interacts.

peer associations and Delinquency 67

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

This is not to say that organized gangs are not a significant problem in many communities around the country. However, although gang membership appears to be common in some areas, only a minority of youths belong to gangs at any point in time, even in neighborhoods where gangs exist.134 Nevertheless, gang membership is linked to drug dealing, vandalism, violent crime, and a variety of other illegal activities, although different gangs may favor dif- ferent types of criminal activities. Moreover, illegal gang activity is a significant problem in many large cities and even in some smaller cities and rural counties, although the prevalence of gang problems has remained stable in recent years.135 There is also considerable evidence that many gangs are becoming more oriented toward violence than in the past. Early studies of gangs found that violent activity was not common in these groups. Furthermore, when gangs did engage in violence, they rarely used firearms.136 Today, gang activity is more likely to be violent and lethal because of the availability and possession of sophisticated weapons by many gang members and the types of violent behaviors they exhibit (e.g., drive-by shootings).137

F Y i gang invOlveMent is assOCiateD With CriMinalitY

Gang members have higher rates of delinquent involvement than nongang youths. Moreover, in areas where there are gang problems, gang members account for a majority of delinquent acts that are reported; this is particularly true for serious offenses. For example, one study that examined a sample of Denver youths found that 14% were gang members. however, these youths accounted for 79% of serious violent crimes and 71% of serious property offenses.138

A variety of factors are associated with youth involvement in gangs. Gang formation appears to be facilitated by a social context characterized by broader changes in the economy, poverty, inequality, social disorganization, easy access to drugs, and an absence of well-paying jobs.139 Many youths who join gangs are marginalized in their communities. Such youths face a variety of stressful conditions: They have few legitimate opportunities for earning money, and they have few strong bonds to conventional institutions, such as school and family. In many instances, gang members come from destitute and troubled families where parents exhibit poor parenting practices. Moreover, many gang members have family members who are involved in gangs, and they have few positive educational or vocational role models.140 Research also indicates that learning disabilities, poor academic performance, having friends who engage in problem behaviors, early use of drugs, and involvement in violence at a young age are strong predictors of gang involvement.141 For many marginalized youths, gangs hold out the promise of economic and social opportunities.142 Gangs also provide youths with a sense of belonging and status143 as well as protection from other gangs and a means for dealing with a socioeconomic environment that fosters aggression and violence.144

Youth involvement in gangs appears to be linked to increases in delinquent behavior. For example, several studies have found that, prior to joining gangs, gang members’ involvement in delinquency was similar to that of nongang youths. When these youths joined a gang, their involvement in delinquency, particularly violent delinquency and drug sales, increased. However, after youths left gangs, with the exceptions of drug sales, their involvement in delinquency decreased.145

Organized gangs are one type of peer group that promotes delinquency, but research- ers have noted that other peer groups apparently encourage delinquent behavior as well. As noted earlier, Yablonsky argues that many youth groups involved in delinquency lack the type of organization and cohesion often associated with gangs. In studying delinquency in Flint, Michigan, in the 1960s, Martin Gold found that a considerable amount of delinquent behavior

68 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

occurred spontaneously in rather loosely structured youth groups.146 Gold concluded that delinquency of this type resembles a “pickup game” in which opportunities for delinquent behavior present themselves to ordinary peer groups, leading to delinquent behavior.

The research of Herman and Julia Schwendinger has done the most to highlight the com- plexity of peer groups and how various peer groups contribute to delinquency.147 Their book Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency focuses on the complexity of youth culture and the variety of peer groups that exist. The Schwendingers’ observational studies of youth culture in southern California communities reveal that youth culture is far more complex than many assume, a finding supported by other researchers.148 Rather than being a monolithic entity or strictly based on social class, youth culture comprises a variety of subcultures and peer networks that cut across class lines. The various peer formations have their own designations (e.g., “intellectuals,” “greasers,” “homeboys,” “socialites,” and “athletes”) and have their own distinctive dress and linguistic patterns. They also are accorded differing degrees of status and prestige by their members as well as by other youths and adults.

Although the Schwendingers identified a variety of adolescent subcultures, they noted that there were three persistent types: streetcorner, socialite, and intellectual groups. Moreover, they found that delinquency tended to vary between these types. For example, delinquency is less common among intellectuals, who focus on academic or technical interests (e.g., computers, mathematics, electronics, and physics), have little interest in adolescent fashion, and often spend considerable time doing homework or participating in adult-sponsored activities. In contrast, streetcorner groups are more likely to consist of youths who are eco- nomically and politically disadvantaged and who engage in delinquency, including serious delinquency. Falling between intellectual and streetcorner groups, as regards involvement in serious delinquency, are socialite groups, which typically consist of youths from economi- cally and politically advantaged families. Although members of these groups engage in less serious delinquency than members of streetcorner groups, they nevertheless engage in a considerable amount of garden-variety delinquency, such as driving violations, vandalism, drinking, petty theft, truancy, gambling, and sexual promiscuity. The Schwendingers’ studies not only help us understand the complexity of youth culture, but also indicate the necessity of carefully examining the ways in which youth subcultures encourage or inhibit delinquency among their members.

This chapter has highlighted the contextual nature of delinquent behavior and pointed out some of the ways in which economic, political, family, school, neighborhood, and peer contexts influence juvenile offending. The fact that delinquent behavior is affected by factors that lie outside the individual does not imply, of course, that youths are incapable of exercising some degree of free will. Clearly, youths who engage in delinquent behavior make a choice to act as they do, although the decision-making processes they use could not always be described as particularly mature or rational from the point of view of those who are not involved in illegal behavior. Moreover, research suggests that some individual characteristics such as low verbal IQ, low self-control, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are linked to delinquency in some youths. Youths with low verbal IQ scores have difficulty expressing themselves, remembering information, and thinking abstractly. They are also more likely to experience difficulty in school, exhibit impulsivity, have difficulty resisting peer pressure, and engage in delinquency.149 Also, low self-control, on its own, has been found to be associated with delinquency because it is characterized by other traits such as impulsivity, shortsighted- ness, self-centeredness, and risk seeking.150 In addition, studies have also linked ADHD to an increased risk of delinquency.151 Thus, there is some evidence that individual characteristics likely contribute to delinquency among some youths. Nevertheless, the pervasiveness of delin- quency in the United States indicates that individual traits can explain only a small percentage

peer associations and Delinquency 69

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

of delinquent behaviors. Consequently, it is imperative that those concerned with developing effective responses to delinquency focus on both the individual and the social needs of youths involved in the juvenile justice process.

■ the social Context of Delinquency theories

Social, economic, and political contexts affect not only delinquent behavior, but also the expla- nations or theories of delinquency that gain prominence during particular historical periods. A theory of delinquency is a statement or a set of statements that is designed to explain how one or more events or factors are related to delinquency. Such theories are important for two primary reasons. First, they help us make sense of delinquency and understand why it occurs. Second, they guide us in our attempts to reduce crime. Importantly, hypotheses about why delinquency occurs suggest actions we might take in order to reduce it.

Theories of delinquency, like other theories, can be in sharp conflict. Some of them are based on the assumption that political and economic conditions play a crucial role in generating delinquency in American society, whereas others treat delinquency as primar- ily the product of rational choices made by individual youths. Our object here is not to review these theories (an object more fitting for a book on criminological theory or juvenile delinquency) but to emphasize their role in helping us understand how and why particular factors appear to be related to juvenile crime and what their role is in guiding responses to delinquency.

Theories of delinquency, like delinquency itself, are products of a particular historical context. Most people, including those who study delinquency, have ideas about why youths engage in delinquent behavior, ideas that are influenced by their particular life experiences.152 For example, people in medieval Europe favored explanations that treated deviant behavior as a product of otherworldly spirits. Such explanations made perfectly good sense to people in that particular historical context. Today, influenced by ideas derived from the social and behavioral sciences and by popular notions about human behavior, people are much less inclined to explain delinquency in ways that would make sense to medieval Europeans.

This does not mean that, at present, there is general agreement over the causes of delin- quency. Indeed, the historical context in which we live is conducive to the promulgation of a variety of theoretical perspectives on delinquency and considerable debate over its causes. Moreover, the differing theoretical perspectives on delinquency lead to differing, sometimes opposing, responses to delinquent behavior. A theory based on the idea that delinquency is the product of choices made by rational actors leads to policies that stress punishment as a logical response. In contrast, a theory based on the idea that delinquency is the product of the oppression of youths calls forth a different type of policy response,153 as would a theory that views delinquency as the product of abnormal thinking patterns. In short, social context influences theoretical explanations of delinquency, which in turn suggest various juvenile justice responses to the delinquency problem.

F Y i theOries OF DelinQUenCY serve as gUiDes FOr aCtiOn

Ideas about why youths violate the law and what should be done about it constitute what we refer to as juvenile justice ideologies. these ideologies are important because they can influence decisions made by juvenile justice decision makers. For example, if decision makers believe that minority youths or youths from single-parent homes are more likely to offend, such beliefs can lead to more severe dispositions.154

theory A statement or set of statements designed to explain how two

or more phenomena are related to one

another.

70 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ the social Context of juvenile justice

The previous sections of this chapter examined the influence of social context on delinquency and on the ways we explain delinquency. Social context also influences the practice of juvenile justice. Indeed, as noted previously, different explanations of delinquency are associated with different juvenile justice responses. Other aspects of the sociopolitical environment influence the practice of juvenile justice as well, and some of these are examined in the remainder of this chapter.

■ the influence of the political economy on the practice of juvenile justice

The development, management, and distribution of political and economic resources not only influence children, families, school, communities, and other socializing institutions, but also influence the institutions that make up the juvenile justice process. The economic resources available to law enforcement agencies, juvenile courts, and correctional agencies have a pro- found effect on the level of staffing, the types of programs operated and the ability to evaluate those programs, and the support (both personnel and material) provided to the individuals and agencies charged with responding to delinquency. For example, an increase in the funding for a probation department might allow more staff to be hired and additional types of interven- tions to be developed and evaluated. In turn, this may lead to better services for youths and their families, leading to a reduction in juvenile offending. Similarly, reductions in funding levels can result in staff reductions, increased caseloads, additional stress for juvenile services workers, a reduction in services and monitoring of clients, a diminished capacity to assess program effectiveness, and higher levels of recidivism.

Although the effects of changing levels of resources on the operation of juvenile justice agencies are easy to imagine, it should be kept in mind that such changes take place in a highly political environment. In other words, funding allocation decisions are the result of a political process in which various ideas and inter- ests vie for supremacy at the federal, state, local, and agency levels. At the federal and state levels, legislative as well as executive decisions can have a profound effect on the levels of funding available to juvenile justice agencies for correctional programs, staff salaries, staff hiring and promotions, staff training, research, and technical assistance. State-level political decision making plays a particularly important role in those states where juvenile courts and correctional agencies are state operated. However, even when juvenile justice agencies are county or city run, state-level political decisions can affect their operation. For example, political decisions made at the state level can determine the level of monetary and human resources, as well as the types of institutions and programs (and their operations) available to local courts for the treatment of youths.

Local political decision making also can have a profound effect on the operation of juvenile justice agencies. For example, when juvenile justice agencies are county run, political deci- sions made by county governments play a major role in determining the level of monetary and human resources available to the courts as well as the types of programs operated at the local level. Similarly, political decisions made within juvenile justice agencies also can affect the allocation of monetary and human resources, the amount and types of training given to staff, the types and quality of programs that are operated by those agencies, and the ability to assess the effectiveness of programs.

courtesy of the architect of the capitol

the Influence of the political economy on the practice of Juvenile Justice 71

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Political decision making at the state, local, or agency level is often characterized by considerable conflict between groups possessing different ideologies and interests. State leg- islatures, county and city governments, executive agencies at the state and local levels, and local juvenile justice agencies typically encompass groups and individuals that have conflict- ing views about delinquency and juvenile justice. As a result, conflict is a common element of juvenile justice practice.

■ the influence of the local Community and the Media on the practice of juvenile justice

The local community and the media play a substantial role in determining juvenile justice practice. Many communities possess at least one group that seeks to influence the local response to juvenile delinquency. Indeed, the practice of juvenile justice, like the practice of criminal justice in general, is often a highly political endeavor. In addition, if juvenile justice decision makers, such as prosecuting attorneys and judges, are elected officials, they can be quite sensitive to public perceptions of their performance. As a result, support for various juvenile justice programs and practices can be extended or withdrawn depending on perceptions of “what the public wants.”

The decisions made by prosecuting attorneys and judges can also influence the actions of other important decision makers. For example, in some states, court personnel (e.g., court administrators) and corrections staff (e.g., detention unit, probation, and other casework personnel) are, in effect, employees of the judge. As a result, a judge in one of these states can have tremendous influence over the allocation of juvenile justice resources. Even in jurisdic- tions where judges do not directly control probation and other juvenile justice staff, they are often able to exert considerable influence over other components of the juvenile justice process.

Courts that deal with juveniles are also political entities. Most juvenile court judges are elected officials who not only are accountable to the electorate, but also must contend with other elected officials for coveted tax dollars. Competition for local dollars among local officials and law enforcement or law-related agencies, such as prosecutors, sheriffs, and the courts, can force courts to make decisions about juvenile services based on economic considerations rather than the best interests of youths.

When juvenile courts are faced with budget limits restricting the number of probation staff or the amount of money available for out-of-home placements, certain actions by those courts are predictable. First, judges will limit out-of-home placements by increasing their tolerance for delinquent behavior and/or probation violations before removal. Second, many courts will try to develop dispositional alternatives, such as day treatment programs, expanded use of local detention facilities, and an increase in the number of foster home or group home beds. Although these strategies are fiscally responsible, they may allow more youths who have committed serious offenses to remain in the community. As a result, courts can be caught between the public outcry to get dangerous delinquents off the streets and budgetary restraints that prevent them from heeding the public’s demand for protection.

The public influences nonelected juvenile justice decision makers as well as elected ones. Court administrators, middle-management personnel such as chief probation officers, and other juvenile justice personnel are often sensitive to public perceptions and demands. For example, complaints made by organized community groups or perceptions held by local political leaders, including judges and prosecuting attorneys, that juvenile justice practices are at odds with community preferences can produce changes in these practices. In the com- munity, the media often play an important role in framing public perceptions of delinquency and the operation of juvenile justice. Indeed, much of what the public knows about juvenile justice practices is a reflection of media-controlled perceptions. This is not surprising, because the juvenile justice process has historically been a closed process intended to prevent the

media-controlled perceptions

People’s perceptions of some phenom-

enon (or area of interest) that are

substantially shaped by the media’s

coverage of that phenomenon. The

public’s perceptions of juvenile justice

are determined largely by the media

because the public lacks information

from other sources about the daily

operation of juvenile justice agencies.

72 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

stigmatization of children who come before the court. However, the media may not present the most balanced view of juvenile justice practices to the public, preferring instead to focus on the most sensational cases and the most obvious failings. Whether media coverage is bal- anced or not, the public relies on the media for information about juvenile justice practices, and the information received by the public can be used by organized groups in their efforts to influence juvenile justice practices.

CRiTiCal Thinking QuesTion

Given the discussion in this chapter on the political economy of delinquency and juvenile justice and the importance of the media in framing public perceptions of delinquency and juvenile justice, what actions could be taken to improve juvenile justice practice?

the Influence of the Local community and the Media on the practice of Juvenile Justice 73

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter sUMMarY

This chapter examined the context of juvenile justice. More specifically, it looked at the political, economic, and social contexts in which delinquency occurs and described how political, economic, social (e.g., community conditions; family structure, relations, and social- ization; school experiences; and peer relations), and individual factors influence youths’ involvement in illegal behavior. The chapter also noted that the political, economic, and social contexts in which we live shape our ideas about why youths engage in delinquency and influence the ways in which we respond to delinquency. In addition, it examined the ways that politics and economic conditions influence juvenile justice practice. More specifi- cally, it stressed the political nature of juvenile justice and how the allocation of human and economic resources influences the operation of juvenile justice. The chapter concluded by noting the role the media play in the development of our understanding of juvenile justice and how media- controlled perceptions of juvenile justice may lead to a distorted view of juvenile justice practice.

key ConCepTs

accomplice network: The pool of potential co-offenders with whom a youth interacts. broken home: A home or family in which at least one natural (biological) parent is absent. capitalism: An economic system based on three fundamental principles: (1) private ownership of property, (2) competition between economic interests, and (3) personal profit as a reward for economic risk and effort. child abuse: Nonaccidental acts directed against children that result in physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional harm. family: A collective body of any two or more persons living together in a common place under one head or management; a household; those persons who have a common ancestor or are from the same lineage; people who live together and who have mutual duties to sup- port and care for one another. group hazard hypothesis: The hypothesis that delinquency committed in groups is more likely to be detected and to result in a formal response by the authorities. latchkey children: Children who care for themselves at least part of the day due to parental unavailability because of employment. media-controlled perceptions: People’s perceptions of some phenomenon (or area of interest) that are substantially shaped by the media’s coverage of that phenomenon. The public’s perceptions of juvenile justice are determined largely by the media because the public lacks information from other sources about the daily operation of juvenile justice agencies. neglect: The nonaccidental failure of a caregiver to meet the physical, psychological, or emotional needs of a minor or another person in the charge of the caregiver. political economy: The basic political and economic organization of society, including the setting of political priorities and the management and distribution of economic resources. People’s economic status largely determines the opportunities that are available to them, their feeling of political empowerment, their ability to access the political system, and their ability to influence political and economic decision making. power: The ability to influence political and economic decisions and actions; the ability to force, coerce, or influence a person’s actions or thoughts.

74 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

social class: A person’s or family’s economic, social, and political standing in the com- munity. Social class can be directly related to type of employment, neighborhood, circle of contacts, and friends. social disorganization: The state of a neighborhood in which it is unable to exert control over its members. Social disorganization can result from a decrease in population, a large transient population, the existence of groups with differing values, little home ownership, low property values, proximity to industrial and commercial establishments, and a lack of agencies designed to promote a sense of community. socialism: A political and economic system based on democratic decision making, equal- ity of opportunity for all, collective decision making designed to further the interests of the entire community, public ownership of the means of production, and economic and social planning. special interest group: An organization consisting of persons, corporations, unions, and so on that have common political, and often economic, purposes and goals. These individu- als or groups come together to use their influence, monetarily and politically, to persuade politicians and other persons in power to act favorably toward them. theory: A statement or set of statements designed to explain how two or more phenomena are related to one another.

Review QuesTions

1. Why is delinquency theory important in juvenile justice? 2. How does the political economy of the United States affect children? 3. What are the essential elements of a capitalist economy? 4. How do the economic circumstances of adults and children affect the quality of their lives? 5. How is family structure related to delinquent behavior? 6. What types of family relationships are related to delinquency? 7. What kinds of violence are found in American families, and how are they related to

delinquent behavior? 8. What are the characteristics of schools that encourage both school failure and delinquency? 9. What community characteristics are related to high levels of delinquent behavior?

10. What are the different types of youth peer groups that exist, and how do these groups encourage delinquency?

11. How do economic conditions influence the operation of juvenile justice agencies? 12. How do politics affect the operation of juvenile justice? 13. What are potential problems associated with media-controlled perceptions of juvenile

justice?

addiTional Readings

Edwards, R. C., Reich, M., & Weisskopf, T. (Eds.). (1978). The capitalist system: A radi- cal analysis of American society (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and dimed. New York: Henry Holt.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2011). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. For the most recent report, visit www.childstats.gov/pubs.

additional readings 75

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum.

Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McCord, J. (Ed.). (1997). Violence and childhood in the inner city. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. S. (1985). Adolescent subcultures and delinquency. New York: Praeger.

Shulman, B. (2003). The betrayal of work: How low-wage jobs fail 30 million Americans. New York: The New Press.

Simons, R. L., Simons, L., & Wallace, L. (2004). Families, delinquency, and crime: Link- ing society’s most basic institution to antisocial behavior. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.

Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

noTes

1. Pfohl, S. J. (1994). Images of deviance and social control (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw- Hill, p. 12.

2. Jacobs, M. D. (1990). Screwing the system and making it work: Juvenile justice in the no- fault society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. See this resource for an interesting account of how juvenile justice practitioners work to manipulate the “system” in order to help clients.

3. National Commission on Children. (1993). Ensuring income security. Washington, DC: Author.

4. Domhoff, W. G. (1978). The powers that be: Processes of ruling class domination in America. New York: Random House.

5. Parenti, M. (1978). Power and the powerless (2nd ed.). New York: St. Martin’s Press. 6. Eitzen, D. S., Zinn, M. B., & Smith, K. E. (2011). Social problems (12th ed.). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon; Korten, D. C. (2001). When corporations rule the world (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers and Kumarian Press.

7. Wrong, D. (1979). Power: Its forms, bases, and uses. New York: Harper & Row, p. 2. 8. Wrong, 1979, p. 23. 9. DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2011). Income, poverty, and health insur-

ance coverage in the United States. Current Population Reports, P60-239. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

10. Bishaw, A. (2011, October). Poverty 2009–2010. American Community Survey Briefs. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011.

11. DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011. 12. Bernstein, J., Brocht, C., & Spade-Aguilar, M. (2000). How much is enough? Basic family

budgets for working families. Economic Policy Institute. Available from http://www.epi .org/content.cfm/books_howmuch; U.S. Poverty: Census Finds Nearly Half of Americans Are Poor or Low-Income. (2011, December 15). Huffington Post. Retrieved from http:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/census-shows-1-in-2-peopl_1_n_1150128.html.

13. DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011.

76 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/books_howmuch

14. DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011. 15. Bernstein, Brocht, & Spade-Aguilar, 2000; Shulman, B. (2003). The betrayal of work: How

low-wage jobs fail 30 million Americans. New York: The New Press. 16. DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011. 17. Gilson, D., & Perot, C. (2011, April). It’s the inequality, stupid. Mother Jones. Retrieved

from http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart -graph; Income inequality in America. (2011, October 26). The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america; Swanstrom, T., Dreier, P., & Molenkopf, J. (2002). Economic inequality and public policy. City and Community, 1, 349–372; Wolff, R. D. (2010). Capitalism hits the fan. North- hampton, MA: Olive Branch Press; Uchitelle, L. (2012, January 2). Louisville’s GE plants exemplify wage shift. Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader, p. A1.

18. Fisher, M. (2011, September 19). Map: U.S. ranks near bottom on income inequality. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09 /map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315/. To view a listing of coun- tries and the levels of income inequality, see the CIA World Factbook at https://www.cia .gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html.

19. Klugman, J., et al. (2011). Summary human development report 2011. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2011_EN_Summary.pdf.

20. Schraad-Tischler, D. (2011). Social justice in the OECD. How do member states compare? Gutersloh, Germany: Bertelsmann Stiftung.

21. Harrington, M. (1963). The other America: Poverty in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books; Harrington, M. (1985). The new American poverty. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books; Ryan, W. (1981). Equality. New York: Vintage Books.

22. Jaret, C., Reid, L., & Adelman, R. (2003). Black-white income inequality and metropolitan socioeconomic structure. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25, 305–333; Swanstrom, Dreier, & Molenkopf, 2002.

23. Swanstrom, Dreier, & Molenkopf, 2002. 24. Buss, T., & Reddman, F. S. (1983). Mass unemployment: Plant closings and community

mental health. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; Gary, L. E. (1985). Correlates of depressive symp- toms among a select population of black men. American Journal of Public Health, 75, 1220–1222.

25. Galambos, N., & Silbereisen, R. (1987). Income change, parental life outlook, and ado- lescent expectations for job success. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 141–149; Lempers, J., Clark-Lempers, D., & Simons, R. L. (1989). Economic hardship, parenting, and distress in adolescence. Child Development, 60, 25–39.

26. DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011. 27. Shulman, 2003. 28. DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2011. 29. Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation; Moore, K. A., Redd, Z., Burkhauser, M., Mbwana, K., & Collins, A. (2009). Children in poverty: Trends, consequences, and policy options. Child Trends Research Brief, no. 2009-11. Washington, DC: Child Trends; National Commission on Children. (1991). Beyond rhetoric, A new American agenda for children and families. Final report of the National Commission on Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Notes 77

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/map-us-ranks-near-bottom-on-income-inequality/245315

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html

30. McLeod, J. D., & Shanahan, M. J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children’s mental health. American Sociological Review, 58, 351–366.

31. Gerth, H., & Mills, C. W. (1953). Character and social structure: The psychology of social institutions. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, p. 313.

32. UNICEF. (2007). Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 7. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

33. Anderson, E. (1990). Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Anderson, E. (1997). Violence and the inner city street code. In J. McCord (Ed.), Violence and childhood in the inner city. New York: Cambridge University Press; Sanchez-Jankowski, M. (1995). Ethnography, inequality, and crime in the low income community. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

34. Elliott, D. S., & Huizinga, D. (1983). Social class and delinquent behavior in a national youth panel: 1976–1980. Criminology, 21, 149–177.

35. Jarjoura, G. R., Triplett, R., & Brinker, G. P. (2002). Growing up poor: Examining the link between persistent childhood poverty and delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Crimi- nology, 18, 159–187. Also see Farnworth, M., Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M. D., & Lizotte, A. J. (1994). Measurement in the study of class and delinquency: Integrating theory and research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 32–61.

36. Eitzen, Zinn, & Smith, 2011. 37. Rapp, R. (1982). Family and class in contemporary America. In B. Thorne & M. Yalom

(Eds.), Rethinking the family: Some feminist questions. New York: Longman. 38. Gove, W., & Crutchfield, R. (1982). The family and juvenile delinquency. Sociological

Quarterly, 23, 301–319, p. 302. 39. Wright, K. N., & Wright, K. E. (1994). Family life, delinquency, and crime: A policymaker’s

guide, research summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

40. National Commission on Children, 1991. 41. U.S. Census Bureau (2011, November 3). More young adults are living in their par-

ents’ home, Census Bureau reports. News Room. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov /newsroom/releases/archives/families_households/cb11-183.html.

42. Eitzen, Zinn, & Smith, 2011; Fields, J., & Casper, L. M. (2001). America’s families and living arrangements: March 2000 (Current Population Reports, P20-537). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; National Commission on Children, 1991.

43. National Commission on Children, 1991. 44. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public

policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 45. Canter, R. (1982). Family correlates of male and female delinquency. Criminology, 20,

149–167; Kierkus, C. A., & Hewitt, J. D. (2009). The contextual nature of the family structure/delinquency relationship. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 123–132; Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the impact of broken homes. Social Problems, 38, 71–90.

46. Wells & Rankin, 1991. 47. Kowaleski-Jones, L., & Dunifon, R. (2006). Family structure and community context:

Evaluating influences on adolescent outcomes. Youth and Society, 38, 110–130; Price, C., & Kunz, J. (2003). Rethinking the paradigm of juvenile delinquency as related to divorce.

78 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/families_households/cb11-183.html

Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 39, 109–133; Toby, J. (1957). The differential impact of family disorganization. American Sociological Review, 22, 505–512.

48. Chilton, R., & Markle, G. (1972). Family disruption, delinquent conduct, and the effects of subclassification. American Sociological Review, 37, 93–99.

49. Hay, C., Forston, E., Altheimer, I., & Schaible, L. (2006). The impact of community dis- advantage on the relationship between the family and juvenile crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 326–356; Price & Kunz, 2003.

50. See Kierkus & Hewitt, 2009, for a good review. 51. Reich, A. (2010, December 21). Highest divorce rates in the world. Huffington Post.

Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/highest-divorce-rates-in-_n _798550.html#s211135&title=United_States.

52. Johnson, R. E. (1986). Family structure and delinquency: General patterns and gender differences. Criminology, 24, 65–84.

53. Gove & Crutchfield, 1982. 54. Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Crimi-

nology, 25, 295–321; Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (1988). Unraveling families and delin- quency: A reanalysis of the Gluecks’ data. Criminology, 26, 355–380; Mack, K. Y., Leiber, M. J., Featherstone, R. A., & Monserud, M. A. (2007). Reassing the family-delinquency association: Do family type, family process, and economic factors make a difference? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 51–67.

55. Mack et al., 2007. 56. Schroeder, R. D., Osgood, A. K., & Oghia, M. J. (2010). Family transitions and juvenile

delinquency. Sociological Inquiry, 40, 579–604; Thornberry, T. P., Smith, C. A., Rivera, C., Huizinga, D., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1999). Family disruption and delinquency. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

57. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. 58. Rutter, M., & Giller, H. (1984). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives. New York:

Guilford Press. 59. Loeber, R., & Stouthammer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predic-

tors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 7). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

60. Curran, D. J., & Renzetti, C. M. (2000). Social problems: Society in crisis (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

61. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011, March 24). Employment characteristics of families, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

62. National Commission on Children. (1993). Just the facts: A summary of recent informa- tion on America’s children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.

63. Boushey, H., & Wright, J. (2004). Working moms and child care. Data Brief No. 3. Wash- ington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research; National Commission on Chil- dren, 1991.

64. U. S. Census Bureau (2011). Who’s minding the kids? Child care arrangements: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/childcare/data/sipp/2010/tables.html. See Table 4: Children in Self-Care, by Age of Child, Employment Status of Mother, and Selected Characteristics for Children Living with Mother: Spring 2010.

Notes 79

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/highest-divorce-rates-in-_n_798550.html#s211135&title=United_States

65. Ehrle, J., Adams, G., & Tout, K. (2001). Who’s caring for our youngest children? Child care patterns of infants and toddlers (Occasional Paper No. 42). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute; Galtry, J. (2002). Child health: An underplayed variable in parental leave policy debates? Community, Work and Family, 5, 257–278.

66. Kagan, S. L., & Neuman, M. J. (1997). Defining and implementing school readiness: Chal- lenges for families, early care and education, and schools. In R. Weissberg, T. Gullotta, R. Hampton, B. Ryan, & G. Adams (Eds.), Healthy children 2010: Establishing preventive services. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; National Institute of Child and Human Develop- ment. (2006). The NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Findings for children up to 4 1/2 years. Bethesda, MD: Author.

67. National Institute of Child and Human Development, 2006. 68. Vandivere, S., Tout, K., Capizzano, J., & Zaslow, M. (2003). Left unsupervised: A look at

the most vulnerable children. Child Trends Research Brief (publication 2003-05). Wash- ington, DC: Child Trends.

69. Vander Ven, T., Cullen, F., Carrozza, M., & Wright, J. (2001). Home alone: The impact of maternal employment on delinquency. Social Problems, 48, 236–257.

70. Colvin, M., & Pauly, J. (1983). A critique of criminology: Toward an integrated structural- Marxist theory of delinquency production. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 513–551.

71. Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, p. 13.

72. Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of gender and delin- quency: Toward a power-control theory of common delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1151–1178; Hagan, J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. R. (1987). Class in the household: A power-control theory of gender and delinquency. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 788–816; Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1990). Clarifying and extending power-control theory. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1024–1037; Black- well, B. S. (2000). Perceived sanction threats, gender, and crime: A test and elaboration of power-control theory. Criminology, 38, 439–488.

73. Hanson, C. (1984). Demographic, individual, and familial relationship correlates of seri- ous and repeated crime among adolescents and their siblings. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 52, 528–538; Hirschi, 1969; Laub & Sampson, 1988; Mack et al., 2007; Rankin, J. H., & Kern, R. (1994). Parental attachments and delinquency. Criminology, 32, 495–515; Smith, R., & Walters, J. (1978). Delinquent and nondelinquent males’ percep- tions of their fathers. Adolescence, 13, 21–28.

74. Farrington, D. P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behaviour from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 360, 929–964; Farrington, D. P. (1996). The expla- nation and prevention of youthful offending. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Farrington, D. P. (1996). Criminological psychology: Individual and family factors in the explanation and preven- tion of offending. In C. R. Hollin (Ed.), Working with offenders. Chichester, England: John Wiley; Henggeller, S. (1989). Delinquency in adolescence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Wright & Wright, 1994.

75. Laub & Sampson, 1988. 76. Amato, P., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46; Formoso, D., Gonzales, N., & Aiken, L. (2000).

80 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Family conflict and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior: Protective factors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 175–199; Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive–contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 267–290; Hershorn, M., & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). Children of marital violence: A closer look at the unintended victims. American Journal of Ortho- psychiatry, 55, 260–266; Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, S., & Zak, L. (1986). Similarities in behavior and social maladjustment among child victims and witnesses to family violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 142–146; Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, Huizinga, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1999; Wright & Wright, 1994.

77. Agnew, R. (1983). Physical punishment and delinquency: A research note. Youth and Soci- ety, 15, 225–236; Laub & Sampson, 1988; Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329–335; Wright & Wright, 1994.

78. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2011). Child maltreatment 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Child maltreatment consequences. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/consequences .html; Chalk, R., Gibbons, A., & Scarupa, H. (2002). The multiple dimensions of child abuse and neglect: New insights into an old problem. (Child Trends Research Brief ). Washington, DC: Child Trends.

80. Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the cycle of violence. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

81. Domestic Violence Resource Center. (2012). Domestic violence statistics. Retrieved from http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/#dom. Also see Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

82. Gelles, R. J., & Cornell, C. P. (1985). Intimate violence in families. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 83. Kolbo, J. R. (1996). Risk and resilience among children exposed to family violence. Vio-

lence and Victims, 11, 113–128. For a review looking at the effects of domestic violence on children from and international perspective, see UNICEF. (2006). Behind closed doors: The impact of domestic violence on children. New York: Author.

84. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (2003). In harm’s way: Domestic violence and child maltreatment. Washington, DC: Author.

85. Moylan, C. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Sousa, C., Tajima, E. A., Herrennkohl, R. C., & Russo, M. J. (2010). The effects of child abuse and exposure to domestic violence on adoles- cent internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 53–63.

86. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). Percentage of the population 3 to 34 years old enrolled in school, by age group: Selected years, 1940 through 2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_007.asp.

87. U.S. Office of Education. (1969). Digest of educational statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; National Center for Education Statistics. (2008). The condi- tion of education 2008. Washington, DC: Department of Education.

88. Polk, K., & Schafer, W. E. (Eds.). (1972). Schools and delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Notes 81

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/consequences.html

89. Johnson, G., Bird, T., & Little, J. W. (1979). Delinquency prevention: Theories and strate- gies. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

90. Elrod, H. P., & Friday, P. C. (1986, October). Delinquency reduction through school organi- zational change: Some thoughts on the relationship between theory, process and outcomes. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, Georgia.

91. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The condition of education, 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

92. Day, J. C., & Newburger, E. C. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and syn- thetic estimates of work–life earnings (Current Population Reports). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

93. Karoly, L. A., Kilburn, M. R., & Cannon, J. S. (2005). Early childhood interventions: Proven results, future promise. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

94. Jensen, G., & Rojek, D. (1998). Delinquency and youth crime (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, p. 273.

95. Phillips, J. C., & Kelly, D. H. (1979). School failure and delinquency: Which causes which? Criminology, 17, 194–207.

96. Maguin, E., & Loeber, R. (1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

97. Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64, 151–167; Hirschi, 1969; Hindelang, M. J. (1973). Causes of delinquency: A partial replication. Social Problems, 21, 471–487.

98. Boesel, D., Crain, R., Dunteman, G., Ianni, F., Martinolich, M., Moles, O., et al. (1978). Violent schools—Safe schools: The safe schools study report to the Congress (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

99. Agnew, 1979; Elrod, P., Soderstrom, I., & May, D. (2009). Theoretical predictors of delin- quency in and out of school among a sample of rural public school youth. Southern Rural Sociology, 23, 131–156; Hirschi, 1969.

100. Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys. New York: The Free Press. 101. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and

the contradiction of economic life. New York: Basic Books; Friere, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum; Gold, M. (1978). School experiences, self-esteem, and delinquent behavior. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 290–308. Polk & Schafer (Eds.), 1972.

102. Schafer, W. E., Olexa, C., & Polk, K. (1972). Programmed for social class tracking in high school. In K. Polk & W. E. Schafer (Eds.), School and delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

103. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Schafer, Olexa, & Polk, 1972.

104. Boesel et al., 1978; Polk & Schafer (Eds.), 1972; Stinchcombe, A. (1964). Rebellion in a high school. Chicago: Quadrangle Press; Wertleib, E. L. (1982). Juvenile delinquency and the schools: A review of the literature. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 33, 15–24.

105. Peng, S. S., & Takai, R. T. (1983). High school dropouts: Descriptive information from high school and beyond (ERIC No. ED 236 3666). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

82 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

106. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Morizot, J., & Pagani, L. (2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79, 408–415; Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M., Pollack, J., & Rock, D. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teacher’s College Record, 87, 356–373.

107. McWhirter, J., McWhirter, B., McWhirter, A., & McWhirter, E. (1993). At-risk youth: A comprehensive response. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

108. Ekstrom, Goertz, Pllack, & Rock, 1986; Kaufman, P., Alt, M., & Chapman, C. (2001). Dropout rates in the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Educa- tion Statistics.

109. Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

110. Thornberry, T. P., Moore, M., & Christenson, R. L. (1985). The effect of dropping out of high school on subsequent criminal behavior. Criminology, 23, 3–18.

111. Krohn, M. T., Thornberry, T., Collins-Hall, L., & Lizorre, A. (1995). School dropout, delinquent behavior, and drug use. In H. Kaplan (Ed.), Drugs, crime, and other deviant adaptations: Longitudinal studies. New York: Plenum Press.

112. Toby, J. (1983). Violence in schools. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 113. Bjerk, D. (2012). Re-examining the impact of dropping out on criminal and labor out-

comes in early adulthood. Economics of Education Review, 31, 110–122. 114. Aud et al., 2011. 115. Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of

effective community control. New York: Lexington Books. 116. Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press; Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

117. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1931). Social factors in juvenile delinquency. In National commission on law observance and enforcement: Report on the causes of crime (Vol. 2) (Publication No. 13).Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

118. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1972). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

119. Simcha-Fagan, O., & Schwartz, J. E. (1986). Neighborhood and delinquency: An assess- ment of contextual effects. Criminology, 24, 667–703.

120. Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1986). Ecological stability and the dynamics of delinquency. In A. J. Reiss Jr. & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communities and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

121. Schuerman, L., & Kobrin, S. (1986). Community careers in crime. In A. J. Reiss Jr. & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communities and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

122. McDonald, S. C. (1986). Does gentrification affect crime rates? In A. J. Reiss Jr. & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communities and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

123. Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., & Harachi, T. W. (1998). A review of predictors of youth violence. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Hay et al., 2006; Krivo, L. J., & Petersen, R. D. (1996). Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social Forces, 75, 619–650; Peeples, F., & Loeber, R. (1994). Do individual factors and neighborhood context explain ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 141–157.

Notes 83

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

124. Harries, K., & Powell, A. (1994). Juvenile gun crime and social stress: Baltimore, 1980– 1990. Urban Geography, 15, 45–63; Hawkins, Herrenkohl, Farrington, Brewer, Catalano, & Harachi, 1998; Spelman, W. (1993). Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime? Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 481–493.

125. Lundman, R. J. (1993). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

126. Snodgrass, J. (1982). The jackroller at 70. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 127. Schlossman, S., & Sedlack, M. (1983). The Chicago Area Project revisited. Santa Monica,

CA: RAND; Sorrentino, A. (1977). Organizing against crime: Redeveloping the neighbor- hood. New York: Human Sciences Press.

128. Warr, M. (1996). Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 34, 11–37; Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship networks and delinquency: The relative nature of peer delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 99–134.

129. Elliott, D., & Menard, S. (1996). Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: Temporal and developmental patterns. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

130. Klein, M. W. (1969). On the group context of delinquency. Sociology and Social Research, 54, 63–71.

131. Warr, 1996. 132. Fagan, J. (1989). The social organization of drug use and drug dealing among urban gangs.

Criminology, 27, 633–669; Huff, C. R. (1989). Youth gangs and public policy. Crime and Delinquency, 35, 524–537; Yablonsky, L. (1959). The delinquent gang as a near group. Social Problems, 7, 108–117.

133. Yablonsky, 1959. 134. Esbensen, F. A., Huizinga, D., & Weiher, A. W. (1993). Gang and non-gang youth: Dif-

ferences in explanatory variables. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 9, 94–116; Hill, K. G., Lui, C., & Hawkins, J. D. (2001). Early precursors of gang membership: A study of Seattle youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Thornberry, T. P., Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., & Chard-Wierschem, D. (1993). The role of gangs in facilitating delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 55–87.

135. Barrnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., & Miller, J. M. (2010). Estimating the effect of gang mem- bership on nonviolent and violent delinquency: A counterfactual analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 437–451; Egley, A., & Howell, J. C. (2011). Highlights of the 2009 National Youth Gang Survey (Juvenile Justice Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Thornberry, T. P. (1998). Membership in youth gangs and involvement in serious and violent offending. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Weisel, D. L. (2002). The evolution of street gangs: An examination of form and variation. In W. L. Reed and S. H. Decker (Eds.), Responding to gangs, evaluation and research. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

136. Egley, A., & Major, A. K. (2003). Highlights of the 2001 National Youth Gang Survey (OJJDP Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven- tion; Miller, W. B., Geertz, H., & Cutter, H. S. G. (1961). Aggression in a boy’s street-corner

84 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

group. Psychiatry, 24, 283–298; Miller, W. B. (1975). Violence by youth gangs. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

137. Klein, M. W., Maxson, C., & Miller, J. (Eds.). (1995). The modern gang reader. Los Angeles: Roxbury.

138. Huizinga, D., Weiher, A. W., Espiritu, R., & Esbensen, F. (2003). Delinquency and crime: Some highlights from the Denver Youth Survey. In T. P. Thornberry and M. D. Krohn (eds.), Taking stock of delinquency. New York: Kluwer.

139. Curry, G. D., & Spergel, I. A. (1992). Gang involvement and delinquency among Hispanic and African-American adolescent males. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 273–291; Jackson, P. I. (1991). Crime, youth gangs, and urban transition: The social dislocations of postindustrial economic development. Justice Quarterly, 8, 379–397; Vigil, J. D. (1988). Barrio gangs. Austin, TX: Texas University Press.

140. Curry & Spergel, 1992; Klein, M. W. (1971). Street gangs and street workers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Thornberry, 1998; Vigil, 1988.

141. Hill, Lui, & Hawkins, 2001; Thornberry, 1998. 142. Jankowski, M. S. (1991). Islands in the street: Gangs and American urban society. Berkeley:

University of California Press. 143. Vigil, 1988; Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang

delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5–19. 144. Jankowski, 1991. 145. Thornberry, 1998. 146. Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent behavior in an American city. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. 147. Schwendinger, H., & J. S. Schwendinger. (1985). Adolescent subcultures and delinquency.

New York: Praeger. 148. Berger, R. J. (1991). Adolescent subcultures, social type metaphors, and group delin-

quency. In R. J. Berger (Ed.), The sociology of juvenile delinquency. Chicago: Nelson-Hall; Schwartz, G., & Merten, D. (1967). The language of adolescence: An anthropological approach to the youth culture. American Journal of Sociology, 72, 453–468. Warr, 1996, and Haynie, 2002, also contain complementary studies.

149. Koolhof, R., Loeber, R., Wei, E. H., Pardini, D., & D’escury, A. C. (2007). Inhibition deficits of serious delinquent boys of low intelligence. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 17, 274–292; McGloin, J. M., Pratt, T. C., & Maahs, J. (2004). Rethinking the IQ delinquency relationship: A longitudinal analysis of multiple theoretical models. Justice Quarterly, 21, 603–635.

150. De Li, S. (2004). The impacts of self-control and social bonds on juvenile delinquency in a national sample of midadolescents. Deviant Behavior, 25, 351–373; DeLisi, M. (2008). The Gottfredson–Hirschi critiques revisited. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 520–537; LaGrange, T., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self control and opportunity: Testing the General Theory of Crime as an explana- tion for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41–72.

151. Sibley, M. H., et al. (2011). The delinquency outcomes of boys with ADHD and without comorbidity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 21–32.

152. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2007). Criminological theory: Context and conse- quences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Notes 85

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

153. Regoli, R. M., Hewitt, J. D., & DeLisi, M. (2010). Delinquency in society. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett. This resource contains an explication of a theory focusing on child oppression.

154. See, for example, Bridges, G., Conley, D., Engen, R., & Price-Spratlen, T. (1995). Racial disparities in the confinement of juveniles: Effects of crime and community social struc- ture on punishment. In K. Kempf-Leonard, C. Pope, & W. Feyerherm (Eds.), Minorities in juvenile justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Leiber, M., Bishop, D., & Chamlin, M. B. (2011). Juvenile justice decision-making before and after the implementation of the disproportionate minority contact (DMC) mandate. Justice Quarterly, 28, 460–492.

86 chapter 3 theory and research

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter ObjeCtives After studying this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe how the young have historically been viewed in Western societies

• Describe the characteristics of colonial villages that encouraged conformity among children and adults

• explain how the social context of the early 1800s led to the development of the first specialized correctional institutions for youths in the United states

• Describe the original goals of the houses of refuge and the mechanisms they used to reform youths

• Describe the shortcomings of the houses of refuge

• Describe the development and operation of placing out

• Describe the shortcomings of placing out

• Describe the role that john augustus played in the development of probation

• Describe the focus of early juvenile probation programs

• Describe the rationale for the development of reform schools, industrial schools, and training schools

• Describe the operation of early reform schools, industrial schools, and training schools

• Describe the development and operation of early institutions for females

Chapter OUtline introduction

Families and Children in Developing european societies: the Medieval view of Childhood

early social Control: the role of the Family

Children in the new World

the social Control of Children in the Colonies

Families and Children in the 1800s

Early Juvenile Justice before the juvenile Court

chapter

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ introduction

From a historical perspective, the notion of juvenile delinquency and the establishment of separate formal social control institutions for youths are recent developments. Throughout most of recorded history, childhood did not enjoy the special status we now accord it. The modern view that childhood and adolescence are special times during which the young need nurturing and guidance for their healthy development did not exist until the later part of the Middle Ages. Before this, the young were seen either as property or as miniature adults who were expected to assume the same responsibilities as other adults by age 5 or 6 years.1 Because people did not recognize childhood as a distinct period in human development, they did not see a need to create a separate legal process to deal with youths who violated community norms or laws.

As the ideas of childhood and adolescence developed, however, the development of insti- tutions designed for children began to be seen as a logical response to problem youths. As a result, during the 1800s, several institutions designed to control problem youths and change their behavior were established in the United States. However, the development of these early institutions, like the development of contemporary correctional responses to youths, is best understood by examining the historical context in which these developments occurred. This chapter begins by examining the position of youths in early European societies and the role that families played in social control. Next, it examines the colonial period and the types of social control mechanisms that pervaded colonial life. The final section looks at the social context that led to the development of the first specialized correctional institutions for youths in the United States.

■ Families and Children in Developing european societies: the Medieval view of Childhood

How adults have responded to children throughout history has depended on existing concep- tions of the young—conceptions that are best understood in their historical context. During the Middle Ages, a period that spanned the 5th to the 15th centuries, life was difficult for most people. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire, which had dominated Western civiliza- tion for centuries, created many uncertainties for people in Western Europe. Although our knowledge of children’s lives during this time is limited, there are some indications that the

the Development of early juvenile Correctional institutions in the United states

institutional Care: a legacy of poor and Often inhumane treatment

legal issues

Chapter summary

Key Concepts

review Questions

additional readings

notes

88 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

young often fared poorly. For example, there is evidence that infanticide (i.e., the practice of killing children), which had been common during antiquity, continued to be practiced during the Middle Ages and beyond.2 Historical evidence from this period indicates that mothers sometimes deliberately suffocated their offspring or abandoned them in the streets or latrines. According to one priest in 1527, “The latrines resounded with the cries of children who have been plunged into them.”3

F Y i thrOUghOUt histOrY, YOUths have sOMetiMes been spareD the harshest pUnishMents

although a separate legal process for the young did not exist during the Middle ages, there is evidence that the young were sometimes spared the harshest punishments because of their age.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y COnteMpOrarY COnCeptiOns OF ChilDhOOD are a reCent histOriCal DevelOpMent

Myth—the concept of childhood as a period when the young need and deserve nurturing and protection has always existed. reality—contemporary ideas about childhood are historically recent. During early times, children were often treated as property and were expected to act like adults from a very young age.

Infants who were born deformed or were felt to be too burdensome were particularly vulnerable. In other instances, destitute parents abandoned their unwanted children or took them to monasteries to be raised by monks.4

Of course, life in Europe during the Middle Ages was very different from what it is today. Although the nobility, some members of the clergy, and skilled craftsmen were relatively well off, many people led a precarious existence. There were wars, rebellions, disagreements between citizens, and fires (most structures were made of wood), all of which posed regular threats to personal safety. Homelessness, drunkenness, and crime were problems in the cities. In addi- tion, sanitation practices represented a serious threat to public health. Refuse was discarded in the streets, which contained open sewers. In turn, the refuse heaps attracted rats and other rodents and served as a breeding ground for disease.5

The average life expectancy in the Middle Ages was considerably shorter than today, and the young were particularly at risk from various threats, including plagues and famine. More- over, common child-rearing practices led to the premature death of many children. Swaddling (i.e., wrapping a child tightly in a long bandage) was a common practice. This prevented the child from wandering away, crawling into a sewer, or knocking over candles, which was a major concern because homes and buildings were usually constructed of wood and they contained a variety of highly flammable materials.6 Swaddling also made the child easier to handle and protected it from air, sunlight, and soap, which were felt to present a threat to healthy growth.7 Other common practices included feeding children from a horn and wrapping food in rags for them to suck. Such practices may seem unthinkable by today’s standards, but they were accepted methods of caring for the young during this time.8

Although the Middle Ages is often seen as a period of extreme hardship during which little social and intellectual progress occurred, by the later part of the Middle Ages, changes in Europe were occurring. There was a revival in trade and town life,9 and the concepts of childhood and adolescence were beginning to emerge, at least among some of the wealthier members of medieval society. Although historians are not in agreement as to the exact period during which childhood and adolescence began to be recognized as distinct stages of life,

Families and children in Developing european Societies: the Medieval View of childhood 89

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

there is some evidence that many people began to see the young differently by the 1400s. For example, accounts of village life in southern France during the 1300s indicate that parents displayed love for their children and many grieved when their children died.10 In addition, medical and scientific texts, literary works, and folk terminology used during the later Middle Ages in England indicate that many adults were concerned with helping children and youths make the transition to adulthood.11 Less frequently were the young seen as miniature adults or as simply the property of their parents. Childhood was beginning to be accepted as a unique period in an individual’s development, a period during which the individual should be molded and guided in order to become a moral and productive member of the community.

Changes in the conception of childhood coincided with a variety of other changes in social, political, and economic life. Feudalism, a form of social organization characterized by relationships between nobles (i.e., knights and greater lords), the exploitation of the peasantry by the nobility, and subsistence farming, had dominated political and economic life in Europe for centuries. However, substantial increases in the size of the population, as well as the use of agricultural methods that depleted the land, strained the ability of the feudal agriculture system to feed everyone, particularly when harvests were poor.12 As a result, famine and dis- ease claimed many lives, particularly the lives of children. Indeed, it is estimated that as much as two-thirds of the population died before age 20 years, and the average life expectancy was about 30 years.13

Despite high mortality rates, however, the number of people in Europe grew during the 1500s and 1600s, which placed considerable pressure on both towns and rural areas. Simulta- neously, political and economic power began to shift away from the church to a few monarchs who were molding strong centralized states and to a growing merchant and capitalist class. As a result, feudal forms of political and economic organization, which had been based on a subsistence system of agriculture, began to give way to a trade-oriented capitalistic system built on cash crops and the consolidation of land.14

Because of these broad changes in the economic and political organization of European states, large numbers of peasants were displaced from the land as landowners developed a capitalistic pasturage system geared more toward the production of cash crops. A result was the migration of peasants into the cities that strained the cities’ resources and produced con- flict between established workers and artisans. This conflict occurred because the influx of peasants threatened to drive down city wages and disrupt the status quo. The result was rising levels of public disorder and crime.15

As more people flowed into towns and cities, and as disorder in these areas increased, towns and cities passed legislation intended to restrict or discourage the immigration of peasants and to control the threat of the “dangerous classes.” For example, “poor laws” were enacted that were intended to prevent peasants from obtaining citizenship, restricted their ability to join guilds, and, in some cases, barred them from entering the cities. In England, the Statute of Artificers, which was passed in 1562, restricted access to certain trades and compelled many of the rural young to remain in the countryside.16 Despite the efforts of city dwellers and the wealthy to restrict movement into the cities, however, there was no real alternative for many of the rural poor. As a result, cities continued to grow, and urban institutions, such as the guilds and the courts, came under increasing pressure to maintain order.17

■ early social Control: the role of the Family

During the Middle Ages and through the 1500s and 1600s, the family served as a primary institution of social control. Within the family, power was typically vested in the father, and the mother and the children were expected to obey his commands.18 However, the nuclear family of today was relatively rare in the Middle Ages. Rather, a typical family consisted of an extended group of related and unrelated persons. Moreover, the people who made up the family frequently changed. The father, particularly if he was a merchant, might spend

feudalism A system of land

tenure governed by relations between nobles and lesser

nobles whereby land (fief ) was given by

an overlord to a lesser noble (vas-

sal) to hold (not to own) in return for

military service. The land could then be given to still lesser

nobles. This system depended on the

agricultural produc- tion of the peasants (serfs) who worked

the land.

family A social unit respon-

sible for, among other things, the

raising and social- ization of children.

Historically, the family in its vari-

ous forms has been society’s tool for

teaching children how to act, what to

believe, and what values to hold.

90 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

considerable time away from the home. High mortality rates meant that parents often died and were sometimes replaced by a stepparent. In addition, servants, apprentices, and journeymen sometimes lived in the household, and neighbors were often present.19 Consequently, children were typically exposed to a large number of adults who played a role in their socialization and control.

F Y i the briDeWell Was an earlY COrreCtiOnal institUtiOn FOr YOUths anD aDUlts

the first Bridewell was opened by private businessmen under a contractual agreement with the local govern- ment. It was designed to control a range of people, both young and old, who were poor, idle, and involved in petty crimes, prostitution, and lewd conduct. these institutions stressed work, and in some instances, children were committed to the Bridewell by their parents, who believed these institutions would help the child learn the value of labor.

Other social institutions that were closely related to the extended family and also played key roles in the socialization and control of the young were the binding out and apprenticeship systems. The practice of binding out young people consisted of placing them in the service of others for a specific period of time, from a week to many years. Although some adults became servants when they were elderly and some children became servants when they were as young as age 7 years, most who entered servitude did so in their teens. Binding out presented a way for poor youths to earn and save money, obtain room and board, learn a skill, prepare for adulthood, and meet a potential wife or husband.20

Although binding out was common among the lower class, apprenticeships were usu- ally reserved for the wealthy. Typically, an apprenticeship began when a youth was age 14 to 18 years and lasted 10 to 12 years. A distinguishing characteristic of apprenticeships, which set them apart from binding out, was that masters were obligated to teach apprentices a trade as well as control their behavior.21

Although the binding out and apprentice systems served as mechanisms for socializing youths into adult roles by teaching them skills and providing a livelihood, those who super- vised servants or apprentices were also expected to control their behavior. Yet, like today, these systems were far from perfect. Despite the existence of the binding out and apprenticeship systems and the recognized sovereignty of adults—particularly the sovereignty of adult males over their children, apprentices, and servants—undisciplined and destitute youths, social and political unrest, and crime were common problems. Indeed, the number of poor and destitute people (many of whom were children) engaged in begging, prostitution, and petty crime in London had become so large that in 1556 an institution specifically designed to control these people, the Bridewell, was established.22 However, youth crime and beggary were not confined to London. Consequently, Parliament passed a law in 1576 that created similar institutions in each county in England.23

Institutions built along the Bridewell model also spread to the continent. In 1595, the best known of these, the Amsterdam House of Corrections, was established to deal, in part, with the youth crime problem of the day. It and similar institutions were intended to instill discipline and teach youths to be hardworking and productive members of society.24

Early youth correctional institutions accepted a wide range of children—the destitute, the infirm, the needy, and both minor and serious offenders. Some youths were placed in these institutions by parents who believed that, through institutionalization, their children would learn to be more obedient. Whether youths benefited from such placement is debatable. What is not debatable is that the founders of these correctional institutions saw them as a source of cheap labor for local industries.25

binding out The placing of a youth or adult in the service of others for a specific period of time, from a week to many years. Although children as young as age 7 years and elderly adults could be placed as servants, the practice was mostly restricted to children in their teens. Binding out was a way for a poor youth to earn and save money, obtain room and board, learn a skill, prepare for adulthood, and meet a potential wife or husband.

apprenticeship A period, set by contract, during which a novice worked for a master in return for instruc- tion in the master’s trade. Apprentice- ships were typically reserved for middle- class or wealthy youths. They usually began when youths were ages 14 to 18 years and lasted 10 to 12 years.

early Social control: the role of the Family 91

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ Children in the new World

Population pressures, high mortality rates, the desire for land, political unrest, religious per- secution, and the desire for greater wealth and influence led to a period of exploration and colonization after 1500. Children were counted on to play an important role in the expan- sion of European influence and became an integral part of plans to colonize the New World. Indeed, for some people, the colonization of the New World was viewed as an opportunity for children to be involved in productive work. Merchants saw children as potential providers of the labor that would be needed to produce the many goods necessary for survival in the colonies. Some people felt that work was good for children because it kept them occupied and insulated them from the temptations of the street. For others, such as the Puritans, the New World represented an environment where their religion might prosper free of religious persecution and where the souls of their children might be saved.26

Initially, the mid-Atlantic colonies were settled primarily by individuals—farmers, arti- sans, and indentured servants—instead of families. However, the need for child labor in the colonies, along with worsening conditions in Europe, soon led to the development of a variety of mechanisms by which youths could make their way to the New World. In Europe, “spirits” (commission agents of ship owners and merchants) were responsible for signing up young men, young women, and even children for the voyage to America. Sometimes the spirits bribed, tricked, or coerced people into making the voyage. In other cases, they found desperate people who dreamed of a better life. In exchange for their passage to the colonies, those who signed with the spirits agreed to a period of indenture (contract), usually four years, as a way of pay- ing for their passage.27 To ensure that they did not renege on their contract, people were often imprisoned until they could be transported to the colonies. Furthermore, laws were passed in the colonies that allowed the recording and enforcement of these contracts.28 Indeed, it is believed that the majority of people who colonized the Chesapeake region during the 1600s came over as indentured servants.29

In other instances, poor, destitute, and wayward children were transported from European countries in order to reduce the costs of providing relief to the poor or incarcerating them and trying to correct their behavior. In addition, the colonies needed workers, and children were seen as a cheap source of labor.30 Not all children, however, were transported to the colonies or came as indentured servants. Some came to the New World as part of a family. This was particularly true in New England, where Puritan families settled.31

The great demand for labor in the colonies led not only to an influx of European children, but also to the forced transportation of large numbers of African children. In 1619, the same year that the colony of Virginia obtained an agreement for the regular shipment of orphans and destitute children from England, the first African slaves arrived in that colony. Most of these slaves were children. Slave traders thought that children would bring higher prices, and more of them could be transported in the limited cargo space of ships. Furthermore, the slave traders encouraged childbearing in order to increase their capital. As Barry Krisberg and James Austin note, “African babies were a commodity to be exploited just as one might exploit the land or the natural resources of a plantation, and young slave women were often used strictly for breeding.”32

F Y i COnDitiOns in eUrOpe enCOUrageD iMMigratiOn tO the neW WOrlD

It has been estimated that about 80,000 people, or 2% of the population, left england between 1620 and 1642. Of the people who left, about 58,000 are believed to have gone to North america.33

92 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ the social Control of Children in the Colonies

Those who settled in the New World brought a variety of ideas with them about childhood as well as European mechanisms for responding to those who violated social and legal rules. Like the Old World, the discipline of children in the New World was stern. Parents believed that corporal punishment was the appropriate method of teaching children an appreciation for correct behavior, sound judgment, and respect for their elders. The maxim of parents in colonial America was “spare the rod and spoil the child.”34

In addition to stern child-rearing practices, several other features of colonial life encour- aged conformity among young and old. Even though the colonists came from varied social class backgrounds, they generally shared a common set of beliefs and values.35 Also, most people resided in small villages and towns, where there was regular interaction between people intimately familiar with one another. Because the necessities for survival were produced locally, children spent much of their time involved in economic production and under the watchful eyes of adult members of the community.36 In short, the organization of community life was a major factor in the establishment of conformity among community members.

Two other institutions dominated colonial social life: the family and the church.37 During the colonial period, the family was the basic unit of economic production38 and the primary mechanism through which social control was exerted.39 Survival of the family and the com- munity depended on the ability of all able-bodied persons, including the young, to contribute to the production of needed commodities. Consequently, a primary responsibility of the fam- ily was to oversee the moral training and discipline of the young and perpetuate the values that supported existing social institutions and economic production. This responsibility was so important that parents who failed to instill respect for community values in their young were subject to punishment by the authorities.40 According to the Laws and Liberties of Mas- sachusetts (1648 edition):

The selectmen of every town are required to keep a vigilant eye on the inhabitants to the end that the fathers shall teach their children knowledge of the English tongue and of the capital laws, and knowledge of the catechism, and shall instruct them in some honest lawful calling, labor, or employment. If parents do not do this, the children shall be taken away and placed (boys until twenty-one, girls until eighteen) with masters who will teach and instruct them.41

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y several FaCtOrs enCOUrageD COnFOrMitY aMOng COlOnial YOUths

Myth—the stern child-rearing practices found in colonial towns and villages prevented youths from engaging in deviant behavior. reality—Low levels of serious misbehavior on the part of youths were most likely the product of several fea- tures of colonial life. Nevertheless, youthful misconduct was a concern of many adults. In writing about the youths of his town in the 1700s, religious reformer Jonathan edwards wrote that “licentiousness for some years greatly prevailed among the youth of the town,” many of whom were “very much addicted to night walking, and frequenting the tavern, and lewd practices, wherein some, by their example exceedingly corrupt others.” the youths often gathered “in conventions of both sexes, for mirth and jollity, which they called frolics” and in which they spent “the greater part of the night” and “indeed family government did too much fail in the town.”42

The family, along with the binding out and apprenticeship system, played a critical role in the training and control of children in colonial America. The binding out and apprenticeship systems were responsible for the immigration of many youths and served as a primary means

the Social control of children in the colonies 93

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

by which colonial youths learned a skill, earned and saved money, and prepared themselves for adulthood. Moreover, as they had in Europe, they were also mechanisms of social control. In some instances, children who were difficult to handle or needed supervision were bound over to masters for care. Masters were responsible for the discipline of those in the household, including servants and apprentices. Under the binding out system, masters were not required to teach servants a trade, and boys were often given farming tasks, whereas girls were assigned domestic duties. In contrast, apprenticeships were typically reserved for wealthy youths, and masters were obligated to teach their apprentices a trade.43

Religion, particularly in New England, was another powerful force shaping social life in the colonies. Contemporary concerns about the separation of church and state were non- existent. Regular church attendance was expected,44 and religious beliefs dominated ideas about appropriate behavior. Little differentiation was made between sin and crime.45 What was believed to be immoral was also unlawful and subject to punishment by the authorities.

In colonial towns, children had few incentives or opportunities to act in ways that devi- ated from family and community expectations.46 Gossip, ridicule, stern discipline by parents, and work, as well as regular supervision by parents, masters, and others in the community, ensured that most children did not stray too far from community norms. When children committed minor rule violations, their parents or masters were expected to punish them. In other instances, youths who violated community rules might be sent to the town minister for a stern lecture and a warning to avoid further infractions. However, rule violations that, by today’s standards, would be considered minor were seen as serious by people in colonial times. For example, in some colonies a child who rebelled against his or her parents could be put to death.47 Indeed, colonial legal codes contained a long list of capital offenses, such as murder, horse stealing, arson, robbery, burglary, and sodomy. According to the Massachusetts Bay Colony Laws of 1660, for sodomy, a capital crime, children younger than age 14 years were to be “severely punished” but not executed; for cursing and smiting parents, a capital crime, only those “above sixteen years old, and of sufficient understanding” could be put to death. Those who were older than age 16 years could be executed for arson, being a stubborn or rebellious son, and “denying the Scriptures to be the infallible word of God,” all of which were capital crimes.48

Banishment was another method used to permanently eliminate more serious offenders from the community.49 On the frontier, however, banishment could be tantamount to a death sentence. In addition, punishments such as fines, whip- ping, branding, and placement in stocks or a pillory served as reminders to both young and old that violations of com- munity norms were serious matters.50 Incarceration was also used during this period. Some offenders were placed in the small jails that existed in many towns, but incarceration was used primarily to hold debtors and other offenders awaiting trial. The use of incarceration as a punishment for offenders did not become popular until later.51

Despite the relative homogeneity of the population of the colonies and the variety of social control mechanisms in

place, social unrest still occurred,52 including servant revolts, slave revolts, strikes, demands for political representation, and discontent among the poor. As the colonies grew, antagonisms between the poor and wealthy intensified. Although some servants became landowners after their period of servitude was over, most continued to be poor, often becoming tenants on large plantations and providing the owners with a cheap source of labor. Moreover, the towns were

/thinkstock

94 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

typically run by wealthy elites who maintained their power through intermarriage and other forms of alliance between families.

In colonial America, the majority of people were poor, and many of the poor resented their treatment by the wealthy. Even during the Revolutionary War, those who supported independence were concerned about the possibility of mutiny and the lack of support for their cause. This was particularly true in the South, where many poor people felt that a victory by the colonies would simply mean changing one master for another. Indeed, the problems of poverty and social unrest prompted the growing cities to establish poorhouses to provide for and control the elderly, widows, the physically challenged, orphans, the unemployed, war veterans, and new immigrants. A letter to Peter Zinger’s New York Journal in 1737 described poor street children in New York during this period: “an Object in Human Shape, half starv’d with Cold, with Cloathes out at the Elbows, Knees through the Breeches, Hair standing on end. . . . From the age about four to Fourteen they spend their Days in the Streets . . . then they are put out as Apprentices, perhaps four, five, or six years.”53

■ Families and Children in the 1800s

By the early 1800s, colonial social organization was changing as a result of continuing immi- gration and economic and social developments occurring throughout the new country. The diversity of the population had increased, and English settlers had been joined by Scots-Irish, German, Irish, and French immigrants.54 Family-based production, which had characterized colonial social life, was giving way to a factory-based system of production in the growing towns. Moreover, the factory-based system was beginning to supplant the binding out sys- tem, which had been the primary means by which children entered the labor force during the colonial era.55 As a result, the factory and the factory boss gradually took the place of the master as agents of socialization and control.

As more parents, particularly fathers, and children began to leave the home for work in factories, fundamental changes occurred in the relationships among family members and in the role of the family in controlling the behavior of children. Before the Industrial Revolution, parents were involved in making occupational choices for their children, typically when the children were age 10 to 12 years. Moreover, there were important class differences between children. Poor children were bound out or placed in apprenticeships, whereas wealthier chil- dren were sent to schools or began preparing for careers in the military, the government, or medicine by their late teens. Even in the lower classes, there were various distinctions between youths, because youths who learned better trades would be assured of higher incomes. And, of course, there were tremendous differences in the occupational opportunities available to males and females. As a result, children developed specific identities based on their gender and class position. The advent of industrialization, along with increases in the population, led to the erosion of these traditions, however. The professions became more difficult to get into because of the larger number of people vying for entry. More often, youths became employees rather than apprentices. Finally, young people began to remain at home longer, and the period of transition into full adulthood lengthened.56

Another change that accompanied industrialization was the decline of the large extended family. A typical family of the colonial period comprised parents, children, relatives, and perhaps servants and apprentices, but this type of family began to be replaced by the nuclear family. Also, the work that people performed for pay began to be carried out in factories and other job sites away from the home. Not only did men work outside the home, but in many cases, women and children began to work outside the home as well, as a result of the development of industrial machinery. For example, Samuel Slater, the “father of American

Families and children in the 1800s 95

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

manufacturers,” initially employed a workforce of nine boys in his Rhode Island factory. By 1801, this workforce had expanded to 100 youths between the ages of 4 and 10 years.57 As apprenticeships became less important as a way of learning a trade and earning money, and as the extended family declined in importance, child care became much less of a collective responsibility (shared by family members and the community) and more of a responsibility of the mother.

Although industrialization brought prosperity to some, it was accompanied by growing concern about social unrest and crime. There were increasing numbers of poor people as well as people suffering from mental illness. In the smaller, more homogeneous towns and villages of colonial times, people had accepted these problems and attempted to devise a community response. Although some offenders and those considered rogues or vagabonds were banished or barred from communities, no systematic attempts were made to isolate those who were deviant or dependent. By the early 1800s, however, notions of dependency and deviancy had changed dramatically. Deviant children were more often seen as products of pauperism, and many people believed that problem children could be transformed into productive, hard-working adults.58 It was in this context that new institutions for the control of children were developed.59

■ the Development of early juvenile Correctional institutions in the United states

The United States grew significantly during the late 1700s and early 1800s. With the growth in population came an increase in industry and the development of larger towns and cities. The population also became more diverse, and the conflict that had characterized colonial times became more pronounced, particularly in growing cities. There was antagonism not only between the elite, who had political and social advantages, and the poor, but also between the citizens of the new country, Native Americans, and African Americans.60

The population of the United States grew rapidly after the revolution. In 1790, there were fewer than 4 million Americans, and the majority of them lived within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean.61 Colonial America was rural; even the largest cities were small. When Washington became president, “only two hundred thousand Americans lived in towns with more than twenty-five hundred people. . . . In 1790, no American city had more than fifty thousand residents.”62 However, by 1820, the population of New York City was about 120,000 and growing rapidly as a result of immigration.63 Indeed, by 1830, the United States was home to approximately 13 million people, and more than 4.5 million lived west of the Appalachian Mountains. Moreover, immigration and slavery changed the ethnic composition of many communities, making them less homogeneous than during colonial times. In contrast to the influx of immigrants, the population of Native Americans living east of the Mississippi was reduced from 120,000 to approximately 30,000 in 1820. They were either killed or forced to leave their land.64

Although the size of the United States grew considerably between 1790 and 1820 as a result of land acquisitions, the population increased even more dramatically after 1820. By 1860, the population of the United States had grown to approximately 31 million people. Moreover, the diversity of the population continued to expand. Increasingly, new arrivals came from the Scandinavian countries and from Ireland and Germany.65

The United States presented tremendous opportunities for people, and many prospered. For others, however, the American dream was elusive. The New World had always had its share of poor people. Many of those who arrived during the colonial period came as servants, and many of the immigrants to the United States were poor people seeking a better life. Both before and after the American Revolution, the poor outnumbered the wealthy. Moreover, poor and affluent alike faced a variety of insecurities. The wealthy worried about the threat of crime,

96 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

protests, riots, periodic slave revolts, and various forms of political resistance to their leader- ship.66 In addition, periodic economic downturns threatened the livelihood of many people and left many out of work.67 Furthermore, there was no safety net to rely on in difficult times. There was no minimum wage, health care plan, social security, or pension program to protect workers’ interests if they lost their jobs, became ill, or became too old to work.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y the prObleM behaviOrs OF YOUths have been an OngOing COnCern

Myth—In the good old days, people did not worry about youth crime because it was not a problem. reality—the criminal behavior of young people has been a recurring concern in american cities since at least the 1800s.

the houses of refuge

Accompanying the changes in the social and economic life of the growing cities were a host of social problems, such as vagrancy, drunkenness, and crime, including crimes committed by children. In response to the growth in juvenile crime, the first correctional institution specifi- cally for youths in the United States was developed. This institution, the House of Refuge, was established in New York City in 1825. Soon other houses of refuge were founded in other cities, such as Boston (1826) and Philadelphia (1828).68 In the 1840s, houses of refuge opened in Rochester, Cincinnati, and New Orleans; in the 1850s, they opened in Providence, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Saint Louis. By 1857, the refuge movement had expanded to the point that a national convention of refuge superintendents was held in New York. According to its committee on statistics, 17 institutions for youths were in operation in the United States. These institutions had land and buildings worth almost $2 million and total annual expenditures of approximately $330,000.69

The development of the houses of refuge repre- sented a new approach to problem children. This new approach relied on formal child-care institutions as opposed to families, the church, and informal com- munity controls.70 The houses of refuge were champi- oned by wealthy reformers who saw youth crime and waywardness as a natural outgrowth of the pauperism prevalent in cities like New York. These reformers were mostly men from established families, and they intended to oversee the moral well-being of the com- munity and to develop policies that would protect their way of life from the threat posed by the poor.71 These reformers decried the unwillingness of the criminal courts to deal with children who committed minor offenses. The incarcera- tion of youths who committed any type of criminal offense was possible because children fell under the jurisdiction of the criminal courts, but the reformers realized that adult correctional institutions did nothing to reform youths.72 According to one of these reformers, Cadwallader Colden, who was both the mayor of New York and the presiding judge of the city’s municipal court, “The penitentiary cannot but be a fruitful source of pauperism, a nursery of new vices and crimes, a college for the perfection of adepts in guilt.”73 What was needed, according to the reformers, were separate institutions for youths that could shield them from the corrupting influences of adult institutions, control them, and transform them into hardworking citizens.

In order to accomplish the reformers’ mission, youths were placed in the houses of refuge for indeterminate periods of time or until they reached age 18 or 21 years. Placement did not

house of refuge A privately operated child-care institu- tion developed in the United States for children who engaged in illegal behavior or were felt to be at risk of such behavior. Although the initial goal was to educate and train youths for produc- tive lives, houses of refuge became little more than prisons characterized by harsh discipline and hard work.

photo: courtesy of hine, Lewis Wickes, 1874–1940, Library of congress prints and photographs Division.

the Development of early Juvenile correctional Institutions in the United States 97

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

require a court hearing,74 and a child could be committed to a refuge by a constable or a par- ent or someone on the order of a city alderman.75

Despite the name and the lofty goals touted by the reformers, the houses of refuge were run more like prisons and were built for the secure confinement of their inmates.76 Indeed, the daily operation of these institutions focused more on control than reform.77 While there, children were exposed to a strict daily regimen that included hard work, military drill, enforced silence, and both religious and academic training.78 Another common practice intended to support the upkeep of these institutions was to operate shops within the refuge that were run by outside contractors. In these shops, children labored eight hours a day producing goods such as shoes, brass nails, and furniture.79 In return, the refuge was paid 10 to 15 cents per youth per day. This arrangement allowed the refuge to cover a substantial percentage of his or her daily operating expenses80 and supplement the private and public funds that he or she received.81 However, the child workers were often punished when they failed to meet produc- tion quotas.82

When children rebelled against their treatment, discipline was often severe. Minor rule violations were typically dealt with by loss of supper and an early bedtime. More serious infractions resulted in a variety of punishments, including bread-and-water diets, placement in solitary confinement (sometimes in a “sweat box”), manacling with a ball and chain, place- ment in a straightjacket, hanging by the thumbs, or whipping with a cat-o’-nine-tails.83 When “reformed,” boys were often indentured to farmers or tradesmen,84 and girls were placed in domestic service.85 Boys who were more difficult to manage were sometimes sent on extended whaling voyages as a punishment for their obstinate behavior.86

Despite the initial optimism concerning the ability of the houses of refuge to control and reform youths, a less sanguine view of these institutions soon developed among some reform- ers. Indeed, the houses of refuge faced several problems that contributed to their failure to achieve their main goals. For one thing, they admitted a range of youths, many of whom had committed no criminal offense. Thus, children who had no means of support, those who were neglected, and those who had committed criminal offenses were confined together.87 Indeed, the diversity of youths placed in the houses of refuge made it impossible for them to meet the needs of their residents.

The length of placements also created problems. Because many children were placed for long periods of time, the houses of refuge soon became overcrowded. The number of children requiring placement always surpassed the number of available beds. Moreover, the harsh treatment inflicted on children by staff in these institutions and by the masters to whom they were indentured led many children to run away.88 Indeed, the treatment youths received was hardly conducive to reform and was thought by some reformers to compound the problems that the houses of refuge were initially intended to solve.

F Y i

Since the establishment of correctional institutions for youths in the United States, many institutions have asserted that their primary mission is to treat and rehabilitate youth, while they actually have focused on the punishment of youths.

placing Out

Although institutional responses to juvenile waywardness and delinquency spread during the last half of the 1800s, many reformers recognized the inability of the houses of refuge to

98 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

accommodate the large numbers of children needing placement. For example, Charles Loring Brace, director of the Children’s Aid Society in New York, noted that the harsh punishments and military regimen found in these institutions had failed to transform their residents into law-abiding citizens. According to Brace, the longer a youth remained in a house of refuge, “the less likely he is to do well in outside life.”89

One early attempted remedy for the problems of the houses of refuge was placing out, which involved the placement of children on farms in the West and Midwest (see Exhibit 4-1). Initially, placing out was used to assist youths in finding employment when they were ready to leave the houses of refuge.90 How- ever, placing out picked up momentum by the mid- 1800s. Faced with continuing juvenile delinquency problems exacerbated by population growth, the dislocations produced by the Civil War, and what many thought was the failure of the houses of refuge to achieve their goals, some reformers came to view placing out as a solution to the growing number of problem children.91 Agencies such as the Children’s Aid Society of New York, the Boston Children’s Aid Society, and other child relief organizations began to promote placing out as the ideal way to deal with problem children, and they hired agents to help place these children with farm and ranch families in the West.92

Advocates of placing out claimed that it had several advantages over the houses of refuge. In their view, it removed children from the corrupting influences of the cities, which they saw as breed- ing grounds for idleness and crime. In addition, they pointed to the failure of the houses of refuge to control or rehabilitate youths93 and suggested that the rural countryside was an ideal environment for instilling in children the values the reformers cherished— discipline, hard work, and piety.

Yet the wholesome characteristics of the country life depicted by the advocates of placing out were a far cry from the realities faced by many of the children who were sent to the West. Although some children were put into caring homes and were treated as members of the family, others were not so lucky. Considerable evidence exists that many of the children placed out were required to work hard for their keep, were abused, or were never fully accepted into the fam- ily.94 Moreover, there was little systematic follow-up to determine if the children were treated humanely by those responsible for their care.95

Even when it was popular, placing out was not without its critics. Some pointed to the fact that children who were placed out engaged in delinquency after their placement.96 Oth- ers, including supporters of juvenile institutions, made the accusation that the practice was contaminating the West with unfit youths, an accusation that struck a chord with many people in the areas to which the children were being shipped.97 Despite these concerns, however, placing out continued to be used until after the turn of the century.

placing out The placement of children on farms and ranches in the Midwest and West. Placing out, which was popularized by private charitable organizations in the mid-1800s (and lasted until 1929), was an attempt to remove vagrant and wayward children from the corrupting influences of the cit- ies and locate them in what was believed to be a more whole- some environment.

exhibit 4-1 Source: Nebraska State historical Society

Nebraska State historical Society

the Development of early Juvenile correctional Institutions in the United States 99

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

F Y i plaCing OUt Was One respOnse tO prObleM ChilDren

the children’s aid Society of New York placed approximately 60,000 youths in Western homes in the 30 years after its founding in 1853.98 the idea of using the frontier as a geographical “cure” for societal ills was con- sistent with the views of Frederick Jackson turner,99 a 19th-century historian who believed that the american frontier experience helped shape the american character by cultivating individualism, industry, and self- reliance—the very values that the social reformers wanted all children to acquire.

probation

Another effort to deal with troubled children was initiated by a Boston shoemaker, John Augustus. Augustus spent considerable time observing the operation of the Boston Police Court and became convinced that many minor offenders could be reformed. In 1841, as a result of his concern and willingness to work with offenders, Augustus was permitted to provide bail for his first probation client, a drunkard who showed remarkable improvement during the period he was supervised. The court was impressed with Augustus’s work and permitted him to supervise other minor offenders, including children. During Augustus’s lifetime, he provided supervision to more than 2,000 people, very few of whom violated the terms of their release.100

After Augustus died, the Boston Children’s Aid Society and other volunteers carried on his work.101 Eventually, in 1869, the state of Massachusetts formalized the existing volunteer probation system by authorizing visiting probation agents to work with adults and child offenders who showed promise. Under a probation arrangement, youths were allowed to return home to their parents, provided the youths obeyed the law.102 In addition to the supervision of youths, the visiting probation agents were charged with investigating children’s cases, making recommendations to the criminal courts, and arranging for the placement of children. In 1878, a law was passed that provided for paid probation officers in Boston.103 Subsequently, several other states authorized the appointment of probation officers. However, it was not until after the turn of the century and the development of the first juvenile court that probation gained widespread acceptance.104

reform schools, industrial schools, and training schools

Although reformers like Charles Loring Brace were skeptical of the ability of institutions to reform or control youths, the role of institutions in providing social control continued to grow during the latter half of the 1800s. The dislocations produced by the Civil War placed tremendous strain on the existing houses of refuge and the placing out system, and the number of problem youths continued to grow. In response, reform schools, also known as industrial schools and training schools, proliferated during the postwar period.

The development of these schools was made possible by the willingness of state and city governments to play a larger role in the administration of institutions for wayward and criminal youths. In some instances, state and city governments took over the administration of exist- ing institutions; in other instances, they built new institutions.105 Although these institutions had various names,106 they could be categorized into two types: cottage reformatories and institutional reformatories.

The cottage reformatories were usually located in rural areas in order to avoid the negative influences of the urban environment. In addition, they were intended to closely parallel family life. Typical of these institutions was the Ohio Reform School, which was established in 1857. Youths in this institution were divided into separate cottage families. According to a report of the commissioners of the Ohio Reform School, the boys lived on a farm with “elder brothers,”

probation The supervised

release of an indi- vidual by a court.

Initially, probation was promoted by John Augustus, a

Boston shoemaker. Today, children are

usually returned to their parents by

courts on conditions of release called

“rules of probation,” and court or state

employees supervise or monitor those placed on proba-

tion. In the 1800s, the monitoring of

youths on probation was largely done by private citizen vol-

unteers or volunteer societies.

reform school An institution for

the control and reform of youths, it was funded by local

or state govern- ment (unlike the privately funded

or self-sustaining houses of refuge).

Reform schools (also known as industrial schools and training schools) were often built in rural areas to remove youths

from the corrupting influences of the city.

Like in the houses of refuge, however, children were often

subjected to inhu- mane treatment in these institutions.

100 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

who were selected because of their ability to inspire good behavior and a love of the country in others.107 The reformatory cottages typically contained 20 to 40 youths108 supervised by cottage parents charged with the task of overseeing their training and education.109

In addition to cottage reformatories, institutional reformatories also were developed in many states. Like the cottage reformatories, these institutional reformatories were usually located in rural areas in an effort to remove youths from the criminogenic influences of city life. However, the institutions were often large and overcrowded. For example, the Elmira Reformatory in New York was intended to be a model reformatory; it contained 500 cells, but by the late 1890s, it held approximately 1,500 residents.110

Another development that occurred in the mid-1800s was the establishment of separate institutions for females, such as the Massachusetts State Industrial School for Girls, which was established in 1856.111 Prior to this time, girls had been committed to the same institutions as boys, although there was strict gender segregation. More often than boys, girls were com- mitted by parents or relatives for moral as opposed to criminal offenses. These moral offenses included “vagrancy, beggary, stubbornness, deceitfulness, idle and vicious behavior, wanton and lewd conduct, and running away.”112

The expressed goal of the specialized institutions for females was to prepare them to be good housewives and mothers. Yet these institutions, like those for boys, differed little from the prisons of the day. The daily regimen revolved around the teaching of basic domestic skills, the methods of treatment were based on coercion, and life in the institution was essentially a form of punitive custody.113

Although they placed more emphasis on formal education, the reform, industrial, and training schools were in many respects similar to the houses of refuge. Indeed, they confronted many of the same problems. Overall, the conditions in the reform, industrial, and training schools were generally no better than those that existed in the houses of refuge, and in many cases were actually worse.

C O M pa r at i v e F O C U s

the development of ideas about the causes of delinquency as well as institutional responses to delinquency in the United States and in europe were influenced by writing and practices on both sides of the atlantic. For example, americans were influenced by european theorists such as herbert Spencer, cesare Lombroso, emile Durkheim, and others. Moreover, european theorists played a major role in developing the idea that delinquents could be treated and turned into law-abiding citizens. this idea was put into practice in american institutions for youths.114

■ institutional Care: a legacy of poor and Often inhumane treatment

Although the terms used to refer to institutions developed to control and reform children changed periodically,115 the treatment of children in these institutions did not. Children in these institutions continued to be seen as a source of cheap labor that could be exploited by businesses and could help defray the costs of operating the institutions. Beatings, whippings, and other forms of corporal punishment; bread and water rations; solitary confinement; and straitjackets continued to be the standard tools to respond to recalcitrant youths or to deter would-be troublemakers.116 Furthermore, youths continued to be placed into apprenticeships without careful follow-up to determine if their treatment was humane. Both boys and girls were subjected to beatings and other mistreatment by their masters, and the sexual abuse of females was not unheard of.117

cottage reformatory A type of juvenile institution that was developed in the mid-1800s and intended to simu- late family life. In a cottage reforma- tory, youths were separated into small groups, were supervised by cot- tage parents, and had mentors or “big brothers” who served as normative models.

institutional reformatory A large juvenile cor- rectional institution with hundreds of beds that eventually was characterized, like the houses of refuge, by hard work, long hours, and exploitive conditions.

Institutional care: a Legacy of poor and Often Inhumane treatment 101

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

The amount of state funds going to juvenile correctional institutions during the Civil War had declined, which forced them to rely more heavily on contract labor to meet operating expenses. The use of child labor, however, led to charges that the institutions were more con- cerned with the economic exploitation of children than their reformation. Indeed, reports of the exploitation of youths in the institutions surfaced periodically. For example, in 1871, a New York Commission on Prison Labor found that refuge youths were paid 30 cents per day for work that would command $4 per day in the community. In addition, workingmen’s associa- tions complained about the unfair competition of child inmate labor.118 Despite the problems found in juvenile correctional institutions and the economic hardships faced by communities as a result of the war, juvenile correctional institutions continued to grow in popularity as a way of controlling problem youths throughout the latter half of the 1800s.

By the end of the 1800s, a variety of institutions had been developed in response to prob- lem children. Yet the many problems presented by children who were believed to be in need of correctional treatment—problems such as homelessness, neglect, abuse, waywardness, and criminal behavior—proved difficult to solve. Nevertheless, during the late 1800s, a new group of reformers, the Child Savers, began to advocate for a new institution for dealing with problem children: the juvenile court.

CritiCal thinking QuEstion

The different institutional responses to delinquent youths often resulted in the inhumane treatment of children. What was it about these institutions that often produced harmful responses?

■ legal issues

To the extent that adults in the past viewed children as property, they failed to recognize that children had legal rights as well. During colonial times and throughout the early 1800s, chil- dren were put into houses of refuge and reformatories and placed out to rural families without any kind of due process or legal recourse. As bad as it must have been for some families and children, however, slave families and children suffered more and had even less ability to pro- tect themselves. It has only been in the last half century that the concept of children as legal entities with legal rights has been accepted by large segments of society.

102 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter sUMMarY

Historically, childhood is a recent invention. For much of recorded history, the young have been regarded as “miniature adults” and expected to participate in family and community life from a very early age. On the one hand, such participation helped youths earn a place in the community and helped ensure their survival. On the other hand, it placed the young in situations where they were subject to exploitation and abuse by those who were older.

Youths were seen as both a blessing and a curse. They were seen as a blessing because they helped ensure the continuation of the family and the survival of the community. They were seen as a curse when they were too young to contribute to economic survival. Children who were physically or mentally incapable of contributing economically were viewed as a burden, and many of these children were killed or abandoned.

In the past, life was often precarious for young and old alike. Disease, famine, natural disasters, and wars claimed the lives of many. Although there is clear evidence that many parents in Europe and elsewhere demonstrated care and concern for their children, there is also evidence that very little thought was given to the needs of many others. Large numbers of youths lived harsh lives characterized by abuse and exploitation, perhaps because the difficult and precarious nature of life produced a culture that downplayed the importance of children. Whatever the reason, children’s lives were very different from those experienced by many children in the United States today.

Although there were many controls on the behaviors of the young, the idea that the young were always obedient in the “good old days” is a myth. Indeed, each generation of youths appears to have presented challenges to their elders, and there is clear evidence that juvenile crime has long been seen as a problem, particularly by urban dwellers in Europe and the United States. However, unlike today, only one criminal justice system existed for handling illegal behavior. Consequently, youths who violated the law were frequently treated like adults, although on other occasions they were spared the harshest punishments because of their age.

By the 1800s, several factors made the creation of separate institutions for problem youths possible, including the growing acceptance by many that childhood and adolescence were distinct developmental periods during which the young needed guidance, protection, and cor- rection. This view of childhood, along with a number of broad economic, social, and cultural changes, provided the foundation for juvenile correctional institutions and juvenile courts.

The 1800s were a time of enormous change in the United States. Many eastern towns were growing into crowded urban areas, the country was becoming more culturally diverse, and industrialization was well under way. Although many people benefited from these changes and the new opportunities that became available, many others were not so fortunate. Poverty, homelessness, mental health problems, disease, alcoholism, racism, a lack of social services, and crime (including juvenile crime) were reminders that not everything was perfect. The problem of juvenile crime, together with the idea that children were impressionable, led to the development of the first specialized correctional institutions for youths in the United States. These institutions, the houses of refuge, were touted as havens for youths who needed protection and guidance and as places where they could become hardworking, productive, God-fearing citizens. Yet, like other correctional institutions, they were designed to control those who were seen as problems, and eventually control became their primary focus. The result was that many of these early correctional institutions for youths were no better than adult jails and prisons.

Because of the failure of the houses of refuge, the growing number of problem youths need- ing control and reform, and increasing worry that the cities were breeding grounds for crime, several additional correctional responses aimed at youths were developed during the 1800s.

chapter Summary 103

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

These included placing out, probation, and publicly operated reform schools, which were also known as industrial and training schools. Each approach faced obstacles that prevented it from effectively controlling or reforming youths. In the case of placing out, little effort was made to determine the appropriateness of placements, and some Westerners began to complain that Easterners were simply attempting to dump their problems on Western communities. Early probation officers were typically volunteers (often former police officers) who had little train- ing and lacked the personal and community resources needed to provide assistance to many of their clients. The newer correctional institutions faced many of the same problems that had plagued the houses of refuge. Overcrowding, mixing of youths of various ages and delinquent histories, inhumane treatment, and a failure to provide follow-up services to youths after their release prevented these institutions from achieving their correctional goals.

By the end of the 1800s, despite the existence of varied correctional responses, the prob- lem of juvenile crime had, if anything, grown worse. As a result, a new group of reformers, the Child Savers, began to advocate for the development of a new institution to coordinate efforts to control and reform youth.

kEy ConCEpts

apprenticeship: A period, set by contract, during which a novice worked for a master in return for instruction in the master’s trade. Apprenticeships were typically reserved for middle-class or wealthy youths. They usually began when youths were ages 14 to 18 years and lasted 10 to 12 years. binding out: The placing of a youth or adult in the service of others for a specific period of time, from a week to many years. Although children as young as age 7 years and elderly adults could be placed as servants, the practice was mostly restricted to children in their teens. Binding out was a way for a poor youth to earn and save money, obtain room and board, learn a skill, prepare for adulthood, and meet a potential wife or husband. cottage reformatory: A type of juvenile institution that was developed in the mid-1800s and was intended to simulate family life. In a cottage reformatory, youths were separated into small groups, were supervised by cottage parents, and had mentors or “big brothers” who served as normative models. family: A social unit responsible for, among other things, the raising and socialization of children. Historically, the family in its various forms has been society’s tool for teaching children how to act, what to believe, and what values to hold. feudalism: A system of land tenure governed by relations between nobles and lesser nobles whereby land (fief ) was given by an overlord to a lesser noble (vassal) to hold (not to own) in return for military service. The land could then be given to still lesser nobles. This system depended on the agricultural production of the peasants (serfs) who worked the land. house of refuge: A privately operated child-care institution developed in the United States for children who engaged in illegal behavior or were felt to be at risk of such behavior. Although the initial goal was to educate and train youths for productive lives, houses of refuge became little more than prisons characterized by harsh discipline and hard work. institutional reformatory: A large juvenile correctional institution with hundreds of beds that eventually was characterized, like the houses of refuge, by hard work, long hours, and exploitive conditions. placing out: The placement of children on farms and ranches in the Midwest and West. Placing out, which was popularized by private charitable organizations in the mid-1800s

104 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

(and lasted until 1929), was an attempt to remove vagrant and wayward children from the corrupting influences of the cities and locate them in what was believed to be a more wholesome environment. probation: The supervised release of an individual by a court. Initially, probation was pro- moted by John Augustus, a Boston shoemaker. Today, children are usually returned to their parents by courts on conditions of release called “rules of probation,” and court or state employees supervise or monitor those placed on probation. In the 1800s, the monitoring of youths on probation was largely done by private citizen volunteers or volunteer societies. reform school: An institution for the control and reform of youths, it was funded by local or state government (unlike the privately funded or self-sustaining houses of refuge). Reform schools (also known as industrial schools and training schools) were often built in rural areas to remove youths from the corrupting influences of the city. Like in the houses of refuge, however, children were often subjected to inhumane treatment in these institutions.

rEviEw QuEstions

1. What were the social conditions faced by children in the Middle Ages? 2. What role did the family play in the socialization and control of children before the 1800s? 3. What role did children play in the colonization of the New World? 4. What characteristics of colonial life encouraged conformity among both young and old? 5. What social conditions during the early 1800s contributed to the development of the

houses of refuge? 6. In what ways did the houses of refuge fall short of their initial goals? 7. What was placing out? 8. What were the shortcomings of placing out? 9. Why is John Augustus called the “father of probation”?

10. What were the basic features of the reform, industrial, and training schools that were developed during the last half of the 1800s?

11. What were the distinguishing characteristics of the specialized female training schools? 12. What characteristics of early juvenile correctional institutions prevented them from being

able to meet youths’ needs?

additional rEadings

Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bremner, R. H. (Ed.). (1970). Children and youth in America: A documentary history (Vols. 1–3). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Schlossman, S., & Wallach, S. (1998). The crime of precocious sexuality: Female delin- quency in the Progressive Era. In P. M. Sharp & B. W. Hancock (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: Historical, theoretical, and societal reactions to youth. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

additional readings 105

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Sommerville, C. J. (1990). The rise and fall of childhood. New York: Vintage Books.

Zinn, H. (1995). A people’s history of the United States, 1492–present. New York: Harper- Collins.

notEs

1. Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood: A social history of family life (R. Baldick, Trans.). New York: Random House. (Original work published 1960.)

2. Sommerville, C. J. (1990). The rise and fall of childhood. New York: Vintage Books. 3. DeMause, L. (1974). The evolution of childhood. In L. deMause (Ed.), The history of

childhood (p. 29). New York: Psychohistory Press. 4. Boswell, J. E. (1984). Exposito and oblatio: The abandonment of children and the ancient

and medieval family. American Historical Review, 89, 10–33. 5. Hanawalt, B. A. (1993). Growing up in medieval London: The experience of childhood in

history. New York: Oxford University Press. 6. Hanawalt, 1993. 7. Robertson, P. (1974). Home as a nest: Middle-class childhood in nineteenth century

Europe. In L. deMause (Ed.), The history of childhood. New York: Psychohistory Press. 8. Hanawalt, 1993. 9. Sommerville, 1990.

10. Ladurie, E. L. R. (1983). Parents and children. In B. Tierney (Ed.), Readings in medieval history: Vol. 2. The Middle Ages (3rd ed.). New York: Knopf.

11. Hanawalt, 1993. 12. Postan, M. M. (1983). Land and population. In B. Tierney (Ed.), Readings in medieval

history: Vol. 2. The Middle Ages (3rd ed.). New York: Knopf. 13. Gillis, J. R. (1974). Youth and history. New York: Academic Press. 14. Krisberg, B. & Austin, J. F. (1993). Reinventing juvenile justice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage,

p. 8. 15. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 16. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 17. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 18. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 19. Hanawalt, 1993. 20. Hanawalt, 1993. 21. Hanawalt, 1993. 22. Silverman, I. J. (2001). Corrections: A comprehensive view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 23. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 24. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 25. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 26. Bremner, R. H. (Ed.). (1970). Children and youth in America: A documentary history

(Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 3. 27. Bremner, 1970. 28. Zinn, H. (1995). A people’s history of the United States, 1492–present. New York: Harper-

Collins.

106 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

29. Bremner, 1970. 30. Bremner, 1970; Sommerville, 1990. 31. Bremner, 1970. 32. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 33. Bremner, 1970, p. 6. This resource cites Bridenbaugh, C. (1968). Vexed and troubled

Englishmen, 1590–1642. New York: Oxford University Press. 34. Hanawalt, 1993. 35. Michalowski, R. (1985). Order, law and crime. New York: Random House. 36. Waegel, W. B. (1989). Delinquency and juvenile control: A sociological perspective. Engle-

wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 4. 37. Waegel, 1989, p. 4. 38. Zaretsky, E. (1976). Capitalism, the family and personal life. In R. C. Edwards, M. Reich, &

T. Weisskopf (Eds.), The capitalist system. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 39. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 40. Demos, J. (1970). A little commonwealth: Family life in Plymouth Colony. New York:

Oxford University Press; Farber, B. (1972). Guardians of virtue: Salem families in 1800. New York: Basic Books. This resource contains additional information.

41. Simonsen, C. E., & Gordon, M. S. (1982). Juvenile justice in America. New York: Macmil- lan, p. 19. This resource cites the Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts (1648).

42. Beales, R. W. (1985). In search of the historical child: Miniature adulthood and youth in colonial New England. In R. Hiner & J. M. Hawes (Eds.), Growing up in America: Children in historical perspective. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, p. 21.

43. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 44. Waegel, 1989, p. 4. 45. Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the New

Republic. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 46. Waegel, 1989. 47. Bremner, 1970. 48. Powers, E. (1966). Crime and punishment in early Massachusetts. Boston: Beacon Press,

p. 442. 49. Rothman, 1971. 50. Barnes, H. E. (1972). The story of punishment (2nd ed.). Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. 51. Rothman, 1971. 52. Zinn, 1995. 53. Zinn, 1995, p. 49. 54. Zinn, 1995. 55. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 56. Sommerville, 1990. 57. Bremner, 1970. 58. Bernard, T. J., & Kurlychek, M. C. (2010). The cycle of juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New

York: Oxford University Press. 59. Rothman, 1971. 60. Zinn, 1995. 61. Zinn, 1995.

Notes 107

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

62. Rothman, 1971, p. 57. 63. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010. 64. Zinn, 1995. 65. Zinn, 1995. 66. Zinn, 1995. 67. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 68. Bremner, 1970. 69. Rothman, 1971. 70. Rothman, 1971. 71. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 72. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010. 73. Peirce, B. K. (1869). A half century with juvenile delinquents: The New York House of

Refuge and its times. New York: D. Appleton and Company, p. 40. 74. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010. 75. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010; Rothman, 1971. 76. Roberts, A. R. (1998). Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and services. Chicago: Nelson-

Hall; Rothman, 1971. 77. Rothman, 1971. 78. Rothman, 1971. 79. Bremner, 1970. 80. Mennel, R. M. (1973). Thorns and thistles. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. 81. Bremner, 1970. 82. Schlossman, S. L. (1977). Love and the American delinquent. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press. 83. Rothman, 1971; Pisciotta, A. W. (1982). Saving the children: The promise and practice

of parens patriae, 1838–1898. Crime and Delinquency, 28, 410–425. 84. Pisciotta, A. (1985). Treatment on trial: The rhetoric and reality of the New York House

of Refuge, 1857–1935. American Journal of Legal History, 29, 151–181; Rothman, 1971, p. 231.

85. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 86. Roberts, 1998. 87. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 88. Mennel, 1973. 89. Roberts, 1998, p. 98. 90. Bernard & Kurlychek, 2010. 91. Mennel, 1973; Rothman, 1971. 92. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 93. Rothman, 1971. 94. Bremner, 1970. 95. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 96. Sommerville, 1990. 97. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 98. Sommerville, 1990.

108 chapter 4 early Juvenile Justice

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

99. Turner, F. J. (1920). The frontier in American history. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

100. McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (1991). Community-based corrections (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole, p. 98.

101. Empey, L. T., & Stafford, M. C. (1991). American delinquency: Its meaning and construc- tion (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

102. Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. J. (1994). Juvenile justice in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.

103. Empey & Stafford, 1991. 104. McCarthy & McCarthy, 1991. 105. Krisberg & Austin, 1993. 106. Hart, H. (1910). Preventive treatment of neglected children. New York: Russell Sage. 107. Bremner, 1970. 108. Bartollas & Miller, 1994. 109. Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1990). Juvenile justice: An introduction. Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson. 110. Roberts, 1990. 111. Brenzel, B. (1983). Daughters of the state. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 112. Brenzel, 1983, p. 81. 113. Chesney-Lind, M. & Shelden, R. G. (2004). Girls, delinquency and juvenile justice (3rd

ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth. 114. Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency (2nd ed.). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. 115. Hart, 1910. 116. Pisciotta, 1982. 117. Pisciotta, 1982. 118. Krisberg & Austin, 1993.

Notes 109

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

9781449667603_CH3

3 Theory and Research: The Social Context of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice

Introduction
The Political and Economic Context of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice
Schools and Delinquency
The Community and Delinquency
Peer Associations and Delinquency
The Social Context of Delinquency Theories
The Social Context of Juvenile Justice
The Influence of the Political Economy on the Practice of Juvenile Justice
The Influence of the Local Community and the Media on the Practice of Juvenile Justice
Chapter Summary
Key Concepts
Review Questions
Additional Readings
Notes

9781449667603_CH4

4 Early Juvenile Justice: Before the Juvenile Court

Introduction
Families and Children in Developing European Societies: The Medieval View of Childhood
Early Social Control: The Role of the Family
Children in the New World
The Social Control of Children in the Colonies
Families and Children in the 1800s
The Development of Early Juvenile Correctional Institutions in the United States
Institutional Care: A Legacy of Poor and Often Inhumane Treatment
Legal Issues
Chapter Summary
Key Concepts
Review Questions
Additional Readings
Notes