This order has been set on revision status. Please press the "Confirm" button to tell us you are aware of this, and that you will complete it within the time provided.

VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS

An Exploratory Study of the Characteristics that Prevent Youth from Completing a Family Violence Diversion Program

Eva Nowakowski & Karen Mattern

Published online: 15 January 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Abstract Youth perpetrated violence against a family mem- ber has gained the attention of social service workers and law enforcement, yet professionals working with these youth have little understanding of the characteristics of the population that would impede intervention success. This article presents an exploratory study of youth (N=209; 50 % males and 50 % females, average age 15.7 years) who participated in a court- diversion program for first time offenders of family violence and examined socio-demographic and delinquency character- istics and the role they play in completing the program. Findings indicate that delinquency characteristics, specifically having a prior violent arrest and skipping school, carry signif- icance in preventing youth from successfully completing the Family Violence Intervention Program. These findings lend support to the current literature and address the need for a more tailored approach to treating and retaining youth in a family violence intervention program.

Keywords Family violence . Juvenile delinquency . Violence intervention . Child to parent violence

Estimates of youth perpetrated family violence range from 5 to 13 % (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Kennedy et al., 2010; Kethineni, 2004; Walsh & Krienert, 2007) and these numbers are growing as this newly identified phenomenon is gaining more public attention. Youth who are arrested for family violence are held in juvenile detention. Approximately 71,000 young people are held in juvenile justice facilities across the United States (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2011) at an average cost of $240.99 per day per youth (American Correctional Association, 2008). Confining juveniles is far more expensive than offering

intensive and high quality alternatives to incarceration, like diversion programming.

In an attempt to address the growing phenomenon of youth-perpetrated family violence, juvenile family violence intervention programs seek to interrupt and end the cycle of violence within family systems. Intervention programs are designed to allow juvenile offenders and their families an alternative to the county justice system, while providing case management and counseling services to improve family func- tioning, address substance abuse and mental illness, and im- prove school attendance and academic performance. Although diversion programming is a cost effective strategy for dealing with domestically violent juvenile offenders, it is only effective when working with a low risk offender profile. Uekert, Sagatun-Edwards, Crowe, Peters, Cheesman, and Kameda (2006) tested the effectiveness of two court-based family violence intervention programs in California and found the most challenging juvenile population to rehabilitate was domestic/family violence offenders with prior records. Multiple-problem delinquent youth require complex individ- ualized intervention, as they are at high risk of termination and subsequent further justice system involvement. By identifying youth who do not successfully complete the diversion pro- gram due to multiple delinquency characteristics, effective intervention strategies can be developed to reduce juvenile recidivism rates.

Youth Perpetrated Family Violence

Youth perpetrated family violence includes violence perpe- trated against a family member by an adolescent; most often the victim is the biological mother (Agnew & Hughley, 1989; Browne & Hamilton, 1998), but can also include fathers, siblings, or other family members living in the household. Given that parents are the most frequently reported victims,

E. Nowakowski (*): K. Mattern Barry University, Miami, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected]

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149 DOI 10.1007/s10896-013-9572-3

this phenomenon is often referred to as child-to-parent violence. Child-to-parent violence is defined as any act of a child that creates fear in and is intended to hurt parents; it includes physical, psychological, emotional, and financial abuse (Cottrell, 2001). Robinson, Davidson, and Drebot (2004) reported that child-to-parent violence has been rec- ognized as a family problem since the 1950’s; however, given the notion that parents need to protect their children and the lack of clarity about what is acceptable and what is violent have compounded the slow recognition of adoles- cent violence against parents (Bobic, 2002). Harbin and Madden (1979) were among the first to research this type of family violence and since then, research has focused mostly on perpetrator characteristics (Browne & Hamilton, 1998; Paulson et al., 1990; Ulman & Straus, 2003; Kennedy et al., 2010). To date, research has not examined how such characteristics impact diversion treatment completion.

Characteristics of Youth who Perpetrate Family Violence

Demographics. Youth who perpetrate violence against a fam- ily member are often white males (Kethineni, 2004; Kennedy et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990; Walsh & Krienert, 2007) between the ages of 15 and 17 (Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Kenndey et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990), and mothers were often the targets of violence (Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Ulman & Straus, 2003). The psychological characteristics of youth who perpetrate family violence were described as unhappy, having low-self-esteem, and low self-worth (Harbin & Madden, 1979; Kennedy et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990). These youth were likely to have a history of psychiatric hospitalizations, take psychotropic medications, and have a history of attempted suicides (Charles, 1986; Evans & Warren-Sohlberg, 1988; Fernandez et al., 2011).

Exposure to family violence. Exposure to family violence has been linked to negative outcomes for youth. Researchers found that the rate of youth perpetrated family violence was directly related to the violence the child had previously expe- rienced (Cornell & Gelles, 1982), where being a victim of child maltreatment (Ulman & Straus, 2003) and witnessing violence between parents was related to child-to-parent vio- lence (Browne & Hamilton, 1998; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003). Children and adolescents who grew up in homes with intimate partner violence incorporated the messages about violence as a way to communicate with, manipulate, and control others (Jankowski et al., 1999; Kernsmith, 2006; Way & Urbaniak, 2008).

Parenting. Ineffective parenting among youth who perpetrate violence against a parent involved being too aggressive in

disciplining children or being detached from a child’s life. Robinson, Wright, and Watson (1994) found that parents of violent children were often detached, distant, and disengaged from the lives of their children. Additionally, Cottrell and Monk (2004) found that parents who were excessively con- trolling during the younger years of parenting tried and failed to assert this style of authority with their adolescent. Parents who were unclear with rules or displayed a lack of authority in parenting and discipline created insecurity and vulnerability in their children, which can lead to a reversal in authority with the child assuming the role of authoritarian, often leading to aggressive tactics (Agnew & Hughley, 1989; Cottrell & Monk, 2004). The more dysfunctional the family relation- ships, the more likely these youth will develop problems and engage in high-risk behaviors.

When a parent or caregiver uses drugs or alcohol, the likelihood of parent–child conflict increased. Pelletier and Coutu (1992) found that child-to-parent violence occurred more frequently among households where parents abused drugs or alcohol. Way and Urbaniak (2008) found that female caregivers of violent youth abused alcohol (20 %) and drugs (19 %) and nearly a fifth had been arrested; male caregivers had abused alcohol (37 %) and drugs (25 %) with greater frequency than females and nearly half had been arrested. Adolescents with a prior history of delinquent behavior are five and half times more likely to have a female caregiver with a prior arrest history than those with no delinquency record (Way & Urbaniak, 2008).

Delinquency characteristics. Youth who participate in delin- quent behaviors such as having a prior arrest, using sub- stances, skipping school or being suspended from school are more likely to see criminal behavior as acceptable and this belief could explain violence perpetration against a family member. Some studies have found a relationship between substance use and family violence. Pagani et al. (2004) found that substance abuse among youth increased the incidence of verbal aggression toward the mother by 60 %. Walsh and Krienert (2007) found that abusive males were under the influence of substances more often than females. Cottrell and Monk (2004) found that teens who use either drugs or alcohol displayed a general lack of emotion in their abusive behavior.

Problems initiated in the home likely migrate to the school environment. Youth who perpetrated violence against a parent were less likely to be interested in attending school and described it as unimportant (Paulson et al., 1990). A study by Cornell and Gelles (1982) revealed that when a child was expelled from school, violence toward a parent was more probable in the home. Kennedy et al. (2010) found that school truancy, suspensions, and harassment of teachers were behav- iors indicative of youth perpetrated family violence. School behavior is linked with peer influence, which together

144 J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149

contributes toward engagement in violent behavior. Youth who associate with negative peer influences are more likely to get disciplinary referrals and skip school. This also rings true for adolescents who associate with negative peer groups that approve of delinquency. A study by Evans and Warren- Sohlberg (1988) found that 66 % of their adolescent sample had a history of involvement with some law enforcement agency or social service organization, and affiliated with peers who approved of delinquent or violent behavior toward par- ents and others (Cottrell & Monk, 2004). The purpose of this study is to explore characteristics of youth who perpetrate violence against a family member and how such characteris- tics relate to program completion among families enrolled in the Family Violence Intervention Program.

Method

Design

To explore the characteristics of youth who perpetrate vio- lence against a family member, a content analysis was per- formed on all case files in the year 2009 for youth arrested for family violence that were referred to the Family Violence Intervention Program (FVIP). The FVIP, housed within a juvenile court system of a large urban southeastern city, offers offenders and their families an alternative to the county justice system and provides case management services, counseling, and conflict management skills in order to reduce incidents of family violence and improve family functioning.

Participants

Participants were selected from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 cohort of juvenile violent offenders (N=212) referred to FVIP. The final sample consisted of 105 males and 104 females (three records were excluded due to more than 90 % of the case file missing), who ranged in age from 10 to 19 years, the average age being 15.7 years. Of the total sample 129 successfully completed the program and 80 were termi- nated and did not complete the program.

Measures

Case files included the FVIP standard intake form, police reports, school records, and case notes. Case files are com- piled by the FVIP case managers who work with the youth and their families while they complete the requirements of the program. The standard intake form is a 36 item assessment that collects information on the youth’s family violence arrest, family history, youth’s medical history, performance in school, parent–child relations, and other concerns the parent

may have regarding the youth’s behavior. Police reports detail the arrest incident. School records include daily attendance and incident reports. Case notes are written when there is an interaction with the youth.

Following a training session on content analysis, each case file was analyzed and coded by the principal investigator and a graduate assistant for content relevant to the variables under study. The code book consisted of 68 items, which included variables taken from the intake form, police reports, school records, and case notes. The researchers met weekly to resolve coding issues and maximize interrater reliability. This data was coded numerically, such that each variable received di- chotomous coding (i.e., 1=behavior was present, 0=behav- ior was not present or a blank for missing data). Each variable was coded as present if noted in the case file. The research team recognized it could not be determined if the absence of notation meant an actual lack of presence of a behavior (i.e., no prior arrest) or missing data. Every effort was made to contact the case managers when there was missing notations in the case files. The code book of variables was separated into three sections. The first section provided information on socio-demographic characteristics, the second section provid- ed information on the child’s delinquency characteristics, and the third section provided information on the youth’s partici- pation in the FVIP.

Section one included the youth’s age, gender, race, grade in school, single or two parent household, and victim. Any learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and mental health diagnoses on the part of the youth were included, as was whether the youth had witnessed violence in the home or conflict between parents; whether family members had previ- ously been arrested, had a mental health condition, or a history of substance abuse; any involvement with the Department of Children and Families (i.e., suspicion of child abuse or ne- glect); and who in the household disciplines the child. Section two included the youth’s arrest history, substance use history, and school performance. School performance variables consisted of whether the youth had repeated a grade, the number of disciplinary referrals in the last 6 months, school suspensions, and how often the child skips school. Each of the variables in section one and two were self- reported by parents during the initial intake. Section three included variables that pertained to the youth’s participation in the FVIP, including completion or termination from the program, length of time it took to complete the program, and recidivism rates.

Procedures

All participants were charged with domestic battery/assault and offered this diversion program at detention hearings or juvenile first-appearances. Youth arrested for domestic battery are offered the diversion program at the State Attorney’s

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149 145

discretion and must be willing to adhere to FVIP require- ments, such as no violent contact with anyone, attend and complete 12 anger management sessions, improve school attendance and behavior, comply with no substance use, par- ticipate in random drug screens, and participate in family counseling. Family members must agree to attend the case planning meetings, mediation, and adhere to all recommenda- tions as put forth by the FVIP team. Youth must also reside with their parent(s) or be enrolled in a designated residential program and provide transportation to all meetings. Any vio- lation to the above standards is cause for termination from the program and such cases are then sent back to juvenile courts for prosecution.

The authors obtained the intake forms with permission from the director of the FVIP. The required forms were sub- mitted and granted exempt status through the Institutional Review Board as the data was presented with no identifiers available, rendering it completely anonymous. To establish interrater reliability, five case files were randomly selected and a second review was done. Of the 68 items in the code book, 37 items were selected for the interrater test. Of these 185 observations (37 variables×5 cases), the raters disagreed in their ratings only seven times, resulting in an interrater reli- ability of 96.3 %. When there was a discrepancy, both re- searchers discussed the discrepancy and came to a mutual decision regarding the code. Data were entered into the SPSS statistical software package. Descriptive analyses were conducted using chi square and two-tailed t-test analyses. Logistic regression was used to predict the likelihood of program completion.

Results

Of the 209 study participants, 129 successfully completed and 80 were terminated from the program. On average, the suc- cessful group completed the program in 6.5 months, with a range of 3-17 months. The number one reason for termination was non-compliance with the program requirements. Seven youth who previously completed the program in 2009 had been rearrested for violence 2 years post-completion.

Characteristics

Males and females perpetrated family violence with equal frequencies. The youth’s average age was 15.7 years and ranged from 10 to 19 years. Significantly more white youth perpetrated violence than other races, x2(4, n=206)=166.67, p<.001. Mothers were the most common reported victim, x2(4, n=206)=225.13, p<.001. More than a third of the sam- ple had witnessed violence between parents in the home and 26 % reported conflict between parents. Thirty-four percent had a parent who had been arrested, most often the father,

x2(3, n=65)=21.95, p<.001. Twenty-three percent had a fam- ily member with a substance abuse problem, again most often the father, x2(3, n=46)=41.83, p<.001. A fifth of youth re- ported a mental health diagnosis and/or a learning disability, and 13 % had a parent with a mental health issue, with the mother and father reported with equal frequencies. The moth- er alone, followed by both parents, disciplined the child when he/she misbehaved, x2(3, n=163)=105.74, p<.001. Descriptive analyses of socio-demographic data are presented in Table 1.

Of the 209 juveniles, 22 % had been previously arrested, with violence being cited as the reason half the time. Twenty- three percent of youth reported a problem with substance use. Many youth had disciplinary problems in school, with 31 % having repeated a grade, 34 % being suspended from school, 34 % reported skipping school regularly and 28 % reported fighting in school. Descriptive analyses of delinquency char- acteristics are presented in Table 2.

Program Completion

There were significant differences in prior arrest history among the successful (12 %) and terminated groups (33 %), x2(1, n=206)=21.89, p<.001. The difference was exemplified by the type of prior arrest in that the successful group had significantly less prior violent arrests (2 %) than the terminat- ed group (21 %), x2 (1, n=37)=7.74, p=.005. Almost twice as many youth (26 %) reported a mental health diagnosis in the terminated group compared to the successful group (15 %). There were significant differences found between groups re- garding substance use, in that the successful group (16 %) reported less incidence than the terminated group (35 %), x2(1, n=203)=9.03, p=.003. A significantly greater percent- age of terminated youth (50 %) skipped school than successful youth (24 %), x2(1, n=208)=14.55, p<.001.

We conducted an exploratory analysis of the impact of delinquency history on FVIP completion. Bivariate analyses were conducted between the criterion variable (successful vs. unsuccessful completion of FVIP) and delinquency variables. Only significant delinquency variables were included in lo- gistic regression analysis. A test of the full model against a constant only model was statistically significant, indicating that prior violent arrests, skipping school regularly, and sub- stance use reliably distinguish between youth who successful- ly and unsuccessfully complete the FVIP. Table 3 displays the logistic regression results. The Wald criterion demonstrated that having a prior arrest, specifically a violent one (p=.01), and skipping school (p=.01) significant predicted program failure. Having a substance abuse issue (p=.08) was not a significant predictor. The explained variance in this model is 26 %. Youth with a violent prior arrest were 8.5 times more likely to be terminated from the program than those without a

146 J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149

prior violence arrest. Youth who habitually skipped school were 2.4 times more likely to be terminated from the program than those who did not skip school.

Discussion

The findings of this exploratory study revealed a composite profile of youth who perpetrate violence against family mem- bers and ascertained the differences between those youth who completed the FVIP program and those who were terminated from the program. The percentage of male versus female youth offenders is nearly equal in this study, which is support- ed by the literature (Browne & Hamilton, 1998; Kennedy et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990), as is the finding that the biological mother prevails as the most reported victim (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005; Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Evans & Warren-Sohlberg, 1988; Paulson et al., 1990). The fact that mothers are more often abused than fathers could be explained in part because in daily life, mothers engage in more limit-setting and supervision, which makes them more likely targets of adolescent frustration than fathers (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Ulman & Straus, 2003).

Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of youth who perpetrate violence

Characteristics Total (N=209)

Successful (n=129)

Terminated (n=80)

pa

Ageb 15.7 (SD=1.63)

15.6 (SD=1.74)

15.8 (SD=1.43)

.535

Gender .735

Male 50 % 51 % 49 %

Female 50 % 49 % 51 %

Race .295

Caucasian 51 % 57 % 41 %

African American 25 % 23 % 30 %

Hispanic 19 % 16 % 24 %

Other 5 % 5 % 5 %

Victim Relation .588

Mother 61 % 64 % 56 %

Father 16 % 16 % 15 %

Sibling 10 % 13 % 21 %

Other 13 % 7 % 9 %

Single-parent household

56 % 54 % 60 % .498

Witness to DV 35 % 38 % 31 % .187

Conflict between parents

26 % 26 % 28 % .994

Family member arrested

34 % 40 % 33 % .662

Who was arrested .118

Mother 7 % 10 % 8 %

Father 14 % 20 % 9 %

Other family 11 % 10 % 16 %

Family member substance use

23 % 23 % 21 % .730

Who substance use .696

Mother 4 % 5 % 5 %

Father 13 % 14 % 14 %

Sibling/Other 6 % 4 % 2 %

Mental health dx 19 % 15 % 26 % .055

Learning disability 20 % 22 % 16 % .342

Family member mental health

13 % 12 % 18 % .583

Who mental health .314

Mother 5 % 6 % 5 %

Father 5 % 4 % 8 %

Sibling/Other 3 % 2 % 5 %

DCF involvement 31 % 32 % 29 % .504

Who disciplines .132

Mother 43 % 40 % 48 %

Father 6 % 4 % 10 %

Both 25 % 23 % 28 %

Other 4 % 2 % 9 %

a Chi-square b t test

Table 2 Delinquency characteristics of youth who perpetrate violence

Characteristics Total (N=209)

Successful (n=129)

Terminated (n=80)

p*

Prior Arrest 22 % 12 % 33 % <.001**

Reason for prior arrest .005**

Violent 10 % 2 % 21 %

Non-violent 8 % 8 % 9 %

Substance use 23 % 16 % 35 % .003**

Repeated a grade 31 % 26 % 39 % .058

School suspensions 34 % 29 % 41 % .067

Skips school 34 % 24 % 50 % <.001**

Fights in school 28 % 25 % 33 % .362

*Chi-square

**Significant at p<.05

Table 3 Logistic regression analysis predicting program completion

B SE Wald Chi square

df Sig. Exp (B) odds ratio

Prior arrest 2.194 .708 9.595 1 .002 8.973

Type arrest 9.814 2 .007

Violent 2.142 .875 5.989 1 .014 8.516

Nonviolent -.492 .907 .294 1 .587 .611

Skips school .885 .345 6.589 1 .010 2.424

Substance use .673 .386 3.043 1 .081 1.960

Likelihood ratio model chi square=43.139, df=5, p=<.001, R2 =.26

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149 147

The average age of youth in the current study was 15.7, which aligns with Walsh and Krienert (2007) who found in a sec- ondary analysis of a national sample that perpetrators were between the ages of 14-17.

A significant portion of the sample had witnessed violence between their parents or reported having parents with a con- flictual relationship. Numerous studies have found relation- ships between witnessing violence in the home and perpetra- tion of violence in adolescence (Brezina, 1999; Browne & Hamilton, 1998; Kennedy et al., 2010; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003). Fathers remained the most reported among substance users and family members with prior arrest histories, but were the least reported to discipline the child. Future research could examine how a father’s behavior and the role he plays in his child’s life have implications for the child’s future behavior. Growing evidence suggests that fathers’ high-quality involve- ment is beneficial to children’s well-being and development (Lamb, 2004).

In our exploratory assessment of delinquency characteris- tics and the role they play in completion of the FVIP, the terminated group had significantly more prior arrests and were twice as likely to skip school compared to the successful group of youth, which is supported by the delinquency liter- ature (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Cottrell & Monk, 2004; Elliott et al., 2011; Kennedy et al., 2010; Kethineni, 2004; Way & Urbaniak, 2008). In California, an evaluation of two court diversion programs found that the most challenging juvenile population to rehabilitate was those with prior records (Uekert et al., 2006).

The findings of this study should be interpreted in light of limitations. The study was exploratory and used a small purposive sample from one diversion program. In addition, only youth referred by an attorney were considered for partic- ipation in the FVIP during FY2009, which limits the general- izability of the findings to all youth who perpetrate violence against a family member. Due to the nature of such selection, it is possible that only cases with no violent arrest history or limited arrest history were considered for participation in the FVIP. The sample is also limited in that it included only those arrested for family violence. Many violent acts against family members go unreported to the police. Certain minority groups may be less inclined to report violence to the police. Parents of younger children may be less likely to report their child’s violent behavior and more apt to handle it without police intervention.

Results are based on cross-sectional data, which preclude any cause-and-effect determinations among the characteristics presented and the prediction of future violence perpetration. The researchers had to rely on pre-existing self-reported data that could have been impacted by bias such as selective memory or recall. Although this is less than ideal, the results produced rich descriptive data and a preliminary multivariate analysis that captured specific characteristics that influenced

FVIP completion. Interpretation of the composite profile of youth who perpetrate violence against a family member is cautioned given the above stated limitations. Future research that looks to identify perpetrator characteristics should include all youth who have committed a violent act against a family member, not just those who have been arrested.

With content analysis, analysis is limited by availability of material. The use of archived data restricted analyses to var- iables that were previously collected and limited the scope of analysis. In addition, incomplete case files, ineligible case notes, and case workers documenting notes with inconsisten- cy may have produced results that could be skewed if words were misinterpreted. Researchers took steps to avoid such pitfalls, such as independent coding and discussion of such codes, as well as communication with case workers when there was question as to the meaning of the data. Given the nature of the exploratory study, the researchers cannot provide conclusive answers as to why youth perpetrate violence against a family member or why such youth successfully complete or fail to complete a diversion program; however, we do provide a composite profile of diverted youth who perpetrated violence against a family member and provide preliminary evidence of variables that may impede successful FVIP completion.

Implications for Practice

Currently, youth with multiple delinquency characteristics are at the greatest risk for FVIP termination and remaining in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile delinquent youth need to be connected to services that meet their individual needs in order for diversion to be successful. Terminated youth perpetrators have a history of more violent arrests, use more substances, and are more likely to skip school than those who successfully complete the program. The number one reason for termination from the program was non-participation in intervention ser- vices; thus, greater support is needed for those youth with multiple delinquency characteristics to ensure retention and successful completion in the FVIP. In having identified spe- cific characteristics of youth who tend to reoffend in their communities, narrowly focused intervention is not inclined to be successful. Effective treatments must address the multi- ple determinants of delinquent behavior and must do so in “its naturally occurring contexts” (Henggeler & Borduin, as cited in Henggeler et al., 1993, p. 286). Therefore, an effective treatment is one that provides broad-level, complex interven- tions that are community-based (Henggeler et al., 1993).

The aim of the current study was to look for patterns and gain insight into characteristics that may contribute to unsuc- cessful completion of the FVIP. Findings of this study did empirically support that youth with more delinquency charac- teristics were less likely to complete the diversion program. The results of this study suggest the need for thorough

148 J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149

assessment of the family, distinguishing socio-demographic and delinquency characteristics that contribute to violence, and individualizing treatment. Treatment options seem limited for delinquent youth who are violent, and a need exists for more research to create models of practice for working with such youth. The design of curricula and intervention compo- nents should be established based on data collected from research that examines program participants. Thus arises a need for data-informed program development.

Programs that do not address both socio-demographic characteristics, such as mental health issues, witnessing inti- mate partner violence, or family dysfunction, and delinquency characteristics, such as skipping school and having a prior arrest, are unlikely to have a positive impact on youth. In order to create effective interventions and programs, more research is needed to better specify the risk factors of youth perpetrated family violence as well as to establish empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment interventions. A co- ordinated and tailored approach to intervention, with special attention to delinquent youth, will restore family functioning and aid in the prevention of reentering the juvenile justice system.

References

Agnew, R., & Huguley, S. (1989). Adolescent violence towards parent. Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, 699–711.

American Correctional Association. (2008). 2008 Directory: Adult and juvenile correctional departments, institutions, agencies, and proba- tion and parole authorities. Alexandria, VA: Author

Bobic, N. (2002). Adolescent violence towards parents: Myths and Realities. Marrickville: Rosemount Youth and Family Services.

Brezina, T. (1999). Teenage violence toward parents as an adaptation to family strain: Evidence from a national survey of male adolescents. Youth & Society, 30, 416–444.

Browne, K., & Hamilton, C. (1998). Physical violence between young adults and their parents: Associations with a history of child mal- treatment. Journal of Family Violence, 13(1), 59–79.

Cavanaugh, M., & Gelles, R. (2005). The utility of male domestic violence offender typologies: New directions for research, policy, and practice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(2), 155–166.

Charles, A. (1986). Physically abused parents. Journal of Family Violence, 1(4), 343–355.

Cornell, C., & Gelles, R. (1982). Adolescent to parent violence. Urban and Social Change Review, 15(1), 8–14.

Cottrell, B. (2001). Parent Abuse: The abuse of parents by their teenage children: Overview paper. Ottawa, Canada: Health Canada, Family Violence Prevention Unit

Cottrell, B., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescent-to-parent abuse. Journal of Family Issues, 25(8), 1072–1095.

Elliott, G., Cunningham, S., Colangelo, M., & Gelles, R. (2011). Perceived mattering to the family and physical violence within the family by adolescents. Journal of Family Issues, 32(8), 1007–1029.

Evans, E., & Warren-Sohlberg, L. (1988). A pattern analysis of adoles- cent abusive behavior towards parent. Journal of Adolescent Research, 3, 201–216.

Fernandez, E., Ezpeleta, L., Granero, R., de la Osa, N., & Domenech, J. (2011). Degrees of exposure to domestic violence, psychopathology, and functional impairment in children and adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1215–1231.

Harbin, H., & Madden, D. (1979). Battered parents: A new syndrome. American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 1288–1291.

Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., Smith, L. A., Foster, S. L., Hanley, J. H., & Hutchinson, C. M. (1993). Assessing violent offending in serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 233– 243.

Jankowski, M. K., Leitenberg, H., Henning, & Coffey, P. (1999). Intergenerational transmission of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents vs. opposite sex parents vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 14(3), 267–279.

Kennedy, T., Edmonds, W., Dann, K., & Burnett, K. (2010). The clinical and adaptive features of young offenders with histo- ries of child-parent violence. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 509–520.

Kernsmith, P. (2006). Gender differences in the impact of family of origin violence on perpetrators of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 21(2), 163–171.

Kethineni, S. (2004). Youth-on-parent violence in a central Illinois coun- ty. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(4), 374–394.

Lamb, M. E. (2004). The role of the father in child development(4th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McCloskey, L. A., & Lichter, E. L. (2003). The contribution of marital violence to adolescent aggression across different relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 390–412.

Pagani, L., Tremblay, R., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., Vitaro, F., & McDuff, P. (2004). Risk factor models for adolescent verbal and physical aggression towards mothers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(6), 528–537.

Paulson, M., Coombs, R., & Landsverk, J. (1990). Youth who physically assault their parents. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2), 121–133.

Pelletier, D., & Coutu, S. (1992). Substance abuse and family violence in adolescents. Canada's Mental Health, 40(2), 6–12.

Robinson, C., Wright, L., & Watson, W. (1994). A nontraditional ap- proach to family violence. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 3(1), 30–37.

Robinson, P. W., Davidson, L. J., & Drebot, M. E. (2004). Parent abuse on the rise: A historical review. American Association of Behavioral Social Science Online Journal, 58–67.

Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., and Kang, W. (2011). Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985-2008. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ ojstatbb/ezajcs/ National Juvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile court case records 1985-2008 [machine-readable data files]. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice

Uekert, B., Sagatun-Edwards, I., Crowe, A., Peters, T., Cheesman, F., and Kameda, D. (2006). Juvenile domestic and family violence: The effects of court-based intervention programs on recidivism. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice

Ulman, A., & Straus, M. A. (2003). Violence by children against mothers in relation to violence between parents and corporal punishment by parents. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34, 41–60.

Walsh, J., & Krienert, J. (2007). Child-parent violence: An empirical analysis of offender, victim, and event characteristics in a national sample of reported incidents. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 563– 574.

Way, I., & Urbaniak, D. (2008). Delinquent histories of adolescents adjudicated for criminal sexual conduct. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(9), 1197–1212.

J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149 149

Copyright of Journal of Family Violence is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.