Developmental Theories

SAVIGNAC, J. (2009). Families, youth and delinquency: The state of knowledge, and family-based juvenile delinquency programs (Research Report 2009-1). Ottawa: National Crime Prevention Centre, Public Safety Canada.

Family interactions are most important during early childhood, but they can have long-lasting effects. In early adolescence, relationships with peers take on greater importance. Family structure and family functioning are two general categories under which family effects on delinquency.

Increased risk of delinquency experienced among children of broken homes is related to the family conflict prior to the divorce or separation, rather than to family breakup itself (Rutter et al., 1998).

· 1 Become familiar with the problems of youth in American culture

· 2 Distinguish between ego identity and role diffusion

· 3 Discuss the specific issues facing American youth

· 4 Understand the concept of being “at risk” and discuss why so many kids take risks

· 5 Be familiar with the recent social improvements enjoyed by American youth

· 6 Discuss why the study of delinquency is so important and what this study entails

· 7 Describe the life of children during feudal times

· 8 Discuss the treatment of children in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

· 9 Discuss childhood in the American colonies

· 10 Know about the child savers and the creation of delinquency

· 11 Discuss the elements of juvenile delinquency today

· 12 Know what is meant by the term status offender

chapter features

cyber Delinquency: Catfishing

Case profile: Aaliyah’s Story

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—intervention: Family Key Programs

KEAIRA BROWN WAS JUST 13 YEARS OLD when she was charged with murder and became the youngest person in Wyandotte County, Kansas, ever to be tried as an adult. Her family life was close but troubled. Her mother, Cheryl Brown, had three other children, two enrolled in local colleges. Keaira was involved in after-school activities, including playing the violin. But when her mom went to prison on a drug charge, things began to spiral downhill for Keaira, and when she was only 10 she attempted suicide. On July 23, 2008, at about 4:00 PM, Keaira was supposed to be at a summer program at the Boys and Girls Club in Kansas City. Instead, she was involved in the carjacking of Scott Sappington, Jr., a junior at Sumner Academy, who had just dropped his siblings off at their grandmother’s house. When he returned to his car, neighbors heard him yell, “Hey, hey,” then there was a struggle inside the car, and he was shot in the head. An investigation led to a 6-year-old who told police that a young girl told a group of children to get rid of her bloody clothes. Police distributed pictures of the bloody clothes to the media, and soon after, the clothes were traced back to Keaira Brown.

Prosecutors thought the murder was a result of a carjacking that went wrong, while Keaira’s family claimed she was an innocent pawn for area gang members who thought she would not be prosecuted because of her age. They were incorrect. In April, almost a year after the crime, a Wyandotte County judge ruled that Keaira should face trial as an adult. On November 9, 2010, Keaira Brown was found guilty of first-degree murder and attempted aggravated robbery. She will have to serve 20 years before being eligible for parole.

Stories such as that of Keaira Brown are certainly not unique. While the Supreme Court ruled in  Roper v. Simmons  that juveniles cannot be sentenced to the death penalty, it is quite legal to incarcerate them in adult prison for life if they commit a capital crime, as long as the judge takes age into account before sentencing takes place ( Miller v. Alabama ). 1  So Keaira, who was 13 years old at the time she committed her crime, may spend the rest of her life behind bars.

Roper v. Simmons

A juvenile under 18 years of age who commits a capital crime cannot face the death penalty.

Miller v. Alabama

In this case, the Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences, without the possibility of parole, are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders.

The problems of youth in contemporary society can be staggering. Because of trouble and conflict occurring in their families, schools, and communities, adolescents experience stress, confusion, and depression. There are approximately 75 million children in the United States, a number that is projected to increase to about 85 million by 2025. 2  Since the mid-1960s, children have been decreasing as a proportion of the total US population, so today 24 percent of the population are 18 and under, down from a 1964 peak of 36 percent at the end of the so-called baby boom. Children are projected to remain a fairly stable percentage, about 23 percent, of the total population through 2050. Though the number of children is projected to remain stable, racial and ethnic diversity is growing, so that the population is projected to become even more diverse in the decades to come. In 2023, less than half of all children are projected to be white, non-Hispanic; by 2050, 38 percent of children are projected to be white, non-Hispanic, down from 55 percent today.

The mission of the Children’s Defense Fund ( http://www.childrensdefense.org/ ) is to “leave no child behind” and to ensure every child “a healthy start, a head start, a fair start, a safe start, and a moral start in life,” as well as a successful passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. The CDF tries to provide a strong, effective voice for kids who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves. For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

During the baby boom (1946–1964), the number of children grew rapidly (see  Exhibit 1.1 ). Now as the baby boomers enter their senior years, their needs for support and medical care will increase. At the same time, a significant number of kids who are poor and at risk for delinquency and antisocial behavior will need both private and public assistance and aid. While the number of poor kids and the elderly will be rising, the 30- to 50-year-old population who will be expected to care and pay for these groups will constitute a much smaller share of the population.

exhibit 1.1: Six Generations of Americans

The Greatest Generation: Born after World War I and raised during the Depression, they overcame hardships, fought in World War II, and went on to build America into the world’s greatest superpower. They were willing to put off personal gain for the common good.

Baby Boomers: Born between the end of World War II and the Kennedy-Johnson years, and now approaching retirement age, “boomers” are considered a generation who have benefited the most from the American Dream and postwar leadership. Their parents, who grew up during the Great Depression, made sure their children had the best of everything. Baby boomers benefited from affordable college and post-graduate education, relatively low housing costs, and plentiful job opportunities. Though they experienced some significant setbacks, such as the war in Viet Nam, they were a privileged generation that has been accused of being self-absorbed and materialistic.

Generation X: Born between 1963 and 1980 and now approaching 50, Gen-Xers are often accused of being unfocused and uncommitted—the “why me?” generation. Coming of age between 1980 and 1990, when divorce was rampant and greed was good, they are not attached to careers or families. They lived through the 1990s, a time with significant social problems, including teen suicide, homelessness, the AIDS epidemic, a downsizing of the workforce, and overseas conflict. Generation X is described as pessimistic, suspicious, and frustrated slackers who wear grunge clothing while listening to alternative music after they move back home with their parents. They do not want to change the world, just make their way in it and through it without complications.

Generation Y: Born between 1981 and 1994, Gen Y kids were deeply influenced by the 9/11 attacks and as a result are more patriotic than their older peers. They were weaned on reality TV and are sometimes called the MTV generation. Compared to their elders, Gen Y kids are incredibly sophisticated technologically. Gen Y members live in a world that is much more racially and ethnically diverse than their parents, and most are willing to accept diversity. Their worldview is aided by the rapid expansion in cable TV channels, satellite radio, the Internet, e-zines, etc. They may have lived in families with either a single caretaker or two working parents. Members of Generation Y are often accused of being self-centered, irresponsible, and having a lack of understanding of how the work world functions.

Generation Z: Born between 1995 and 2009, they are the first generation to have grown up in a world dominated by the Internet and instant communication; iPads, group video games, texting, and tweeting are their milieu. Will this next generation have the same opportunities as their grandparents in a global economy in which the United States is competing with other powerful nations for dominance?

Generation Alpha: Born after 2012, it’s just too early to tell.

The Adolescent Dilemma

As they go through their tumultuous teenage years, the problems of American society and the daily stress of modern life have a significant effect on our nation’s youth. Adolescence is unquestionably a time of transition. During this period, the self, or basic personality, is still undergoing a metamorphosis and is vulnerable to a host of external determinants as well as internal physiological changes. Many youths become extremely vulnerable to emotional turmoil and experience anxiety, humiliation, and mood swings. Adolescents also undergo a period of biological development that proceeds at a far faster pace than at any other time in their lives except infancy. Over a period of a few years, their height, weight, and sexual characteristics change dramatically. The average age at which girls reach puberty today is 12.5 years; 150 years ago, girls matured sexually at age 16. But although they may become biologically mature and capable of having children as early as 14, many youngsters remain emotionally and intellectually immature. By the time they reach 15, a significant number of teenagers are approaching adulthood but are unable to adequately meet the requirements and responsibilities of the workplace, family, and neighborhood. Many suffer from health problems, are educational under achievers, and are already skeptical about their ability to enter the American mainstream.

In later adolescence (ages 16 to 18), youths may experience a life crisis that famed psychologist Erik Erikson labeled the struggle between  ego identity  and  role diffusion . Ego identity is formed when youths develop a full sense of the self, combining how they see themselves and how they fit in with others. Role diffusion occurs when they experience personal uncertainty, spread themselves too thin, and place themselves at the mercy of people who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot mold for themselves. 3  Psychologists also find that late adolescence is a period dominated by the yearning for independence from parental domination. 4  Given this explosive mixture of biological change and desire for autonomy, it isn’t surprising that the teenage years are a time of rebelliousness and conflict with authority at home, at school, and in the community.

ego identity

According to Erik Erikson, ego identity is formed when youths develop a full sense of the self, combining how they see themselves and how they fit in with others.

role diffusion

According to Erik Erikson, role diffusion occurs when people spread themselves too thin, experience personal uncertainty, and place themselves at the mercy of people who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot develop for themselves.

Such feelings can overwhelm young people and lead them to consider suicide as a “solution.” Though most kids do not take their own lives, millions are left troubled and disturbed and at risk for delinquency, drug use, and other forms of antisocial behavior. Acting out or externalized behavior that begins in early adolescence may then persist into adulthood. 5  In the United States the teen suicide rate remains unacceptably high: suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24, averaging about 4,500 per year. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the top three methods used in youth suicides are firearms (46 percent), suffocation (37 percent), and poisoning (8 percent). 6

Adolescent Problems

The population trends take on greater meaning when the special problems of youth are considered. It may not be surprising to some that this latest generation of adolescents has been described as cynical and preoccupied with material acquisitions. By age 18, American youths have spent more time in front of a television set than in the classroom; each year they may see up to 1,000 rapes, murders, and assaults on TV. Today’s teens are watching racy TV shows involving humans, from Teen Mom to Californication, and nonhumans (e.g., True Blood). They listen to rap music, such as the classic “Candy Shop,” by 50 Cent, and “I Hit It First” by Ray J, whose sexually explicit lyrics routinely describe substance abuse and promiscuity. How will this exposure affect them? Should we be concerned? Maybe we should. Research shows that kids who listen to music with a sexual content are much more likely to engage in precocious sex than adolescents whose musical tastes run to Katy Perry or Adele. 7

Troubles in the home, the school, and the neighborhood, coupled with health and developmental hazards, have placed a significant portion of American youth  at risk . Youths considered at risk are those dabbling in various forms of dangerous conduct such as drug abuse, alcohol use, and precocious sexuality. They are living in families that, because of economic, health, or social problems, are unable to provide adequate care and discipline. 8

at-risk youth

Young people who are extremely vulnerable to the negative consequences of school failure, substance abuse, and early sexuality.

Data on population characteristics can be found at the website of the US Census Bureau ( http://www.census.gov/ ). For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Adolescent Poverty

According to the US Census Bureau, 48 million people, or one in seven residents, live in poverty in the United States, the highest rate since 1994. And because the government defines poverty as $23,000 a year for a family of four, a great many more Americans live just above the poverty line, the so-called working poor, struggling to make ends meet. 9  Today, real incomes are falling, and poverty in the United States is more prevalent now than in the late 1960s and early 1970s—and has escalated rapidly since 2000. While poverty problems have risen for nearly every age, gender, and race-ethnic group, the increases in poverty have been most severe among the nation’s youngest families (adults under 30), especially those with one or more children present in the home. Since 2007, the poverty rate has risen by 8 percent among young families with one or more children in the home, and now rests at about 37 percent; in 1967, it stood at only 14 percent. Among young families with children residing in the home, four of every nine are poor or near poor, and close to two out of three are low income. 10

Working hard and playing by the rules is not enough to lift families out of poverty: even if parents work full-time at the federal minimum wage, the family still lives in poverty. Consequently, about 6 million children live in extreme poverty, which means less than $10,000 for a family of four; the younger the child, the more likely they are to live in extreme poverty. 11

Which kids live in poverty? As  Figure 1.1  shows, kids living in a single-parent, female-headed household are significantly more likely to suffer poverty than those in two-parent families.

figure 1.1: Percentage of Children Ages 0–17 Living in Poverty by Family Structure

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements,  http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/surveys2.asp?popup=true#cps  (accessed May 2013).

Child poverty can have long-lasting negative effects on the children’s cognitive achievement, educational attainment, nutrition, physical and mental health, and social behavior. Educational achievement scores between children in affluent and low-income families have been widening over the years, and the incomes and wealth of families have become increasingly important determinants of adolescents’ high school graduation, college attendance, and college persistence and graduation. The chances of an adolescent from a poor family with weak academic skills obtaining a bachelor degree by his or her mid-20s is now close to zero. 12

Health and Mortality Problems

Receiving adequate health care is another significant concern for American youth. There are some troubling signs. Recent national estimates indicate that only about 18 percent of adolescents meet current physical activity recommendations of one hour of physical activity a day and only about 22 percent eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day. 13

Kids with health problems may only be helped if they have insurance. And while most kids now have health care coverage of some sort, about 10 percent or 7.5 million youth do not. 14  As might be expected, children who are not healthy, especially those who live in lower-income families and children from ethnic and minority backgrounds, are subject to illness and early mortality. Recently, the infant mortality rate rose for the first time in more than 40 years, and is now 7 per 1,000 births. The United States currently ranks 25th in the world among industrialized nations in preventing infant mortality, and the percent of children born at low birth weight has increased. 15  It remains to be seen whether the new national health care policy, created by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (aka Obamacare) will eventually reduce or eliminate inadequate health care for America’s children.

While infant mortality remains a problem, so do violent adolescent deaths. More than 3,000 children and teens are killed by firearms each year, the equivalent of 120 public school classrooms of 25 students each. Another 16,000 children and teens suffer nonfatal firearm injuries. Today, more preschoolers are killed by firearms than law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. 16

Racial Inequality

Despite years of effort to reduce racial inequality, it still tragically exists. Minority kids are much more likely than white, non-Hispanic children to experience poverty; proportionately, Hispanic and black children are about three times as likely to be poor than their white peers. 17  As  Figure 1.2  shows, African American median income is significantly below that of white and Asian families.

figure 1.2: Real Median Household Income by Race and Hispanic Origin

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 1968 to 2012, Annual Social and Economic Supplements,  http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/surveys2.asp?popup=true#cps  (accessed May 2013).

Inequality can also be found in other elements of social life. Educational problems are more likely to hit minority kids the hardest. According to the nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund, African American children are half as likely as white children to be placed in a gifted and talented class and more than one and a half times as likely to be placed in a class for students with emotional disturbances. They are also more likely to face disciplinary problems, including being two and a half times as likely to be held back or retained in school, almost three times as likely to be suspended from school, and more than four times as likely to be expelled. 18

Ironically, despite suffering these social and economic handicaps, minority youth are less likely to take their own life than white youth. However, as  Exhibit 1.2  shows, they are more likely to be victims of lethal violence.

exhibit 1.2: Race, Ethnicity, Suicide, and Violence

Note: Between 1990 and 2009, suicide was more prevalent than homicide for non-Hispanic white juveniles, while the reverse was true for Hispanic juveniles and non-Hispanic black juveniles.

·  At each age between 12 and 24, suicide was more common than murder for non-Hispanic whites, in sharp contrast to patterns for Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks.

·  For every 10 white homicide victims ages 7 to 17, there were 25 suicide victims (a ratio of 10:25); the corresponding ratio was 10:2 for black juveniles and 10:4 for Hispanic juveniles.

·  Between 1990 and 2009, the juvenile suicide rate for white non-Hispanic youth (i.e., suicides per million for persons ages 7 to 17 in this race/ethnicity group) was 27.

·  The suicide rates were substantially lower for Hispanic (17), black non-Hispanic (16), and Asian non-Hispanic (15) juveniles ages 7 to 17.

·  In contrast, the suicide rate for American Indian juveniles (63) was more than double the white non-Hispanic rate and more than triple the rates for the other racial/ethnic groups.

SOURCE: OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, March 5, 2012,  http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/victims/qa02703.asp?qaDate=2009  (accessed May 2013).

Self-Image Problems

Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to stress caused by a poor self-image. According to recent surveys by the American Psychological Association, citizens of all ages are likely to live stress-filled lives, but children and adults alike who are obese or overweight are more likely to feel stressed out; overweight children are more likely to report that their parents were often or always stressed. When asked, one-third (31 percent) of American children report being very or slightly overweight. These kids are more likely to report they worry a lot or a great deal about things in their lives than children who are normal weight (31 percent versus 14 percent). Overweight children are also significantly more likely than normal-weight children to report they worry about the way they look or about their weight (36 percent versus 11 percent). Children, regardless of weight or age, say they can tell that their parents are stressed when they argue and complain, which many children say makes them feel sad and worried. 19

Family Problems

Divorce strikes about half of all new marriages, and many intact families sacrifice time with each other to afford more affluent lifestyles. Today, about 70 percent of children under age 18 live with two married parents. Kids who live with one parent only are much more likely to experience poverty than those living in two-parent families. Because of family problems, children are being polarized into two distinct economic groups: those in affluent, two-earner, married-couple households and those in poor, single-parent households. 20

Formed in 1985, the Children’s Rights Council (CRC) is a national nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC, that works to assure children meaningful and continuing contact with both their parents and extended family regardless of the parents’ marital status. For more information about this topic, visit their website at  http://www.crckids.org  or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Substandard Living Conditions

Millions of children now live in substandard housing—high-rise, multiple-family dwellings—which can have a negative influence on their long-term psychological health. 21  Adolescents living in deteriorated urban areas are prevented from having productive and happy lives. Many die from random bullets and drive-by shootings. Some are homeless and living on the street, where they are at risk of drug addiction and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including AIDS. Today about one-third of US households with children have one or more of the following three housing problems: physically inadequate housing, crowded housing, or housing that costs more than 30 percent of the household income. 22  Despite the fact that the minimum wage has increased to more than $6.50 per hour, the poor can barely afford to live in even the lowest-cost neighborhoods of metro areas such as Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC. 23

Inadequate Educational Opportunity

Education shapes the personal growth and life chances of children. Early educational experiences of young children, such as being read to daily, encourage the development of essential skills and prepare children for success in school. Later aspects of academic performance, such as mastering academic subjects, completing high school, and enrolling in college, provide opportunities for further education and future employment. Youths who are neither enrolled in school nor working are a measure of the proportion of young people at risk of limiting their future prospects. 24  Although all young people face stress in the education system, the risks are greatest for the poor, members of racial and ethnic minorities, and recent immigrants. By the time they reach the fourth grade, students in poorer public schools have lower achievement scores in mathematics than those in more affluent districts. 25  According to the watchdog group Children’s Defense Fund:

·  About 70 percent of fourth-graders in our public schools cannot read at grade level.

·  Minority children are most seriously affected: almost 90 percent of black fourth-graders, 80 percent of Hispanic fourth-graders, and 80 percent of American Indian/Alaska native fourth-graders are not reading at grade level. 26

The problems faced by kids who drop out of school do not end in adolescence. 27  Adults 25 years of age and older without a high school diploma earn 30 percent less than those who have earned a diploma. High school graduation is the single most effective preventive strategy against adult poverty.

At home, poor children receive less academic support from their harried parents. Take for instance having parents who read to their children at home, a key to future academic success. Although about half of all children ages 3 to 5 who are not yet in kindergarten are read to daily by a family member, the likelihood of having heard a story at home is stratified by class. About two-thirds of children in families with incomes at or above 200 percent of the poverty level are read to daily; in contrast, less than half of children whose family falls 200 percent below the poverty level are read to at home. 28

Problems in Cyberspace

Kids today are forced to deal with problems and issues that their parents could not even dream about. While the Internet and other technological advances have opened a new world of information gathering and sharing, they have also brought a basketful of new problems ranging from sexting to cyberstalking.

Cyberbullying

Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old Massachusetts girl, hanged herself in a stairwell at her home after enduring months of torment by her fellow students at South Hadley High School. Prince, who had immigrated from Ireland, was taunted in the school’s hallways and bombarded with vulgar insults by a pack of kids led by the ex-girlfriend of a boy she had briefly dated. As she studied in the library on the last day of her life, she was openly hounded and threatened physically while other students and a teacher looked on and did nothing. In the aftermath of her death, prosecutors accused two boys of statutory rape and four girls with violating Prince’s civil rights and criminal harassment. Ironically, most of these students were still in school, and some continued to post nasty remarks on Prince’s memorial Facebook page after her death. 29

Experts define bullying among children as repeated, negative acts committed by one or more children against another. 30  These negative acts may be physical or verbal in nature—for example, hitting or kicking, teasing or taunting—or they may involve indirect actions such as manipulating friendships or purposely excluding other children from activities.

While in the past bullies were found in the school yard, they can now use the Internet to harass their victims through emails or instant messages. Physical distance is no longer a barrier to the frequency and depth of harm doled out by a bully to his or her victim. 31  Obscene, insulting, and slanderous messages can be posted to social media sites or sent directly to the victim via cell phones; bullying has now morphed from the physical to the virtual. 32

Cyberbullying  is the willful and repeated harm inflicted through Internet social media sites such as Facebook, blogs, or microblogging applications such as Twitter. Like their real-world counterparts, cyberbullies are malicious aggressors who seek implicit or explicit pleasure or profit through the mistreatment of other individuals. Although power in traditional bullying might be physical (stature) or social (competency or popularity), online power may simply stem from Net proficiency.

cyberbullying

Willful and repeated harm inflicted through Internet social media sites or electronic communication methods such as Twitter.

It is difficult to get an accurate count of the number of teens who have experienced cyberbullying. A recent study by Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja found that more than 20 percent of the youth they surveyed reported being the target of cyberbullying. 33  As  Figure 1.3  shows, adolescent girls are significantly more likely to have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetimes (26 percent versus 16 percent) than boys. Girls are also more likely to report cyberbullying others during their lifetime (21 percent versus 18 percent). The type of cyberbullying tends to differ by gender; girls are more likely to spread rumors while boys are more likely to post hurtful pictures. 34

figure 1.3: Cyberbullying by Gender

SOURCE: Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, Cyberbullying Research Center,  http://cyberbullying.us/research.php  (accessed May 2013).

Cyberstalking

Cyberstalking refers to the use of the Internet, email, or other electronic communications devices to stalk another person. Some predatory adults pursue minors through online chat rooms, establish a relationship with the child, and later make contact. Today, Internet predators are more likely to meet and develop relationships with at-risk adolescents, and beguile underage teenagers, rather than use coercion and violence. 35

Others, as the Cyber Delinquency feature shows, engage in a misleading practice called catfishing: taking on a fictional identity to lure unsuspecting kids into romantic relationships.

Sexting

Adolescents now have to worry that the compromising photos they send their boyfriends or girlfriends—a practice called sexting—can have terrible repercussions. In 2008, Jesse Logan, an 18-year-old Ohio high school girl, made the mistake of sending nude pictures of herself to her boyfriend. When they broke up, he sent them around to their schoolmates. As soon as the e-photos got into the hands of her classmates, they began harassing her, calling her names and destroying her reputation. Jesse soon became depressed and reclusive, afraid to go to school, and in July 2008 she hanged herself in her bedroom. 36

While the sexting phenomenon has garnered national attention, there is some question as to how often teens actually engage in the distribution of sexually compromising material. One recent survey of 1,560 Internet users ages 10 through 17 found that about 2.5 percent had appeared in or created nude or nearly nude pictures or videos and that 1 percent of these images contained sexually explicit nudity. Of the youth who participated in the survey, 7 percent said they had received nude or nearly nude images of others; few youth distributed these images. It is possible that sexting is not as common as previously believed or that it was a fad that is quickly fading. 37

Are Things Improving?

Though American youth do face many hazards, there are some bright spots on the horizon. Teenage birthrates nationwide have declined substantially during the past decade, with the sharpest declines among African American girls. In the same period, the teen abortion rate has also declined. These data indicate that more teens are using birth control and practicing safe sex.

Fewer children are being born with health risks today than in 1990. This probably means that fewer women are drinking or smoking during pregnancy and that fewer are receiving late or no prenatal care. In addition, since 1990 the number of children immunized against disease has increased.

Kids are taking less risks when they ride in cars:

·  From 1991 to 2011, the percentage of high school students who never or rarely wore a seatbelt declined from 26 to 8 percent

·  From 1991 to 2011, the percentage of students who rode with a driver who had been drinking alcohol during the past 30 days declined from 40 to 24.

·  The percentage of high school students who had driven a car during the past 30 days when they had been drinking alcohol decreased from 17 in 1997 to 8 in 2011. 38

They are also drinking less alcohol. Since 1999, the percentage of high school students who drank alcohol during the past 30 days decreased from 50 percent to 39 percent and, since 1997, the percentage who reported binge drinking (having 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row during the past 30 days) decreased from 33 percent to 22 percent. 39

More parents are reading to their children, and math achievement is rising in grades 4 through 12. And more kids are going to college: college enrollment is now about 21 million and is expected to continue setting new records for the next decade. 40  Almost 30 percent of the adult population in the United States now have college degrees.

CYBER delinquency: Catfishing

“Catfishing” refers to the practice of setting up a fictitious online profile, most often for the purpose of luring another into a fraudulent romantic relationship. According to The Urban Dictionary, a catfish is “someone who pretends to be someone they’re not using Facebook or other social media.” So, to “catfish someone” is to set up a fake social media profile with the goal of duping that person into falling for the false persona.

While catfishing has been around awhile, it became a topic of public interest when Notre Dame football star Manti Te’o was the apparent target of a catfish. Te’o developed an online relationship with someone he knew as Lennay Kekua. It is difficult to know how deep the relationship was, but he did refer to her as his girlfriend and mentioned repeatedly that he loved her. Te’o amassed a wide sympathy following when it was learned that his grandmother and his girlfriend (Kekua) died on the same day early in the 2012 football season. While his grandmother did in fact die on that day, his “girlfriend” did not—media investigations revealed that she had never existed in the first place. Kekua was in fact a fictitious online persona created by a friend of Te’o’s. In a statement to the press, Te’o maintained that he was a target: “To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone’s sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating.”

In another case that got national attention, 13-year-old Megan Meier began an online relationship with a boy she knew as Josh Evans. For almost a month, Megan corresponded with this boy, exclusively online because he said he didn’t have a phone and was homeschooled. One day in October 2006, Megan received a message from Josh on her MySpace profile saying, “I don’t know if I want to be friends with you any longer because I hear you’re not nice to your friends.” This was followed by bulletins being posted through MySpace calling Megan “fat” and a “slut.” After seeing the messages, Megan became distraught and ran up to her room. A few minutes later, Megan’s mother Tina found her hanging in her bedroom closet. Though Tina rushed her daughter to the hospital, Megan died the next day.

Six weeks after their daughter’s death, the Meier family learned that the boy with whom Megan had been corresponding never existed. Josh Evans (and his online profile) was created by Lori Drew, a neighbor and the mother of one of Megan’s friends. She created the profile as a way to spy on what Megan was saying about her daughter. Drew was eventually acquitted in federal court for her role in Megan’s death.

Another, more extreme example, is the case of 18-year-old Anthony Stancl, who in 2009 impersonated two girls (“Kayla” and “Emily”) on Facebook. He befriended and formed online romantic relationships with a number of boys in his high school (again, while posing and interacting as these two girls). He then convinced at least 31 of those boys to send him nude pictures or videos of themselves. As if that weren’t bad enough, Stancl—still posing as a girl and still communicating through Facebook—tried to convince more than half to meet with a male friend and let him perform sexual acts on them. If they refused, “she” told them that the pictures and videos would be released for all to see. Seven boys actually submitted to this horrific request, and allowed Stancl to perform sex acts on them or they performed sex acts on him. He took numerous pictures of these encounters with his cell phone, and the police eventually found over 300 nude images of male teens on his computer. He was charged with five counts of child enticement, two counts of second-degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of third-degree sexual assault, possession of child pornography, and repeated sexual assault of the same child, and received a 15-year prison sentence.

The most famous case of “catfishing” involved Notre Dame’s star linebacker Manti Te’o, shown here speaking with Katie Couric during an interview. Te’o admitted that he briefly lied about his fictitious online girlfriend Lennay Kekua after discovering she didn’t exist, while maintaining that he had no part in creating the hoax. Te’o gained the sympathy of the nation when he was made to believe that his girlfriend had died of cancer.

CRITICAL THINKING

Some might argue that catfishing is harmless Internet fun and that people should know better than to enter into any significant relationship with another person they only know digitally. Do such thoughts make it okay to use technology to mislead someone, and lead to a “victim-blaming” mentality? Should people who catfish others be held criminally liable?

SOURCE: Justin Patchin, “Catfishing as a Form of Cyberbullying,” Cyberbullying Research Center,  http://cyberbullying.us/blog/catfishing-as-a-form-of-cyberbullying.html  (accessed May 2013).

Although these are encouraging signs, the improvement of adolescent life continues to be a national goal.

The Study of Juvenile Delinquency

The problems of youth in modern society is a major national concern especially when they are linked to  juvenile delinquency , or criminal behavior committed by minors.

juvenile delinquency

Participation in illegal behavior by a minor who falls under a statutory age limit.

More than 1.1 million youths are now arrested each year for crimes ranging in seriousness from loitering to murder. 41  Though most juvenile law violations are minor, some young offenders are extremely dangerous and violent. About 800,000 youths belong to more than 20,000 gangs in the United States. Violent street gangs and groups can put fear into an entire city (see  Chapter 9  for more on gangs). Youths involved in multiple serious criminal acts—referred to as lifestyle, repeat, or  chronic delinquent offenders —are now recognized as a serious social problem. State juvenile authorities must deal with these offenders, along with responding to a range of other social problems, including child abuse and neglect, school crime and vandalism, family crises, and drug abuse. The cost to society of these high-rate offenders can be immense. In a series of studies, Mark Cohen, Alex Piquero, and Wesley Jennings examined the costs to society of various groups of juvenile offenders, including high-rate chronic offenders who kept on committing serious crimes as adults. 42  They found that the average cost for each of these offenders was over $1.5 million, and their cost to society increased as they grew older. The “worst of the worst” of these offenders, who committed 53 known crimes, cost society $1,696,000 by the time they reached their mid-20s. In all, the high-rate offenders they studied had an annual cost to society of over half a billion dollars.

chronic delinquent offenders (also known as chronic juvenile offenders, chronic delinquents, or chronic recidivists)

Youths who have been arrested four or more times during their minority and perpetuate a striking majority of serious criminal acts. This small group, known as the “chronic 6 percent,” is believed to engage in a significant portion of all delinquent behavior; these youths do not age out of crime but continue their criminal behavior into adulthood.

Given the diversity and gravity of these problems, there is an urgent need for strategies to combat such a complex social phenomenon as juvenile delinquency. But formulating effective strategies demands a solid understanding of delinquency’s causes and prevention. Is delinquency a function of psychological abnormality? A collective reaction by youths against destructive social conditions? The product of a disturbed home life and disrupted socialization? Does serious delinquent behavior occur only in large urban areas among lower-class youths? Or is it spread throughout the entire social structure? What impact do family life, substance abuse, school experiences, and peer relations have on youth and their law-violating behaviors? We know that most youthful law violators do not go on to become adult criminals (what is known as the  aging-out process ). Yet we do not know why some youths become chronic delinquents whose careers begin early and persist into their adulthood. Why does the onset of delinquency begin so early in some children? Why does the severity of their offenses escalate? What factors predict the  persistence , or continuation, of delinquency, and conversely, what are the factors associated with its desistance, or termination? Unless the factors that control the onset and termination of a delinquent career are studied in an orderly and scientific manner, developing effective prevention and control efforts will be difficult.

aging-out process (also known as desistance or spontaneous remission)

The tendency for youths to reduce the frequency of their offending behavior as they age; aging-out is thought to occur among all groups of offenders.

persistence

The process by which juvenile offenders persist in their delinquent careers rather than aging out of crime.

The study of delinquency also involves analysis of the law enforcement, court, and correctional agencies designed to treat youthful offenders who fall into the arms of the law—known collectively as the  juvenile justice system . How should police deal with minors who violate the law? What are the legal rights of children? For example, should minors who commit murder receive the death penalty? What kind of correctional programs are most effective with delinquent youths? How useful are educational, community, counseling, and vocational development programs? Is it true, as some critics claim, that most efforts to rehabilitate young offenders are doomed to failure? 43  Should we adopt a punishment or a treatment orientation to combat delinquency, or something in between?

juvenile justice system

The segment of the justice system, including law enforcement officers, the courts, and correctional agencies, designed to treat youthful offenders.

The study of juvenile delinquency involves a variety of social problems faced by adolescents. Sgt. Vincent Matranga, of the Sacramento City Unified School District, questions Lydia Ochoa, 15, and her boyfriend, Antonio, 17, about why the pair are not in school, in Sacramento, California. Police teamed up with school officials to start rounding up truants in an effort to cut crime as well as prevent kids from dropping out. After questioning the two juveniles, Matranga released Antonio to an adult who confirmed he was enrolled in a home study program. Lydia was taken to an attendance center at Luther Burbank High School where a social worker worked with her to prevent her from becoming one of the estimated 150,000 California students who leave school each year without a diploma. The study of delinquency involves such issues as devising programs to reduce the dropout rate and determining what effect dropping out of school has on delinquency.

In sum, the scientific study of delinquency requires understanding the nature, extent, and cause of youthful law violations and the methods devised for their control. We also need to study important environmental and social issues associated with delinquent behavior, including substance abuse, child abuse and neglect, education, and peer relations. This text investigates these aspects of juvenile delinquency along with the efforts being made to treat problem youths and prevent the spread of delinquent behavior. Our study begins with a look back to the development of the concept of childhood and how children were first identified as a unique group with its own special needs and behaviors.

The Development of Childhood

The treatment of children as a distinct social group with special needs and behavior is, in historical terms, a relatively new concept. It is only for the past 350 years or so that any mechanism existed to care for even the most needy children, including those left orphaned and destitute. How did this concept of concern for children develop?

Childhood in the Middle Ages

In Europe, during the Middle Ages (roughly 500–1500 ce), the concept of childhood as we know it today did not exist. In the  paternalistic family  of the time, the father was the final authority on all family matters and exercised complete control over the social, economic, and physical well-being of his wife and children. 44  Children who did not obey were subject to severe physical punishment, even death.

paternalistic family

A family style wherein the father is the final authority on all family matters and exercises complete control over his wife and children.

The Lower Classes

For peasant children, the passage into adulthood was abrupt. As soon as they were physically capable, children of all classes were expected to engage in adult roles. Among the working classes, males engaged in farming and/or learning a skilled trade, such as masonry or metal-working; females aided in food preparation or household maintenance. 45  Some peasant youths went into domestic or agricultural service on the estate of a powerful landowner or into trades or crafts, perhaps as a blacksmith or farrier (horseshoer).

This view of medieval childhood was shaped by Philippe Aries, whose influential book Centuries of Childhood is considered a classic of historical scholarship. Aries argued that most young people were apprenticed, became agricultural or factory workers, and generally entered adult society at a very early age. 46  According to Aries, high infant mortality rates kept parents emotionally detached from their children. Paintings of the time depict children as mini-adults who were sent off to work as soon as they were capable. Western culture did not have a sense of childhood as a distinct period of life until the very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

Though Aries’s view that children in the Middle Ages were treated as “miniature adults” has become the standard view, in a more recent book, historian Nicholas Orme puts forth evidence that medieval children may have been valued by their parents and did experience a prolonged period of childhood. In his Medieval Children, Orme finds that the medieval mother began to care for her children even before their delivery. Royal ladies borrowed relics of the Virgin Mary from the church to protect their unborn children, while poorer women used jasper stones or drawings of the cross, which were placed across their stomachs to ensure a healthy and uneventful birth. Parents associated their children’s birthdays with a saint’s feast day. Medieval children devised songs, rhymes, and games. Some simple games made use of cherry pits or hazelnuts, but children also had toys, which included dolls and even mechanical toys made for royalty. 47

As soon as they were physically capable, children of the Middle Ages were expected to engage in adult roles. Young girls worked as maids and housekeepers and at such tasks as food preparation, clothes washing, and household maintenance. Boys worked on farms and performed such tasks as blacksmith or farrier (horseshoer).

Children of the Nobility

Though their lives were quite different, children of the affluent, landholding classes also assumed adult roles at an early age. Girls born into aristocratic families were educated at home and married in their early teens. A few were taught to read, write, and do sufficient mathematics to handle household accounts in addition to typical female duties such as supervising servants and ensuring the food supply of the manor.

At age 7 or 8, boys born to landholding families were either sent to a monastery or cathedral school to be trained for lives in the church or selected to be a member of the warrior class and sent to serve a term as a squire—an apprentice and assistant to an experienced knight. At age 21, young men of the knightly classes completed their term as squire, received their own knighthood, and returned home to live with their parents. Most remained single because it was widely believed there should be only one married couple residing in a manor or castle. To pass the time and maintain their fighting edge, many young knights entered the tournament circuit, engaging in melees and jousts to win fame and fortune. Upon the death of their fathers, young nobles assumed their inherited titles, married, and began their own families.

The customs and practices of the time helped shape the lives of children and, in some instances, greatly amplified their hardships and suffering.  Primogeniture  required that the oldest surviving male child inherit family lands and titles. He could then distribute them as he saw fit to younger siblings. There was no absolute requirement, however, that portions of the estate be distributed equally; many youths who received no lands were forced to enter religious orders, become soldiers, or seek wealthy patrons. Primogeniture often caused intense family rivalry that led to blood feuds and tragedy.

primogeniture

During the Middle Ages, the right of firstborn sons to inherit lands and titles, leaving their brothers the option of a military or religious career.

Dower

The dower system mandated that a woman’s family bestow money, land, or other wealth (called a dowry) on a potential husband or his family in exchange for his marriage to her. In return, the young woman received a promise of financial assistance, called a jointure, from the groom’s family. Jointure provided a lifetime income if a wife outlived her mate. The dower system had a significant impact on the role of women in medieval society and consequently on the role of children. Within this system, a father or male guardian had the final say in his daughter’s choice of marital partner, as he could threaten to withhold her dowry. Some women were denied access to marriage simply because of their position in the family.

A father with many daughters and few sons might find himself financially unable to obtain suitable marriages for them. Consequently, the youngest girls in many families were forced either to enter convents or stay at home, with few prospects for marriage and family.

The dower system had far-reaching effects on the position of women in society, forcing them into the role of second-class citizens dependent upon their fathers, brothers, and guardians. It established a pattern in which females who did not conform to what males considered to be acceptable standards of feminine behavior could receive harsh sanctions; it established a sexual double standard that in part still exists today.

Childrearing

The harshness of medieval life influenced childrearing practices during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For instance, newborns were almost immediately handed over to wet nurses, who fed and cared for them during the first two years of their life. These women often lived away from the family so that parents had little contact with their children. Even the wealthiest families employed wet nurses, because it was considered demeaning for a noblewoman to nurse. Wrapping a newborn entirely in bandages, or  swaddling , was a common practice. The bandages prevented any movement and enabled the wet nurse to manage the child easily. This practice was thought to protect the child, but it most likely contributed to high infant mortality rates because the child could not be kept clean.

swaddling

The practice during the Middle Ages of completely wrapping newborns in long bandage-like cloths in order to restrict their movements and make them easier to manage.

Discipline was severe during this period. Young children of all classes, both peasant and wealthy, were subjected to stringent rules and regulations. They were beaten severely for any sign of disobedience or ill temper. Many children of this time would be considered abused by today’s standards. The relationship between parent and child was remote. Children were expected to enter the world of adults and to undertake responsibilities early in their lives, sharing in the work of siblings and parents. Children thought to be suffering from disease or retardation were often abandoned to churches, orphanages, or foundling homes. 48

The roots of the impersonal relationship between parent and child can be traced to high mortality rates, which made sentimental and affectionate relationships risky. Parents were reluctant to invest emotional effort in relationships that could so easily be terminated by violence, accidents, or disease. Many believed that children must be toughened to ensure their survival in a hostile world. Close family relationships were viewed as detrimental to this process. Also, because the oldest male child was viewed as the essential player in a family’s well-being, younger male and female siblings were considered economic and social liabilities.

Development of Concern for Children

Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a number of developments in England heralded the march toward the recognition of children’s rights. Some of these events eventually affected the juvenile legal system as it emerged in America. They include (a) changes in family style and child care, (b) the English Poor Laws, (c) the apprenticeship movement, and (d) the role of the chancery court. 49

Changes in Family Structure

Family structure and the role of children began to change after the Middle Ages. Extended families, which were created over centuries, gave way to the nuclear family structure with which we are familiar today. It became more common for marriage to be based on love and mutual attraction between men and women rather than on parental consent and paternal dominance. The changing concept of marriage—from an economic arrangement to an emotional commitment—also began to influence the way children were treated within the family structure. Though parents still rigidly disciplined their children, they formed closer parental ties and developed greater concern for their offspring’s well-being.

To provide more control over children, grammar and boarding schools were established and began to flourish in many large cities during this time. 50  Children studied grammar, Latin, law, and logic, often beginning at a young age. Teachers in these institutions regularly ruled by fear, and flogging was their main method of discipline. Students were beaten for academic mistakes as well as moral lapses. Such brutal treatment fell on both the rich and the poor throughout all levels of educational life, including universities. This treatment abated in Europe with the rise of the Enlightenment, but it remained in full force in Great Britain until late in the nineteenth century. Although this brutal approach to children may be difficult to understand now, the child in that society was a second-class citizen.

Toward the close of the eighteenth century, the work of such philosophers as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Locke launched a new age for childhood and the family. 51  Their vision produced a period known as the Enlightenment, which stressed a humanistic view of life, freedom, family, reason, and law. The ideal person was sympathetic to others and receptive to new ideas. These new beliefs influenced both the structure and lifestyle of the family. The father’s authority was tempered, discipline in the home became more relaxed, and the expression of love and affection became more commonplace among family members. Upper- and middle-class families began to devote attention to childrearing, and the status of children was advanced.

As a result of these changes, in the nineteenth century children began to emerge as a readily distinguishable group with independent needs and interests. Parents often took greater interest in their upbringing. In addition, serious questions arose over the treatment of children in school. Public outcries led to a decrease in excessive physical discipline. Restrictions were placed on the use of the whip, and in some schools, the imposition of academic assignments or the loss of privileges replaced corporal punishment. Despite such reforms, many children still led harsh lives. Girls were still undereducated, punishment was still primarily physical, and schools continued to mistreat children.

Poor Laws

Government action to care for needy children can be traced to the  Poor Laws  of Britain. As early as 1535, England passed statutes allowing for the appointment of overseers to place destitute or neglected children as servants in the homes of the affluent. 52  The Poor Laws forced children to serve during their minority in the care of families who trained them in agricultural, trade, or domestic services. The Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1601 were a model for dealing with poor children for more than 200 years. These laws created a system of church wardens and overseers who, with the consent of justices of the peace, identified vagrant, delinquent, and neglected children and took measures to put them to work. Often this meant placing them in poorhouses or workhouses, or apprenticing them to masters.

Poor Laws

English statutes that allowed the courts to appoint overseers over destitute and neglected children, allowing placement of these children as servants in the homes of the affluent.

The Apprenticeship Movement

Under the apprenticeship system, children were placed in the care of adults who trained them to discharge various duties and obtain skills. Voluntary apprentices were bound out by parents or guardians who wished to secure training for their children. Involuntary apprentices were compelled by the authorities to serve until they were 21 or older. The master-apprentice relationship was similar to the parent-child relationship in that the master had complete responsibility for and authority over the apprentice. If an apprentice was unruly, a complaint could be made and the apprentice could be punished. Incarcerated apprentices were often placed in rooms or workshops apart from other prisoners and were generally treated differently from those charged with a criminal offense. Even at this early stage, the conviction was growing that the criminal law and its enforcement should be applied differently to children.

Chancery Court

After the fifteenth century, a system of  chancery courts  became a significant arm of the British legal system. They were originally established as “courts of equity” to handle matters falling outside traditional legal actions. These early courts were based on the traditional English system in which a chancellor acted as the “king’s conscience” and had the ability to modify the application of legal rules and provide relief considering the circumstances of individual cases. The courts were not concerned with technical legal issues; rather, they focused on rendering decisions or orders that were fair or equitable. With respect to children, the chancery courts dealt with issues of guardianship of children who were orphaned, their property and inheritance rights, and the appointment of guardians to protect them until they reached the age of majority and could care for themselves. For example, if a wealthy father died before his heir’s majority, or if there were some dispute as to the identity (or legitimacy) of his heir, the crown might ask the case to be decided by the chancery court in an effort to ensure that inheritance rights were protected (and taxes collected!).

chancery courts

Court proceedings created in fifteenth-century England to oversee the lives of highborn minors who were orphaned or otherwise could not care for themselves.

Chancery court decision making rested on the proposition that children and other incompetents were under the protective control of the king; thus, the Latin phrase  parens patriae  was used, referring to the role of the king as the father of his country. The concept was first used by English kings to establish their right to intervene in the lives of the children of their vassals—children whose position and property were of direct concern to the monarch. 53  The concept of parens patriae became the theoretical basis for the protective jurisdiction of the chancery courts acting as part of the crown’s power. As time passed, the monarchy used parens patriae more and more to justify its intervention in the lives of families and children by its interest in their general welfare. 54

parens patriae

Power of the state to act on behalf of the child and provide care and protection equivalent to that of a parent.

The chancery courts dealt with the property and custody problems of the wealthier classes. They did not have jurisdiction over children charged with criminal conduct. Juveniles who violated the law were handled within the framework of the regular criminal court system. Nonetheless, the concept of parens patriae grew to refer primarily to the responsibility of the courts and the state to act in the best interests of the child.

Childhood in America

While England was using its chancery courts and Poor Laws to care for children in need, the American colonies were developing similar concepts. The colonies were a haven for poor and unfortunate people looking for religious and economic opportunities denied them in England and Europe. Along with early settlers, many children came not as citizens but as indentured servants, apprentices, or agricultural workers. They were recruited from the various English workhouses, orphanages, prisons, and asylums that housed vagrant and delinquent youths during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 55

At the same time, the colonies themselves produced illegitimate, neglected, abandoned, and delinquent children. The colonies’ initial response to caring for such unfortunate children was to adopt court and Poor Laws systems similar to those in England. Involuntary apprenticeship, indenture, and binding out of children became integral parts of colonization in America. For example, Poor Law legislation requiring poor and dependent children to serve apprenticeships was passed in Virginia in 1646 and in Massachusetts and Connecticut in 1673. 56

The master in colonial America acted as a surrogate parent, and in certain instances, apprentices would actually become part of the nuclear family structure. If they disobeyed their masters, apprentices were punished by local tribunals. If masters abused apprentices, courts would make them pay damages, return the children to the parents, or find new guardians. Maryland and Virginia developed an orphan’s court that supervised the treatment of youths placed with guardians and ensured that they were not mistreated or taken advantage of by their masters. These courts did not supervise children living with their natural parents, leaving intact the parents’ right to care for their children. 57

By the beginning of the nineteenth century, as the agrarian economy began to be replaced by industry, the apprenticeship system gave way to the factory system. Yet the problems of how to deal effectively with growing numbers of dependent youths increased. Early American settlers believed that hard work, strict discipline, and rigorous education were the only reliable means to salvation. A child’s life was marked by work alongside parents, some schooling, prayer, more work, and further study. Work in the factories, however, often taxed young laborers by placing demands on them that they were too young to endure. To alleviate a rapidly developing problem, the Factory Act of the early nineteenth century limited the hours children were permitted to work and the age at which they could begin to work. It also prescribed a minimum amount of schooling to be provided by factory owners. 58  This and related statutes were often violated, and conditions of work and school remained troublesome issues well into the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the statutes were a step in the direction of reform.

Controlling Children

In America, as in England, moral discipline was rigidly enforced. “Stubborn child” laws were passed that required children to obey their parents. 59  It was not uncommon in the colonies for children who were disobedient or disrespectful to their families to be whipped or otherwise physically chastised. Children were often required to attend public whippings and executions because these events were thought to be important forms of moral instruction. Parents often referred their children to published works and writings on behavior and discipline and expected them to follow their precepts carefully. Because community and church leaders frowned on harsh punishments, child protection laws were passed as early as 1639 (in New Haven, Connecticut). Nonetheless, these laws were generally symbolic and rarely enforced. They expressed the community’s commitment to God to oppose sin; offenders who abused their children usually received lenient sentences. 60

Although most colonies adopted a protectionist stance, few cases of child abuse were actually brought before the courts. There are several explanations for this neglect. The absence of child abuse cases may reflect the nature of life in what were extremely religious households. Children were productive laborers and respected as such by their parents. In addition, large families provided many siblings and kinfolk who could care for children and relieve stress-producing burdens on parents. 61  Another view is that though many children were harshly punished in early American families, the acceptable limits of discipline were so high that few parents were charged with assault. Any punishment that fell short of maiming or permanently harming a child was considered within the sphere of parental rights. 62

Under the apprenticeship system, children were placed in the care of adults who trained them to discharge various duties and obtain different skills. The young boy shown in this illustration is serving as an apprentice to a blacksmith. The system was brought over to colonial America in the seventeenth century.

The Concept of Delinquency

Considering the rough treatment handed out to children who misbehaved at home or at school, it should come as no surprise that children who actually broke the law and committed serious criminal acts were dealt with harshly. Before the twentieth century, little distinction was made between adult and juvenile offenders. Although judges considered the age of an offender when deciding punishments, both adults and children were often eligible for the same forms of punishment—prison, corporal punishment, and even the death penalty. In fact, children were treated with extreme cruelty at home, at school, and by the law. 63

Over the years, this treatment changed as society became sensitive to the special needs of children. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, as immigrant youth poured into America, there was official recognition that children formed a separate group with its own separate needs. Around the nation, in cities such as New York, Boston, and Chicago, groups known as  child savers  formed to assist children in need. They created community programs to serve needy children and lobbied for a separate legal status for children, which ultimately led to the development of a formal juvenile justice system. The child saving movement and the history of the development of the juvenile justice system will be discussed more fully in  Chapter 13 .

child savers

Nineteenth-century reformers who developed programs for troubled youth and influenced legislation creating the juvenile justice system; today some critics view them as being more concerned with control of the poor than with their welfare.

Delinquency and Parens Patriae

The current treatment of juvenile delinquents is a by-product of the developing national consciousness during the nineteenth century. The designation “delinquent” became popular at the onset of the twentieth century when the first separate juvenile courts were instituted. The child savers believed that treating minors and adults equivalently violated the humanitarian ideals of American society. Consequently, the newly emerging juvenile justice system operated under the parens patriae philosophy. Minors who engaged in illegal behavior were viewed as victims of improper care, custody, and treatment at home. Dishonest behavior was a sign that the state should step in and take control of the youths before they committed more serious crimes. The state, through its juvenile authorities, should act in the  best interests of the child . This means that children should not be punished for their misdeeds but instead should be given the care and custody necessary to remedy and control wayward behavior. It makes no sense to find children guilty of specific crimes, such as burglary or petty larceny, because that stigmatizes them and labels them as thieves or burglars. Instead, the catchall term juvenile delinquency should be used, as it indicates that the child needs the care, custody, and treatment of the state.

best interests of the child

A philosophical viewpoint that encourages the state to take control of wayward children and provide care, custody, and treatment to remedy delinquent behavior.

The Legal Status of Delinquency

Though the child savers fought hard for a separate legal status of “juvenile delinquent” early in the twentieth century, the concept that children could be treated differently before the law can actually be traced back much farther to its roots in the British legal tradition. Early English jurisprudence held that children under the age of 7 were legally incapable of committing crimes. Children between the ages of 7 and 14 were responsible for their actions, but their age might be used to excuse or lighten their punishment. Our legal system still recognizes that many young people are incapable of making mature judgments and that responsibility for their acts should be limited. Children can intentionally steal cars and know full well that the act is illegal, but they may be incapable of fully understanding the consequences of their behavior and the harm it may cause. Therefore, the law does not punish a youth as it would an adult, and it sees youthful misconduct as evidence of unreasoned or impaired judgment.

Today, the legal status of “juvenile delinquent” refers to a minor child who has been found to have violated the penal code. Most states define “minor child” as an individual who falls under a statutory age limit, most commonly 17 or 18 years of age. Because of their minority status, juveniles are usually kept separate from adults and receive different consideration and treatment under the law. For example, most large police departments employ officers whose sole responsibility is youth crime and delinquency. Every state has some form of separate juvenile court with its own judges, probation department, and other facilities. Terminology is also different: Adults are tried in court; children are adjudicated. Adults can be punished; children are treated. If treatment is mandated, children can be sent to secure detention facilities; they cannot normally be committed to adult prisons.

Children also have their own unique legal status. Minors apprehended for a criminal act are usually charged with being a juvenile delinquent regardless of the crime they commit. These charges are usually confidential, trial records are kept secret, and the name, behavior, and background of delinquent offenders are sealed. Eliminating specific crime categories and maintaining secrecy are efforts to shield children from the stigma of a criminal conviction and to prevent youthful misdeeds from becoming a lifelong burden. Each state defines juvenile delinquency differently, setting its own age limits and boundaries. The federal government also has a delinquency category for youngsters who violate federal laws, but typically allows the states to handle delinquency matters.

Legal Responsibility of Youth

In our society, the actions of adults are controlled by two types of law: criminal and civil. Criminal laws prohibit activities that are injurious to the well-being of society and threaten the social order, such as drug use, theft, and rape; they are legal actions brought by state authorities against private citizens. Civil laws, on the other hand, control interpersonal or private activities and are usually initiated by individual citizens. The ownership and transfer of property, contractual relationships, and personal conflicts (torts) are the subject of the civil law. Also covered under the civil law are provisions for the care and custody of those people who cannot care for themselves—the mentally ill, incompetent, or infirm.

Today, the juvenile delinquency concept occupies a legal status falling somewhere between criminal and civil law. Under parens patriae, delinquent acts are not considered criminal violations nor are delinquents considered criminals. Children cannot be found guilty of a crime and punished like adult criminals. The legal action against them is considered more similar (though not identical) to a civil action that determines their “need for treatment.” This legal theory recognizes that children who violate the law are in need of the same care and treatment as law-abiding citizens who cannot care for themselves and require state intervention into their lives.

Delinquent behavior is sanctioned less heavily than criminality because the law considers juveniles as being less responsible for their behavior than adults. As a class, adolescents are believed to (a) have a stronger preference for risk and novelty, (b) assess the potentially negative consequences of risky conduct less unfavorably than adults, (c) have a tendency to be impulsive and more concerned with short-term than long-term consequences, (d) have a different appreciation of time and self-control, and (e) be more susceptible to peer pressure. 64  Although many adolescents may be more responsible and calculating than adults, under normal circumstances the law is willing to recognize age as a barrier to having full responsibility over one’s actions. The limited moral reasoning ability of very young offenders is taken into consideration when assessing their legal culpability. In Timothy v. Superior Court, a California appellate court made it clear that some juvenile defendants may simply be too young to stand trial. The case involved an 11-year-old defendant prosecuted for stealing candy bars. The court ruled that the child was so immature that he could not understand the legal proceedings or assist in his own defense. In doing so, the justices overruled prior case law that held that children must have either a mental disorder or a developmental disability to be deemed incompetent to stand trial. In the words of the court:

As a matter of law and logic, an adult’s incompetence to stand trial must arise from a mental disorder or developmental disability that limits his or her ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist counsel … The same may not be said of a young child whose developmental immaturity may result in trial incompetence despite the absence of any underlying mental or developmental abnormality. 65

The upper age of jurisdiction is defined as the oldest age at which a juvenile court has original jurisdiction over an individual for law violating behavior. Today, 37 states and the District of Columbia set the upper limit of juvenile court jurisdiction at age 18; after his or her 18th birthday someone who commits crime is sent to adult court. In another 11 states, the cutoff is 17; New York and North Carolina set the juvenile age limit at 16. 66

Although youths share a lesser degree of legal responsibility than adults, they are subject to arrest, trial, and incarceration. Their legal predicament has prompted the courts to grant them many of the same legal protections granted to adults accused of criminal offenses. These legal protections include the right to consult an attorney, to be free from self-incrimination, and to be protected from illegal searches and seizures. In addition, state legislatures are toughening legal codes and making them more punitive in an effort to “get tough” on dangerous youth.

Although appreciation of the criminal nature of the delinquency concept has helped increase the legal rights of minors, it has also allowed state authorities to declare that some offenders are “beyond control” and cannot be treated as children. This recognition has prompted the policy of  waiver , or transferring legal jurisdiction over the most serious and experienced juvenile offenders to the adult court for criminal prosecution. To the dismay of reformers, waived youth may find themselves serving time in adult prisons. 67  And while punishment is no more certain or swift once they are tried as adults, kids transferred to adult courts are often punished more severely than they would have been if treated as the minors they really are. 68  It is possible that as many as 200,000 youths under age 18 have their cases processed in adult criminal court each year as a result of prosecutorial or judicial waiver, statutory exclusion, or because they reside in states with a lower age of criminal jurisdiction. (Waiver will be discussed in detail in  Chapter 15 .) On any given day, an estimated 7,000 youths under the age of 18 are inmates in adult jails; of these, 90 percent are being held “as adults.” 69

waiver (also known as bindover or removal)

Transferring legal jurisdiction over the most serious and experienced juvenile offenders to the adult court for criminal prosecution.

So though the parens patriae concept is still applied to children whose law violations are not considered serious, the more serious juvenile offenders can be declared “legal adults” and placed outside the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Status Offenders

A child also becomes subject to state authority for committing  status offenses —actions that would not be considered illegal if perpetrated by an adult; such conduct is illegal only because the child is underage. For example, more than 40 states now have some form of law prohibiting minors from purchasing, using, or possessing tobacco products. These statutes impose a variety of sanctions, including a monetary fine, suspension from school, and denial of a driver’s license. In Florida, repeat offenders may lose their license or be prohibited from obtaining one, and in some communities teens must appear before the judge with their parent or guardian, view an antismoking video, and listen to a lecture from a throat cancer survivor. 70   Exhibit 1.3  describes some typical status offense statutes.

status offense

Conduct that is illegal only because the child is underage.

exhibit 1.3: Status Offense Laws: Louisiana and Wisconsin

Louisiana

“Family in need of supervision” refers to families with children who require court involvement because:

· 1. Child is truant or has willfully and repeatedly violated lawful school rules.

· 2. Child is ungovernable.

· 3. Child is a runaway.

· 4. Child repeatedly possessed or consumed intoxicating beverages, or that he has misrepresented or deceived his age for the purpose of purchasing or receiving such beverages from any person, or has repeatedly loitered around any place where such beverages are the principal commodities sold or handled.

· 5. Child committed an offense applicable only to children. [Smoking/purchasing tobacco]

· 6. Child under 10 years of age committed any act which if committed by an adult would be a crime under any federal, state, or local law.

· 7. Caretaker has caused, encouraged, or contributed to the child’s behavior under this Article or to the commission of delinquent acts by minor.

· 8. After notice, caretaker willfully failed to attend meeting with child’s teacher, school principal, or other appropriate school employee to discuss child’s truancy, the child’s repeated violation of school rules, or other serious educational problems of the child.

· 9. Child found incompetent to proceed with a delinquency matter.

· 10. Child found in possession of handgun or semi-automatic handgun under circumstances that reasonably tend to exclude any lawful purpose.

Wisconsin

The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over a child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court, and:

· (1) Who is without a parent or guardian;

· (2) Who has been abandoned;

· (2m) Whose parent has relinquished custody of the child;

· (3) Who has been the victim of abuse, including injury that is self-inflicted or inflicted by another;

· (3m) Who is at substantial risk of becoming the victim of abuse, including injury that is self-inflicted or inflicted by another, based on reliable and credible information that another child in the home has been the victim of such abuse;

· (4) Whose parent or guardian signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is unable or needs assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care for the child;

· (4m) Whose guardian is unable or needs assistance to care for or provide necessary special treatment or care for the child, but is unwilling or unable to sign the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection;

· (5) Who has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law;

· (8) Who is receiving inadequate care during the period of time a parent is missing, incarcerated, hospitalized or institutionalized;

· (9) Who is at least age 12, signs the petition requesting jurisdiction under this subsection and is in need of special treatment or care which the parent, guardian or legal custodian is unwilling, neglecting, unable or needs assistance to provide;

· (10) Whose parent, guardian or legal custodian neglects, refuses or is unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to seriously endanger the physical health of the child;

· (10m) Whose parent, guardian or legal custodian is at substantial risk of neglecting, refusing or being unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of the child, based on reliable and credible information that the child’s parent, guardian or legal custodian has neglected, refused or been unable for reasons other than poverty to provide necessary care, food, clothing, medical or dental care or shelter so as to endanger seriously the physical health of another child in the home;

· (11) Who is suffering emotional damage for which the parent, guardian or legal custodian has neglected, refused or been unable and is neglecting, refusing or unable, for reasons other than poverty, to obtain necessary treatment or to take necessary steps to ameliorate the symptoms;

· (11m) Who is suffering from an alcohol and other drug abuse impairment, exhibited to a severe degree, for which the parent, guardian or legal custodian is neglecting, refusing or unable to provide treatment; or

· (13) Who has not been immunized.

SOURCES: Louisiana Children’s Code, Title VII: Families in Need of Services,  http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/louisiana/la-laws/louisiana_childrens_code_title_vii ; WI Stat. Ann. Children’s Code § 48.13,  http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0048.pdf  (both accessed May 2013).

It is extremely difficult to evaluate the annual number of status offenses, as most cases escape police detection and those that do not are more often than not handled informally by social service agencies. Yet, according to data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, about 250,000 juveniles are arrested each year for such status-type offenses as disorderly conduct, breaking curfew, and violating liquor laws. 71  At last count about 140,000 of these status offenders are petitioned to juvenile court each year. 72

The History of Status Offenses

A historical basis exists for status offense statutes. It was common practice early in the nation’s history to place disobedient or runaway youths in orphan asylums, residential homes, or houses of refuge. 73  In 1646, the Massachusetts Stubborn Child Law was enacted, which provided, “If any man have a stubborne and rebellious sonne of sufficient years and understanding, which will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and that when they have chastened him will not harken unto them” they could bring him before the court and testify that he would not obey. If the magistrate then found the child to be unrepentant and incapable of control, such a child could be put to death. 74

When the first juvenile courts were established in Illinois, the Chicago Bar Association described part of their purpose as follows:

The whole trend and spirit of the [1899 Juvenile Court Act] is that the State, acting through the Juvenile Court, exercises that tender solicitude and care over its neglected, dependent wards that a wise and loving parent would exercise with reference to his own children under similar circumstances. 75

State control over a child’s noncriminal behavior is believed to support and extend the parens patriae philosophy because it is assumed to be in the best interests of the child. Typically, status offenders are petitioned to the juvenile court when it is determined that their parents are unable or unwilling to care for or control them and that the offender’s behavior is self-destructive or harmful to society. Young teenage girls are much more likely to engage in precocious sex while under the influence of alcohol if they are involved with older teens. Parents may petition their underage daughter to juvenile court if they feel her sexual behavior is getting out of control and they are powerless to stop its occurrence. 76  The case then falls within the jurisdiction of state legal authorities, and failure to heed a judicial command might result in detention in the juvenile correctional system.

Status offenses include running away, being disobedient, and engaging in behavior forbidden to minors, such as drinking. This cheerleader from Danvers High School in Massachusetts is shown at a court hearing after she was arrested after allegedly showing up drunk for a football playoff game with archrival Walpole High.

At first, juvenile codes referred to status offenders as  wayward minors , sometimes failing to distinguish them in any significant way from juvenile delinquents. Both classes of children could be detained in the same detention centers and placed in the same youth correctional facilities. A trend begun in the 1960s has resulted in the creation of separate status offense categories—children, minors, persons, youths, or juveniles in need of supervision (CHINS, MINS, PINS, YINS, or JINS)—which vary from state to state. The purpose of creating separate status offender categories was to shield noncriminal youths from the stigma attached to the label “juvenile delinquent” and to signify that they were troubled youths who had special needs and problems. Most states now have separate categories for juvenile conduct that would not be considered criminal if committed by an adult; these sometimes pertain to neglected or dependent children as well.

wayward minors

Early legal designation of youths who violate the law because of their minority status; now referred to as status offenders.

Legally, delinquents and status offenders are considered independent concepts, but the distinction between them has become blurred. Some noncriminal conduct may be included in the definition of delinquency, and some less serious criminal offenses occasionally may be included within the status offender definition.

Some states grant the juvenile court judge discretion to substitute a status offense for a delinquency charge. Replacing a juvenile delinquency charge with a status offense charge can be used as a bargaining chip to encourage youths to admit to the charges against them in return for a promise of being treated as a (less stigmatized) status offender receiving less punitive treatment.  Concept Summary 1.1  summarizes the differences among delinquents, adult criminals, and status offenders.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 1.1: Treatment Differences among Juvenile Delinquents, Status Offenders, and Adults

	Juvenile Delinquent	Status Offender	Adult
Act	Delinquent	Behavior forbidden to minors	Criminal
Enforcement	Police	Police	Police
Detention	Secure detention	Nonsecure shelter care	Jail
Adjudication	Juvenile court	Juvenile court	Criminal court
Correctional Alternative	State training school	Community treatment facility	Prison

The Status Offender in the Juvenile Justice System

Separate status offense categories may avoid some of the stigma associated with the delinquency label, but they can have relatively little practical effect on the child’s treatment. Youths in either category can be picked up by the police and brought to a police station. They can be petitioned to the same juvenile court, where they have a hearing before the same judge and come under the supervision of the probation department, the court clinic, and the treatment staff. At a hearing, status offenders may see little difference between the treatment they receive and the treatment of the delinquent offenders sitting across the room. Although status offenders are usually not detained or incarcerated with delinquents, they can be transferred to secure facilities if they are repeatedly unruly and considered uncontrollable; about 7 percent of all status offenders are placed in pretrial detention of some sort. Some states are more likely to prosecute status offenses formally in the juvenile court, while others handle most cases informally. Within individual states, some courts make a habit of prosecuting status offenders, and others will divert most cases to treatment institutions. 77

Efforts have been ongoing to reduce the penalties and stigma borne by status offenders and help kids avoid becoming status offenders. The Case Profile entitled “Aaliyah’s Story” shows how one young status offender was able to overcome her problems.

The federal government’s  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) , an agency created to identify the needs of youths and fund policy initiatives in the juvenile justice system, has made it a top priority to encourage the removal of status offenders from secure lockups, detention centers, and post-disposition treatment facilities that also house delinquent offenders. States in violation of the initiative are ineligible to receive part of the millions of dollars in direct grants for local juvenile justice annually awarded by the federal government. 78  This initiative has been responsible for significantly lowering the number of status offenders kept in secure confinement.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Branch of the US Justice Department charged with shaping national juvenile justice policy through disbursement of federal aid and research funds.

Despite this mandate, juvenile court judges in many states can still detain status offenders in secure lockups if the youths are found in contempt of court. The act that created the OJJDP was amended in 1987 to allow status offenders to be detained and incarcerated for violations of valid court orders. 79  Children have been detained for misbehaving in court or not dressing appropriately for their court appearance. 80  There is also some question whether the “valid court order” exception disproportionately affects girls, who are much more likely to be arrested for status offenses than boys and receive more severe punishment than boys. Because girls are more likely to be status offenders, criminalization of status offenses through the “violation of court order” exception may contribute to the increasing numbers of girls in the juvenile justice system. 81

case profile: Aaliyah’s Story

AALIYAH PARKER ran away from home at the age of 17. She struggled with family issues and felt she could no longer live with her mother, stepfather, and younger siblings in their California home. Arriving in Colorado with no family support, no money, and no place to live, she joined other runaway adolescents, homeless on the streets. Aaliyah was using drugs and was eventually arrested and detained at a juvenile detention center for possession of methamphetamines and providing false information to a police officer. Five feet seven inches tall and weighing only 95 pounds, Aaliyah was an addict. Her health and quality of life were suffering greatly.

When Aaliyah entered the juvenile justice system she was a few months from turning 18. Due to issues of jurisdiction, budget concerns, and Aaliyah’s age, system administrators encouraged the caseworker assigned to Aaliyah to make arrangements for her to return to her family in California. After interviewing her at length about her situation and need for treatment, the case-worker could see that Aaliyah had a strong desire to get her life back on track. She needed assistance, but the cost of her treatment would be more than $3,000 per month, and the county agency’s budget was already stretched. Despite objections from administrators, the caseworker remained a strong advocate for Aaliyah, convincing them of the harsh reality she would face back at home without first receiving drug treatment. The caseworker’s advocacy on her behalf, combined with Aaliyah’s motivation to get her life together, compelled the department to agree to pay for her treatment program, but only until she turned 18. She was transported from the juvenile detention center to a 90-day drug and alcohol treatment program where she was able to detoxify her body and engage in intensive counseling. The program also provided family therapy through phone counseling for Aaliyah’s mother, allowing the family to reconnect. Despite this renewed contact, returning home was not an option for Aaliyah.

Nearing the end of the 90-day program, Aaliyah was again faced with being homeless, but she was determined not to return to the streets. She needed an environment where she could make new friends who did not use and be supported in her sobriety. Due to her age, the county department of human services had to close the case and could no longer assist her with housing or an aftercare program. The caseworker provided Aaliyah with some places to call, but she would have to be her own advocate.

Aaliyah contacted a group home run by a local church that takes runaway adolescents through county placements and provides a variety of services for clients and their families. In Aaliyah’s case, no funding was available, so she contacted the therapist at the group home and explained her situation. Initially, they indicated that they would not be able to assist her, but Aaliyah was persistent and determined to find a quality living environment for herself. She continued to contact professionals at the group home to plead her case and was eventually successful. Aaliyah entered the group home, was able to get her high school diploma, and eventually enrolled in an independent living program that helped her find a job and get her own apartment. Aaliyah has remained in contact with her juvenile caseworker. Though she has struggled with her sobriety on occasion, she has refrained from using methamphetamines and is now at a healthy weight. Her caseworker continues to encourage Aaliyah and has been an ongoing source of support, despite the fact that the client file was closed several years ago. Aaliyah’s success can be credited to the initial advocacy of her caseworker, the effective interventions, and the strong determination demonstrated by this young woman.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Housing is a major issue for many teens aging out of the justice system. Often, children placed in alternative care settings, such as foster homes or residential treatment centers, are not prepared to live on their own when they turn 18 or are released from juvenile custody. How can this issue be addressed?

2.

Many juvenile delinquents commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs or because they are addicted and need to support their habit. If this is the case, should these juveniles be court-ordered into a treatment program? Why or why not? What can be done to prevent alcohol and drug abuse in the teen population?

3.

Teens close to the age of 18, like Aaliyah, may be too old for the juvenile justice system, but too young for the adult system. What should be done with juveniles who are close to 18 when they receive a delinquency charge? Should something be done to bridge the gap between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice system?

4.

What should happen to teens who run away from home? This is considered a status offense, but many communities do not charge runaways or require them to be involved in the juvenile justice system. Do you agree with this? Should something more be done and, if so, what?

Several studies have found that as a result of deinstitutionalization, children who can no longer be detained are being recycled or relabeled as delinquent offenders so they can be housed in secure facilities. Juvenile court expert Barry Feld finds that juvenile court judges may “relabel” status offenders as delinquents in order to keep control over kids they feel are incorrigible. Evaluating data on assault charges leveled against adolescent girls, he found that increases in the number of girls being sent to juvenile institutions reflects policy changes rather than an actual increase in criminal activity. Policy changes in the juvenile justice system itself, especially the deinstitutionalization of status offenders, encouraged “relabeling” of female status offenders as delinquents to retain access to facilities in which to confine “incorrigible” girls. Ironically, a policy change designed to remove kids from secure confinement and protect them from stigma and labeling resulted in more negative labels and confinement in even more secure institutions. 82

Even more troubling is the charge that some minors no longer subject to detention as status offenders are being committed involuntarily and inappropriately to inpatient drug treatment facilities and psychiatric hospitals. 83

Change in the treatment of status offenders reflects the current attitude toward children who violate the law. On the one hand, there appears to be a national movement to severely sanction youths who commit serious, violent offenses. On the other hand, a great effort has been made to remove nonserious cases, such as those involving status offenders, from the official agencies of justice and place these youths in informal, community-based treatment programs. The quality of treatment on status offenders can be significant. A recent study by Wesley Jennings found that the effect of formal processing on status offenders can increase the likelihood that they will get involved in subsequent delinquency. Half of the status offenders he studied in Florida, both males and females, accumulated delinquent arrests in adolescence following their initial referral for a status offense. 84

Reforming Status Offense Laws

In 1976, the federal government’s National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, a task force created to develop a national crime policy, opted for the nonjudicial treatment of status offenders: “The only conduct that should warrant family court intervention is conduct that is clearly self-destructive or otherwise harmful to the child.” To meet this standard, the commission suggested that the nation’s juvenile courts confine themselves to controlling five status offenses: habitual truancy, repeated disregard for parental authority, repeated running away, repeated use of intoxicating beverages, and delinquent acts by youths under the age of 10. 85  Since this call to reform, a number of other prestigious institutions have joined in the call for status offense reform. The American Bar Association’s National Juvenile Justice Standards Project, designed to promote significant improvements in the way children are treated by the police and the courts, called for the end of juvenile court jurisdiction over status offenders: “A juvenile’s acts of misbehavior, ungovernability, or unruliness which do not violate the criminal law should not constitute a ground for asserting juvenile court jurisdiction over the juvenile committing them.” 86  In 2006, the ABA issued this statement about reforming the juvenile status offender process:

Many teens come before the courts because of behavior that would not otherwise subject them to judicial involvement if they were adults. Lawyers should examine how law, prosecutorial policy, and court practice address youth who are chronic runaways, persistent school truants, or continually out-of-control at home. They should also examine how these interventions differ between boys and girls, since there has been a significant increase in the number of girls entering the juvenile justice system. Special attention also needs to be given to the problem of and solutions to chronic truancy. 87

These calls for reform prompted a number of states to experiment with replacing juvenile court jurisdiction over most status offenders with community-based treatment programs. Some states, such as Connecticut, have completely reorganized the treatment of status offenders and now refer all status offense cases involving children under 16 to the Department of Children and Family Services as a Family With Service Needs (FWSN). The troubled youths and their families are now directed to community resources for assistance and treatment, and those with specific treatment needs are referred to family support centers for individualized, group, and family therapy. The law provides for the coordinated utilization of a wide range of public and private social, educational, and court services at a local, regional, and statewide level. Kids cannot be placed in detention, though the juvenile court does retain authority over children who exhibit noncriminal behaviors, and although these children cannot be detained in a detention or correctional facility, they can be detained if they violate a court order because violation of a court order is a delinquent act. 88

New York now requires that all alleged status offenders and their families be offered intervention and diversion services before status offense petitions may be filed. Only after intervention services have been offered and failed may the social service agency or juvenile justice agency designated to provide prevention services determine if it is appropriate to seek court involvement. New York has also increased the age limit for status offense jurisdiction from 16 to 18 so that thousands more needy kids fall under the jurisdiction of the New York family court each year. 89  The Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature entitled “Family Key Programs” shows how one county dealt with the influx of new cases.

Status offenses involve behaviors, such as drinking and smoking, that are forbidden to minors but legal for adults. Should a teen be placed in custody for underage smoking or running away or skipping school? Are such controls contrary to the ideals of freedom and liberty? Should any behaviors be prohibited youth because of their age, and if so, what are they?

Other states have amended their laws to eliminate vague terms and language. 90  A few states have tried to amend status offense laws and offer help to families with neglected or dependent children, giving child protective services the primary responsibility for their care. As you may recall, the Louisiana status offense statute set out earlier in  Exhibit 1.3  refers to “families” rather than “children.” However, juvenile court judges strongly resist removal of status jurisdiction. They believe that reducing their authority over children leads to limiting juvenile court jurisdiction to only the most hard-core juvenile offenders and interferes with their ability to help youths before they commit serious antisocial acts. 91  Their concerns are fueled by research that shows that many status offenders, especially runaways living on the street, have serious emotional problems and engage in self-destructive behaviors ranging from substance abuse to self-mutilation and suicide. 92

Those who favor removing status offenders from juvenile court authority charge that their experience with the legal system further stigmatizes these already troubled youths, exposes them to the influence of “true” delinquents, and enmeshes them in a system that cannot really afford to help them. 93  Reformer Ira Schwartz, for one, argues that status offenders “should be removed from the jurisdiction of the courts altogether.” 94  Schwartz maintains that status offenders would be best served not by juvenile courts but by dispute resolution and mediation programs designed to strengthen family ties, as “status offense cases are often rooted in family problems.” 95

Increasing Social Control

Those in favor of retaining the status offense category point to society’s responsibility to care for troubled youths. Some have suggested that the courts’ failure to extend social control over wayward teens neglects the rights of concerned parents who are not able to care for and correct their children. 96  Others maintain that the status offense should remain a legal category so that juvenile courts can “force” a youth into receiving treatment. 97  Although it is recognized that a court appearance can produce negative stigma, the taint may be less important than the need for treatment. 98  In addition, concern over serious delinquency has resulted in laws that actually expand social control over juveniles. 99

Curfews

One way jurisdictions have attempted to maintain greater control over wayward youth has been the implementation of curfew laws. The thought is that the opportunity to commit crimes will be reduced if troubled kids are given a curfew.

The first curfew law was created in Omaha, Nebraska, in 1880, and today about 500 US cities have curfews on teenage youth. Curfews typically prohibit children under 18 from being on the streets after 11:00 pm during the week and after midnight on weekends. About 100 cities also have daytime curfews designed to keep children off the streets and in school. 100

Each year about 60,000 youths are arrested for curfew violations, and their number is considered responsible for the decade-long increase in the status offender population in juvenile court. As yet there is little conclusive evidence that curfews have a significant impact on youth crime rates. While surveys find that police favor curfews as an effective tool to control vandalism, graffiti, nighttime burglary, and auto theft, empirical studies found that both juvenile arrests and juvenile crime do not seem to decrease significantly during curfew hours. 101  Some research efforts have even found that, after curfews were implemented, victimizations increased significantly during noncurfew hours. This indicates that, rather than suppressing delinquency, curfews merely shift the time of occurrence of the offenses. Some studies have found that strict enforcement of curfew laws actually increases juvenile crime rates. 102  The failure of curfews to control crime coupled with their infringement on civil rights prompted the American Civil Liberties Union to condemn the practice. 103  Other civil libertarians maintain that curfews are an overreaction to juvenile crime, that they are ineffective, and give the police too much power to control citizens who are being punished merely because of their age. 104

Right now there are a number of ongoing legal challenges to curfew laws arguing that they are violations of the constitutional right to assembly, and some have been successful. A challenge to the Rochester, New York, law (Anonymous v. City of Rochester) found that the ordinance enabled police to arrest and interrogate a disproportionate percentage of minority youth; 94 percent of those picked up on curfew violations were black or Hispanic. On June 9, 2009, New York’s State Court of Appeals invalidated Rochester’s curfew, finding that the ordinance gives parents too little flexibility and autonomy in supervising their children, while violating children’s rights to freedom of movement, freedom of expression and association, and equal protection under the law. Influencing the court were data showing that young people in Rochester were more likely to be involved in a crime—either as a victim or offender—when the curfew was not in effect. 105  Similarly, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down provisions of a local curfew law that made it a crime for youth under 17 to be on the street after 11:00 pm unless accompanied by a parent or a guardian. While they left in place civil penalties that allowed individuals convicted of violating the curfew to be fined up to $300, it is no longer permissible to charge curfew violators with a crime. 106

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Intervention: Family Key Programs

Key programs focus on unlocking the potential of youth and families through a variety of residential and nonresidential program models and settings. Key provides direct services through child welfare, mental health, juvenile justice, and educational systems. Two such programs are discussed below.

Southwest Key

Southwest Key’s Alternatives to Out-of-Home Placement model is designed to provide highly effective case management services that prevent at-risk youth from repeat violations that could result in juvenile probation or detention. Youth and families are provided with a unique combination of support services designed to address the needs of their specific circumstances, discourage future acts of delinquent behavior, and promote positive youth development.

The level of service provided is tailored to the individualized need of the particular youth and family referred to the program. The individualized approach to the delivery of case management services allows each youth and family to receive the precise combination of services needed in response to their particular circumstances.

The model addresses the multiple contributing factors to a youth’s potential detention, including but not limited to multiple violations, failure to attend school, and curfew violations. Casework staff work in partnership with the youth and family to address and overcome these factors, ultimately supporting their efforts to lead law-abiding and productive lives.

Family Keys, Orange County, New York

Officials in Orange County, located approximately one hour north of New York City, became concerned about the projected impact of the state’s increasing number of at-risk kids, and therefore wanted to increase their jurisdiction over status offenders to age 18. After much study, and with the legislature’s backing, they adopted the Family Keys model. Under the program, the county probation department receives inquiries from parents about PINS (persons in need of supervision). If, after a brief screening, the intake officer finds sufficient allegations to support a PINS complaint, the officer refers the case to Family Keys rather than to probation intake. Depending on the severity of the case, Family Keys dispatches counselors to assess the family’s situation 2 to 48 hours after receiving a referral. Based on the assessment, the agency develops an appropriate short-term intervention plan for the youth and family and provides links to community-based programs. Family Keys works with the family for up to three weeks to ensure that the family is engaged in the service plan.

The Family Keys intervention takes place in lieu of filing a PINS complaint, provides intensive, short-term crisis intervention to families, and diverts PINS cases from the court system. When these short-term interventions do not suffice, cases are referred to an interagency team operated through the mental health department’s Network program. Following a family conferencing model, the Network team performs an in-depth assessment and serves as the gateway to the county’s most high-end services, such as multi-systemic therapy or family functional therapy. Under Orange County’s system, a PINS case is referred to court only as a last resort.

Evaluation of the Family Keys program has been very promising. The time between a parent’s first contact with probation and subsequent follow-up has decreased dramatically, from as long as six weeks under the previous system to as little as two hours through the Family Keys process.

·  93 percent of youths were living at home in the community with their parents/guardians. None had been placed in out-of-home care. This is a 7 percent increase from intake to exit of youths living at home and a 3 percent decrease in the number of youths whose living arrangement was categorized as “‘runaway.”

·  There was a 25 percent increase in the number of youths who improved “connectedness” with parents/guardians and a 24 percent increase in the number of youths who improved “connectedness” with a sibling or other family members.

·  School attendance remained the same, with 100 percent of the program youths regularly attending school.

·  There was an 18 percent increase in the number of youths who improved their health-protecting skills, which includes reducing use of alcohol and drugs.

The success of the Family Keys program has prompted other applications around the United States. In addition to the sites discussed above, the program is being used in sites such as Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Brownsville, and Houston, Texas; Erie County (Buffalo), New York; and more than 20 counties in Georgia and Wisconsin.

CRITICAL THINKING

How would you answer a critic who argues that all social programs should be cut and that social programs are a waste of time? Does the Orange County success story influence your thinking about intervening with troubled youth?

SOURCES: Southwest Key Programs,  http://www.swkey.org/about/  (accessed May 2013); Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Family Keys PINS Diversion Program,”  http://www2.dsgonline.com/dso2/dso_program_detail.aspx?ID=757&title=Family+Keys+PINS+Diversion+Program  (accessed May 2013).

Disciplining Parents

So what happens if kids repeatedly break curfew and get into trouble and their parents refuse or are incapable of doing anything about it? Since the early twentieth century, there have been laws aimed at disciplining parents for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The first of these was enacted in Colorado in 1903, and today all states have some form of statute requiring parents to take some responsibility for their children’s misbehavior. 107  All states make it either mandatory or discretionary for the juvenile court to require a parent or guardian to pay at least part of the support costs for a child who is adjudicated delinquent and placed out of the home. Even when the payment is required, however, it is based on the parent’s financial ability to make such payments. During the past decade, approximately one-half of the states enacted or strengthened existing parental liability statutes that make parents criminally liable for the actions of their delinquent children. These laws can generally fall into one of three categories:

·  Civil liability. An injured party may bring a case against the parents for property damage or personal injury caused by one of their children.

·  Criminal liability. The guardian or other adult may be held criminally responsible for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. These laws apply when an adult does some action that encourages delinquent behavior by a child.

·  General involvement. These statutes are based upon legislative efforts to make parents more involved in the juvenile court process and include such things as requiring the parents to pay for court costs, restitution, and treatment, and to participate in the juvenile’s case. Failure to comply with the parental involvement requirements can lead to more punitive sanctions. 108

Within this general framework there is a great deal of variation in responsibility laws. Some states (Florida, Idaho, Virginia) require parents to reimburse the government for the costs of detention or care of their children. Others (Maryland, Missouri, Oklahoma) demand that parents make restitution payments—for example, paying for damage caused by their children who vandalized a school. All states have incorporated parental liability laws in their statutes, although most recent legislation places limits on recovery; in some states, such as Texas, the upward boundary can be as much as $25,000.  Exhibit 1.4  illustrates three such statutes.

exhibit 1.4: Parental Responsibility Laws in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington

State	Auto	Property Damage	Personal Injury
Vermont	None	Liability up to $5,000 per child for willful or malicious damage to property. Vermont Statutes Title 15 Section 901.	Liability up to $5,000 per child for willful or malicious damage to person. Vermont Statutes Title 15 Section 901.
Virginia	None	Liability up to $2,500 for damage to public property by minor living with parents. Virginia Statutes Sec. 8.01-43. Same as to private property. Sec. 8.01-44.	None
Washington	None	Liability up to $5,000 for minor living with parents who willfully or maliciously defaces or destroys property. Revised Code of Washington Sec., 4.24.190.	None

© Cengage Learning 2015

Parents may also be held civilly liable, under the concept of vicarious liability, for the damages caused by their child. In some states, parents are responsible for up to $300,000 in damages; in others the liability cap is $3,500 (sometimes homeowner’s insurance covers at least some of liability). Parents can also be charged with civil negligence if they should have known of the damage a child was about to inflict but did nothing to stop it—for example, when they give a weapon to an emotionally unstable youth. Juries have levied awards of up to $500,000 in such cases. Since 1990 there have been at least 18 cases in which parents have been ordered to serve time in jail because their children have been truant from school.

Some critics charge that these laws contravene the right to due process, because they are unfairly used only against lower-class and minority parents. As legal scholar Elena Laskin points out, imposing penalties on these parents may actually be detrimental. 109  Forcing a delinquent’s mother to pay a fine removes money from someone who is already among society’s poorest people. If a single mother is sent to jail, it leaves her children, including those who are not delinquent, with no parent to raise them; the kids may become depressed, and lose concentration and sleep. Even if punishment encourages the parent to take action, 110  it may be too late, because by the time a parent is charged with violating the statute, the child has already committed a crime, indicating that any damaging socialization by the parent has already occurred. Finally, responsibility laws may not take the age of the child into account, leaving important questions unanswered: Are parents of older offenders equally responsible as those whose much younger children violate the law? Does an adolescent’s personal share of responsibility increase with age? Despite these problems, surveys indicate that the public favors parental responsibility laws. 111

A Final Word

Research shows that a majority of youth routinely engage in some form of status offenses and that those who refrain form an atypical minority. 112  “Illegal” acts such as teen sex and substance abuse have become normative and commonplace. It makes little sense to have the juvenile court intervene with kids who are caught in what has become routine teenage behavior. In contrast, juvenile court jurisdiction over status offenders may be defended if in fact the youths’ offending patterns are similar to those of delinquents. Is their current offense only the tip of an antisocial iceberg, or are they actually noncriminal youths who need only the loving hand of a substitute parent-figure interested in their welfare? Some find that status offenders are quite different from delinquents, but others note that many status offenders also had prior arrests for delinquent acts and that many delinquents exhibited behaviors that would define them as status offenders. 113

These disparate findings may be explained in part by the fact that there may be different types of status offenders, some similar to delinquents and others who are quite different. 114  It might be more realistic to divide status offenders into three groups: first-time status offenders, chronic status offenders, and those with both a delinquent record and a status offense record. 115  The fact that many young offenders have mixed delinquent–status offender records indicates that these legal categories are not entirely independent. It is also recognized that some “pure” first-time status offenders are quite different from delinquents and that a juvenile court experience can be harmful to them and escalate the frequency and seriousness of their law-violating behaviors. 116

The removal of these status offenders from the juvenile court is an issue that continues to be debated. The predominant view today is that many status offenders and delinquents share similar social and developmental problems and that consequently both categories should fall under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Not surprisingly, research does show that the legal processing of delinquents and status offenders remains quite similar. 117

SUMMARY

· 1 Become familiar with the problems of youth in American culture

·  Young people are extremely vulnerable to the negative consequences of school failure, substance abuse, and early sexuality.

·  Adolescents and young adults often experience stress, confusion, and depression because of trouble and conflict occurring in their families, schools, and communities.

·  The problems of American society and the daily stress of modern life have had a significant effect on our nation’s youth as they go through their tumultuous teenage years.

· 2 Distinguish between ego identity and role diffusion

·  According to psychologist Erik Erikson, adolescence is a time of trial and uncertainty for many youths.

·  According to Erik Erikson, ego identity is formed when youths develop a full sense of the self, combining how they see themselves and how they fit in with others.

·  Role diffusion occurs when people spread themselves too thin, experience personal uncertainty, and place themselves at the mercy of people who promise to give them a sense of identity they cannot develop for themselves.

· 3 Discuss the specific issues facing American youth

·  Many children suffer from chronic health problems and receive inadequate health care.

·  Children are living in substandard housing—high-rise, multiple-family dwellings—which can have a negative influence on their long-term psychological health.

·  Although all young people face stress in the education system, the risks are greatest for the poor, members of racial and ethnic minorities, and recent immigrants.

·  Minority kids usually attend the most underfunded schools, receive inadequate educational opportunities, and have the fewest opportunities to achieve conventional success.

· 4 Understand the concept of being “at risk” and discuss why so many kids take risks

·  Troubles in the home, the school, and the neighborhood, coupled with health and developmental hazards, have placed a significant portion of American youth at risk to delinquency and substance abuse.

·  Youths considered at risk are those dabbling in various forms of dangerous conduct such as drug abuse, alcohol use, and precocious sexuality.

·  Why do youths take such chances? Taking risks is normative among teens.

· 5 Be familiar with the recent social improvements enjoyed by American youth

·  Teenage birthrates nationwide have declined substantially during the past decade.

·  More children are being read to by their parents than ever before.

·  Fewer children with health risks are being born today than in 1990.

· 6 Discuss why the study of delinquency is so important and what this study entails

·  The problems of youth in modern society are both a major national concern and an important subject for academic study.

·  Though most juvenile law violations are minor, some young offenders are extremely dangerous and violent.

·  Some youths involved in multiple serious criminal acts are referred to as lifestyle, repeat, or chronic delinquent offenders.

·  The scientific study of delinquency requires understanding the nature, extent, and cause of youthful law violations and the methods devised for their control. The study of delinquency also involves analysis of the law enforcement, court, and correctional agencies designed to treat youthful offenders who fall into the arms of the law—known collectively as the juvenile justice system.

· 7 Describe the life of children during feudal times

·  In Europe, during the Middle Ages (roughly 500 to 1500 ce), the concept of childhood as we know it today did not exist.

·  In the paternalistic family of the time, the father was the final authority on all family matters and exercised complete control over the social, economic, and physical well-being of the family.

·  Western culture did not have a sense of childhood as a distinct period of life until the very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

·  Discipline was severe during this period. Young children of all classes were subjected to stringent rules and regulations. They were beaten severely for any sign of disobedience or ill temper.

·  The roots of the impersonal relationship between parent and child can be traced to high mortality rates, which made sentimental and affectionate relationships risky.

· 8 Discuss the treatment of children in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries

·  Extended families gave way to the nuclear family structure with which we are familiar today.

·  To provide more control over children, grammar and boarding schools were established and began to flourish in many large cities during this time.

·  The philosophy of the Enlightenment stressed a humanistic view of life, freedom, family, reason, and law. The ideal person was sympathetic to others and receptive to new ideas.

·  Under the apprenticeship system, children were placed in the care of adults who trained them to discharge various duties and obtain skills.

·  Chancery courts became a significant arm of the British legal system.

·  The parens patriae concept gave the state the power to act on behalf of the child and provide care and protection equivalent to that of a parent.

· 9 Discuss childhood in the American colonies

·  The colonies adopted Poor Laws systems similar to those in England.

·  Apprenticeship, indenture, and binding out of children became integral parts of colonization in America.

·  In America, as in England, moral discipline was rigidly enforced. “Stubborn child” laws were passed that required children to obey their parents.

·  Although judges considered the age of an offender when deciding punishments, both adults and children were often eligible for the same forms of punishment—prison, corporal punishment, and even the death penalty.

· 10 Know about the child savers and the creation of delinquency

·  Child savers were nineteenth-century reformers who developed programs for troubled youth and influenced legislation creating the juvenile justice system.

·  The designation “delinquent” became popular at the onset of the twentieth century when the first separate juvenile courts were instituted.

·  The state, through its juvenile authorities, was expected to act in the best interests of the child.

·  This philosophical viewpoint encourages the state to take control of wayward children and provide care, custody, and treatment to remedy delinquent behavior.

· 11 Discuss the elements of juvenile delinquency today

·  Today, the legal status of “juvenile delinquent” refers to a minor child who has been found to have violated the penal code.

·  Most states define “minor child” as an individual who falls under a statutory age limit, most commonly 17 or 18 years of age.

·  Because of their minority status, juveniles are usually kept separate from adults and receive different consideration and treatment under the law.

·  Under parens patriae, delinquent acts are not considered criminal violations nor are delinquents considered criminals. Children cannot be found guilty of a crime and punished like adult criminals.

·  Although youths share a lesser degree of legal responsibility than adults, they are subject to arrest, trial, and incarceration.

· 12 Know what is meant by the term status offender

·  A child also becomes subject to state authority for committing status offenses—actions that would not be considered illegal if perpetrated by an adult; such conduct includes running away, truancy, and disobedience.

·  State control over a child’s noncriminal behavior is believed to support and extend the parens patriae philosophy because it is assumed to be in the best interests of the child.

·  Separate status offense categories may avoid some of the stigma associated with the delinquency label, but they can have relatively little practical effect on the child’s treatment.

·  Those in favor of retaining the status offense category point to society’s responsibility to care for troubled youths.

KEY TERMS

Roper v. Simmons,  p. 3

Miller v. Alabama,  p. 3

ego identity,  p. 5

role diffusion,  p. 5

at-risk youth,  p. 5

cyberbullying,  p. 10

juvenile delinquency,  p. 13

chronic delinquent offenders,  p. 13

aging-out process,  p. 13

persistence,  p. 13

juvenile justice system,  p. 13

paternalistic family,  p. 14

primogeniture,  p. 16

swaddling,  p. 16

Poor Laws,  p. 17

chancery courts,  p. 18

parens patriae,  p. 18

child savers,  p. 20

best interests of the child,  p. 20

waiver,  p. 22

status offense,  p. 23

wayward minors,  p. 23

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP),  p. 25

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Is it fair to have a separate legal category for youths? Considering how dangerous young people can be, does it make more sense to group offenders on the basis of what they have done and not on their age?

2.

At what age are juveniles truly capable of understanding the seriousness of their actions?

3.

Is it fair to institutionalize a minor simply for being truant or running away from home? Should the jurisdiction of status offenders be removed from juvenile court and placed with the state department of social services or some other welfare organization?

4.

Should delinquency proceedings be secret? Does the public have the right to know who juvenile criminals are?

5.

Can a get-tough policy help control juvenile misbehavior, or should parens patriae remain the standard?

6.

Should juveniles who commit felonies such as rape or robbery be treated as adults?

VIEWPOINT

As the governor of a large southern state, you have been asked by a young man’s family and friends to grant him a pardon. Nathaniel B. was convicted of second-degree murder in 1995 and received a sentence of 28 years in the state penal system. Tried as an adult, he was found guilty of murder for intentionally killing Mr. Barry G., his English teacher, because he was angry over receiving a failing grade and being suspended for throwing water balloons. During trial, Nathaniel’s attorney claimed that the gun Nathaniel brought to school had gone off accidentally after he pointed it at Mr. G. in an attempt to force him to let Nathaniel talk to two girls in the classroom.

“As he’s holding the gun up, he’s overwhelmed with tears,” Nathaniel’s lawyer told the jury. “His hand begins to shake, and the gun discharges. The gun discharged in the hands of an inexperienced 13-year-old with a junk gun.” The prosecutor countered that Nathaniel’s act was premeditated. He was frustrated because he was receiving an F in the class, and he was angry because he was being barred from talking to the girls. His victim “had no idea of the rage, hate, the anger, the frustration” filling the young man. There was also damaging information from police, who reported that Nathaniel told a classmate he was going to return to school and shoot the teacher; he said he’d be “all over the news.”

At his sentencing hearing, Nathaniel read a statement: “Words cannot really explain how sorry I am, but they’re all I have.” His mother, Polly, blamed herself for her son’s actions, claiming that he was surrounded by domestic abuse and alcoholism at home.

Now that he has served seven years in prison, Nathaniel’s case has come to your attention. As governor, you recognize that his conviction and punishment raise a number of important issues. His mother claims that his actions were a product of abuse and violence in the home. You have read research showing that many habitually aggressive children have been raised in homes in which they were physically brutalized by their parents; this violence then persists into adulthood.

·  Should troubled children, such as Nathaniel, be punished again by the justice system?

·  Should Nathaniel be held personally responsible for actions that may in fact have been caused by a home life beyond his control?

·  Even though he was only 13 years old when he committed his crime, Nathaniel’s case was heard in an adult court, and he received a long sentence to an adult prison. Should minor children who commit serious crimes, as Nathaniel did, be treated as adults, or should they be tried within an independent juvenile justice system oriented to treatment and rehabilitation?

·  Would you pardon Nathaniel now that he has served more than seven years in prison?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

Before you make your decision in Nathaniel’s case, you might want to look at the website of Children’s Rights ( http://www.childrensrights.org/ ), a group that fights to enshrine in the law of the land every child’s right to be protected from abuse and neglect and to grow up in a safe, stable, permanent home. In addition, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice (CJJ) has championed children and promoted community safety. The coalition’s website ( http://www.juvjustice.org/ ) provides information on judicial waiver. You can also find these websites by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com  and accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012),  http://www.scotusblog.com/miller-v-alabama/  (accessed May 2013).

2. US Bureau of the Census, Age and Sex Composition (Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, 2010),  http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/wbriefs/c2010br-03.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

3. Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: W. H. Norton, 1963).

4. Roger Gould, “Adult Life Stages: Growth toward Self-Tolerance,” Psychology Today 8:74–78 (1975).

5. Robin Malinosky-Rummell and David Hansen, “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Physical Abuse,” Psychological Bulletin 114:68–79 (1993).

6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Suicide Prevention: Youth Suicide,”  http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pub/youth_suicide.html  (accessed May 2013).

7. Steven Martino, Rebecca Collins, Marc Elliott, Amy Strachman, David Kanouse, and Sandra Berry, “Exposure to Degrading versus Nondegrading Music Lyrics and Sexual Behavior Among Youth,” Pediatrics 118:430–441 (2006).

8. Children’s Defense Fund, “The State of America’s Children, 2012,”  http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-of-americas-children-2010-report-key-facts.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

9. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012 HHS Poverty Guidelines, One Version of the [U.S.] Federal Poverty Measure,  http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml  (accessed May 2013).

10. Children’s Defense Fund, The Impact of Rising Poverty on the Nation’s Young Families and Their Children, 2000–2010, CDF Policy Brief #1m September 2011,  http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/the-impact-of-rising-poverty.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012, Health Care,  http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/care.asp  (accessed May 2013).

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Children’s Defense Fund, State of America’s Children, 2012.

17. Ibid.

18. Children’s Defense Fund, Black and White: Black Children Compared to White Children,  http://www.childrensdefense.org/programs-campaigns/black-community-crusade-for-children-II/bccc-assets/black-and-white-factsheet.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

19. American Psychological Survey press release, “APA Survey Raises Concern about Health Impact of Stress on Children and Families,” November 9, 2010,  http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/11/stress-in-america.aspx  (accessed May 2013).

20. David Eggebeen and Daniel Lichter, “Race, Family Structure, and Changing Poverty among American Children,” American Sociological Review 56:801–817 (1991).

21. Gary Evans, Nancy Wells, and Annie Moch, “Housing and Mental Health: A Review of the Evidence and a Methodological and Conceptual Critique,” Journal of Social Issues 59:475–501 (2003).

22. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012,  http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/  (accessed May 2013).

23. Children’s Defense Fund, “The State of America’s Children, 2012.”

24. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012, Education,  http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/edu.asp  (accessed May 2013).

25. National Center for Education Statistics, “The Condition of Education, 2013,”  http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/  (accessed May 2013).

26. Children’s Defense Fund, “Elementary and High School Education,”  http://www.childrensdefense.org/policy-priorities/elementary-high-school-education/  (accessed May 2013).

27. Ibid.

28. Forum on Child and Family Statistics, “America’s Children in Brief.”

29. Kevin Cullen, “The Untouchable Mean Girls,” Boston Globe, January 24, 2010,  http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/24/the_untouchable_mean_girls/  (accessed May 2013).

30. Jane Ireland and Rachel Monaghan, “Behaviours Indicative of Bullying among Young and Juvenile Male Offenders: A Study of Perpetrator and Victim Characteristics,” Aggressive Behavior 32:172–180 (2006).

31. This section leans heavily on Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, “Bullies Move Beyond the Schoolyard: A Preliminary Look at Cyber-bullying” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:148–169 (2006).

32. Ibid.

33. Justin Patchin, “How Many Teens Are Actually Involved in Cyber-bullying?” April 4, 2012,  http://cyberbullying.us/blog/how-many-teens-are-actually-involved-in-cyberbullying.html  (accessed May 2013).

34. Justin Patchin and Sameer Hinduja, Cyberbullying Research Center,  http://cyberbullying.us/research.php  (accessed May 2013).

35. Janis Wolak, David Finkelhor, Kimberly Mitchell, and Michele Ybarra, “Online ‘Predators’ and Their Victims: Myths, Realities, and Implications for Prevention and Treatment,” American Psychologist 63:111–128 (2008).

36. Mike Celizic, “Her Teen Committed Suicide over ‘Sexting’: Cynthia Logan’s Daughter Was Taunted About Photo She Sent to Boyfriend,” Today: Parenting, March 6, 2009,  http://www.today.com/id/29546030/  (accessed November 2009).

37. Kimberly Mitchell, David Finkelhor, Lisa Jones, and Janis Wolak, “Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study,” Pediatrics 129:1–8 (2012).

38. Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “U.S. High School Students Improve Motor Vehicle-Related Health Behaviors,” June 7, 2012,  http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0607_yrb_telebriefing.html  (accessed May 2013).

39. Ibid.

40. Thomas Snyder and Sally Dillow, Digest of Education Statistics 2011 (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, 2012), http://nces .ed.gov/pubs2012/2012001.pdf (accessed May 2013).

41. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011, Table 41 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2012),  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-41  (accessed May 2013).

42. Mark Cohen, Alex R. Piquero, and Wesley G. Jennings, “Studying the Costs of Crime Across Offender Trajectories,” Criminology and Public Policy 9:279–305 (2010); Cohen, Piquero, and Jennings, “Monetary Costs of Gender and Ethnicity Disaggregated Group-Based Offending,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 35:159–172 (2010).

43. John Whitehead and Steven Lab, “A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Correctional Treatment,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26:276–295 (1989).

44. See Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England: 1500–1800 (New York: Harper & Row, 1977).

45. This section relies on Jackson Spielvogel, Western Civilization (St. Paul, MN: West, 1991), pp. 279–286.

46. Philippe Aries, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life (New York: Knopf, 1962).

47. Nicholas Orme, Medieval Children (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003).

48. Aries, Centuries of Childhood.

49. See Douglas R. Rendleman, “Parens Patriae: From Chancery to the Juvenile Court,” South Carolina Law Review 23:205 (1971).

50. See Stone, The Family, Sex, and Marriage in England, and Lawrence Stone, ed., Schooling and Society: Studies in the History of Education (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970).

51. Ibid.

52. See Wiley B. Sanders, “Some Early Beginnings of the Children’s Court Movement in England,” National Probation Association Yearbook (New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1945).

53. Douglas Besharov, Juvenile Justice Advocacy—Practice in a Unique Court (New York: Practicing Law Institute, 1974), p. 2.

54. Rendleman, “Parens Patriae.”

55. See Anthony Platt, “The Rise of the Child Saving Movement: A Study in Social Policy and Correctional Reform,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 381:21–38 (1969).

56. Robert H. Bremner, ed., and John Barnard, Tamara K. Hareven, and Robert M. Mennel, asst. eds., Children and Youth in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 64.

57. Elizabeth Pleck, “Criminal Approaches to Family Violence, 1640–1980,” in Lloyd Ohlin and Michael Tonry, eds., Family Violence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 19–58.

58. Ibid.

59. John R. Sutton, Stubborn Children: Controlling Delinquency in the United States, 1640–1981 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).

60. Pleck, “Criminal Approaches to Family Violence,” p. 29.

61. John Demos, Past, Present and Personal (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), pp. 80–88.

62. Elizabeth Pleck, Domestic Tyranny: The Making of Social Policy against Family Violence from Colonial Times to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 28–30.

63. Graeme Newman, The Punishment Response (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1978), pp. 53–79.

64. Stephen J. Morse, “Immaturity and Irresponsibility,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88:15–67 (1997).

65. Hudson Sangree, “Juvenile Defendants May Be Too Immature to Stand Trial, Appeals Panel Says,” Sacramento Bee, May 11, 2007,  www.rtumble.com/archive/07_05_10.htm  (accessed August 2013).

66. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book, released December 17, 2012,  http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/structure_process/qa04101.asp?qaDate=2011  (accessed May 2013).

67. Shay Bilchik, “Sentencing Juveniles to Adult Facilities Fails Youths and Society,” Corrections Today 65:21 (2003).

68. Kareem Jordan and David Myers, “Juvenile Transfer and Deterrence: Reexamining the Effectiveness of a ‘Get-Tough’ Policy,” Crime and Delinquency 57:247–270 (2011).

69. Campaign for Youth Justice,  http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/Downloads/Resources/jjdpafactbook.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

70. M. Wakefield and G. Giovino, “Teen Penalties for Tobacco Possession, Use, and Purchase: Evidence and Issues,” Tobacco Control 12:6–13 (2003).

71. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011, Table 28 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2012),  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-38  (accessed May 2013).

72. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and National Center for Juvenile Justice, Juvenile Court Statistics, 2009 (Washington, DC: 2012),  http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/239114.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

73. See David Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971).

74. Quote from Jerry Tyler, Thomas Segady, and Stephen Austin, “Parental Liability Laws: Rationale, Theory, and Effectiveness,” Social Science Journal 37:79–97 (2000).

75. Reports of the Chicago Bar Association Committee, 1899, cited in Anthony Platt, The Child Savers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), p. 119.

76. L. Kris Gowen, S. Shirley Feldman, Rafael Diaz, and Donnovan Somera Yisrael, “A Comparison of the Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes of Adolescent Girls with Older vs. Similar-Aged Boyfriends,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33:167–176 (2004).

77. David J. Steinharthe, Status Offenses: The Future of Children 6(3) (The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Winter 1996).

78. To read more about the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention programs and priorities, go to  http://www.ojjdp.gov .

79. 42 U.S.C.A. 5601–5751 (1983 and Supp. 1987).

80. Claudia Wright, “Contempt No Excuse for Locking Up Status Offenders, Says Florida Supreme Court,” Youth Law News 13:1–3 (1992).

81. Susanna Zawacki, “Girls’ Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System,” Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Statistical Bulletin, October 2005,  http://www.ncjj.org/Publication/Girls-Involvement-in-Pennsylvanias-Juvenile-Justice-System.aspx  (accessed May 2013).

82. Barry Feld, “Violent Girls or Relabeled Status Offenders? An Alternative Interpretation of the Data,” Crime and Delinquency 55:241–265 (2009).

83. Steinharthe, Status Offenses, p. 5.

84. Wesley Jennings, “Sex Disaggregated Trajectories of Status Offenders: Does CINS/FINS Status Prevent Male and Female Youth from Becoming Labeled Delinquent?” American Journal of Criminal Justice 36:177–187 (2011).

85. National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), p. 311.

86. American Bar Association Joint Commission on Juvenile Justice Standards, Summary and Analysis (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977), sect. 1.1.

87. American Bar Association, Youth at Risk Initiative Planning Conference, March 22, 2006,  http://cafety.org/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=431&itemid=2  (accessed May 2013).

88. Connecticut Superior Court for Juvenile Matters, 46-3-31, Families with Service Needs (FWSN),  http://www.dir.ct.gov/dcf/policy/court46/46-3-31.htm  (accessed May 2013).

89. New York State Office of Children and Family Services, “Chapter 57 of the Laws of 2005, PINS Reform Legislation Summary, Effective April 1, 2005,”  http://www.ocfs.state.ny.us/main/legal/legislation/pins/  (accessed May 2013).

90. Gail Robinson and Tim Arnold, “Changes in Laws Impacting Juveniles—An Overview,” The Advocate 22:14–15 (2000).

91. Barry Feld, “Criminalizing the American Juvenile Court,” in Michael Tonry, ed., Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 232.

92. Sean Kidd,” Factors Precipitating Suicidality Among Homeless Youth: A Quantitative Follow-up,” Youth and Society 37:393–422 (2006); Kimberly Tyler et al., “Self-Mutilation and Homeless Youth: The Role of Family Abuse, Street Experiences, and Mental Disorders,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 13:457–474 (2003).

93. Thomas Kelley, “Status Offenders Can Be Different: A Comparative Study of Delinquent Careers,” Crime and Delinquency 29:365–380 (1983).

94. Ira Schwartz, (In)justice for Juveniles: Rethinking the Best Interests of the Child (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989), p. 171.

95. Ibid.

96. Lawrence Martin and Phyllis Snyder, “Jurisdiction over Status Offenses Should Not Be Removed from the Juvenile Court,” Crime and Delinquency 22:44–47 (1976).

97. Lindsay Arthur, “Status Offenders Need a Court of Last Resort,” Boston University Law Review 57:631–644 (1977).

98. Martin and Snyder, “Jurisdiction over Status Offenses Should Not Be Removed from the Juvenile Court,” p. 47.

99. David McDowall and Colin Loftin, “The Impact of Youth Curfew Laws on Juvenile Crime Rates,” Crime and Delinquency 46:76–92 (2000).

100. Tony Favro, “Youth Curfews Popular with American Cities, But Effectiveness and Legality Are Questioned,” City Mayors Society, July 21, 2009,  http://www.citymayors.com/society/usa-youth-curfews.html  (accessed May 2013).

101. Danny Cole, “The Effect of a Curfew Law on Juvenile Crime in Washington, D.C.,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 27:217–232 (2003).

102. Kenneth Adams, “The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587:136–159 (2003); Canadian Parental Responsibility Act, 2000 S.O. 2000,  Chapter 4 ,  http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_00p04_e.htm  (accessed May 2013).

103. Michael Luke, “ACLU, Others Take Aim at Expanding Teen Curfew Citywide,” WWLTV Eyewitness News, January 18, 2012, http://www .wwltv.com/news/ACLU-others-take-aim-at-expanding-teen-curfew-citywide-137592918.html (accessed May 2013).

104. Margaret Anne Cleek, John Youril, Michael Youril, and Richard Guarino, “Don’t Worry, It’s Just a Tool: Enacting Selectively Enforced Laws Such as Curfew Laws Targeting Only the Bad Guys,” Justice Policy Journal 7:1–23 (2010).

105. Anonymous v. City of Rochester (2009),  http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I09_0095.htm  (accessed May 2013).

106. Jonathan Saltzman, “SJC Sharply Limits Youth Curfew Law: Bars Criminal Charge, Allows Civil Penalty,” Boston Globe, September 26, 2009.

107. Gilbert Geis and Arnold Binder, “Sins of Their Children: Parental Responsibility for Juvenile Delinquency,” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 5:303–322 (1991).

108. Eve Brank, Edie Greene, and Katherine Hochevar, “Holding Parents Responsible: Is Vicarious Responsibility the Public’s Answer to Juvenile Crime?” Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17:507–529 (2011).

109. Elena Laskin, “How Parental Liability Statutes Criminalize and Stigmatize Minority Mothers,” American Criminal Law Review 37:1195–1217 (2000).

110. Brank, Greene, and Hochevar, “Holding Parents Responsible: Is Vicarious Responsibility the Public’s Answer to Juvenile Crime?”

111. Eve Brank and Victoria Weisz, “Paying for the Crimes of Their Children: Public Support of Parental Responsibility” Journal of Criminal Justice 32:465–475 (2004).

112. Carolyn Smith, “Factors Associated with Early Sexual Activity among Urban Adolescents,” Social Work 42:334–346 (1997).

113. Charles Thomas, “Are Status Offenders Really So Different?” Crime and Delinquency 22:438–455 (1976); Howard Snyder, Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1988), p. 65.

114. Randall Shelden, John Horvath, and Sharon Tracy, “Do Status Offenders Get Worse? Some Clarifications on the Question of Escalation,” Crime and Delinquency 35:202–216 (1989).

115. Solomon Kobrin, Frank Hellum, and John Peterson, “Offense Patterns of Status Offenders,” in D. Shichor and D. Kelly, eds., Critical Issues in Juvenile Delinquency (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980), pp. 203–235.

116. Schwartz, (In)justice for Juveniles, pp. 378–379.

117. Chris Marshall, Ineke Marshall, and Charles Thomas, “The Implementation of Formal Procedures in Juvenile Court Processing of Status Offenders,” Journal of Criminal Justice 11:195–211 (1983

The Nature and Extent of Delinquency

Chapter Outline

Official Records of Delinquency: The Uniform Crime Report

· Compiling the Uniform Crime Report

· Is the UCR Valid?

· The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

Self-Report Surveys

· Are Self-Reports Valid?

· National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

Trends in Crime and Delinquency

· What the UCR Tells Us about Delinquency

· Juvenile Arrest Trends

· Self-Reported Findings

· Are the Data Sources Compatible?

· What the Future Holds

Correlates of Delinquency

· The Time and Place of Delinquency

· Gender and Delinquency

· Race and Delinquency

· Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Delinquency

· Age and Delinquency

Chronic Offending: Careers in Delinquency

· Delinquency in a Birth Cohort

· What Causes Chronic Offending?

· Policy Implications

Juvenile Victimization

· Juvenile Victimization Trends

· Teen Victims

Learning Objectives

· 1 Explain how the UCR data are gathered and used

· 2 Discuss the concept of self-reported delinquency

· 3 Be familiar with the National Crime Victimization Survey

· 4 Describe alternative measures of delinquent activity and behavior

· 5 Be familiar with recent trends in juvenile delinquency

· 6 Recognize the factors that affect the juvenile crime rate

· 7 List and discuss the social and personal correlates of delinquency

· 8 Discuss the concept of the chronic offender

· 9 Identify the causes of chronic offending

· 10 Be familiar with the factors that predict teen victimization

chapter features

focus on Delinquency: Juvenile Sex Offenders

focus on Delinquency: Shaping Delinquency Trends

Case profile: Jamesetta’s Story

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice— treatment: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Youth stories: Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Dugard, and Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight

cyber Delinquency: Christopher Gunn

ON JANUARY 31, 2013, two teenage boys, Leonel Contreras (shown here) and William Steven Rodriguez, who kidnapped and sexually assaulted two girls in a San Diego park, were sentenced to at least 50 years in prison. Though they were both 16 years old when they committed the crime, they were tried as adults and convicted of various charges, including conspiracy, rape, kidnapping, and the use of a knife.

The two boys had kidnapped their victims, ages 15 and 16, as they walked along a greenbelt behind a residential neighborhood. They took them to a secluded area and subjected them to multiple sex acts in a brutal attack that lasted 30 to 40 minutes. At the sentencing hearing, the judge told them, “You robbed them [the victims] of their spirit… It was brutal, callous, and ruthless. If I could sentence you to 645 years I would, but the law says I can’t do that. Since you were a minor you were spared that sentence.” In court, a letter was read from the family of one of the girls, detailing the victim’s struggles since the attack. The letter said that the defendants stole “something they had no right to take.” Their victim had constant nightmares but “has chosen not to live as a victim” and to “work toward healing.” To the mothers of the defendants, the victim’s parents said, “Our hearts break for you.” 1

While many people believe that when adolescents commit crime they stick to petty offenses—shoplifting, smoking pot, spray painting their school—cases like the rapes in San Diego show that the opposite is often true. Kids today engage in serious crimes involving robbery, rapes, and even murder (see the Focus on Delinquency feature). Who commits these serious acts, and where are they most likely to occur? Is the juvenile crime rate increasing or decreasing? Are juveniles more likely than adults to become the victims of crime? To understand the causes of delinquent behavior and to devise effective means to reduce its occurrence, we must seek answers to these questions. When experts want to find out more about the nature and extent of delinquency, they rely on three primary sources of data: official records, victim surveys, and self-report surveys. It is important to understand how these data sets are collected to gain insight into how delinquency is measured and what the data sources tell us about youth crime and victimization. Each is discussed in detail in this chapter.

Official Records of Delinquency: The Uniform Crime Report

Some of the most valuable information about delinquent behavior comes from data collected from local law enforcement agencies by the  Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)  and published yearly in their  Uniform Crime Report (UCR) . The UCR includes both criminal acts reported to local law enforcement departments and the number of arrests made by police agencies. 2  The FBI receives and compiles records from more than 17,000 police departments serving a majority of the US population. The FBI tallies and annually publishes the number of reported offenses by city, county, standard metropolitan statistical area, and geographical divisions of the United States for the most serious crimes, referred to as  Part I crimes : murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, arson, and motor vehicle theft.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Arm of the US Department of Justice that investigates violations of federal law, gathers crime statistics, runs a comprehensive crime laboratory, and helps train local law enforcement officers.

Uniform Crime Report (UCR)

Compiled by the FBI, the UCR is the most widely used source of national crime and delinquency statistics.

Part I crimes

Offenses including homicide and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, arson, and motor vehicle theft; recorded by local law enforcement officers, these crimes are tallied quarterly and sent to the FBI for inclusion in the UCR.

FOCUS on delinquency: Juvenile Sex Offenders

Among the most serious adolescent offenders are those who commit sex offenses against other minors. Though people who are described as “pedophiles” or “predators” are often thought of as adults, it is important to understand that a substantial portion of these offenses are committed by other minors who do not fit the image of “sex offender.” The number of youths who commit sexual offenses has grown in recent years and now makes up more than a third of all sex offenders known to the police. Sociologists David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, and Mark Chaffin recently reviewed existing information on juvenile sex offenders and examined police data in order to determine trends in reported juvenile sex offending.

What Do They Do, and Why Do They Do It?

Clinical studies show a diversity of behaviors that bring youths into clinical settings, including but not limited to: sharing pornography with younger children; fondling a child over their clothes; grabbing peers in a sexual way at school; date rape; gang rape; or sex with a much younger child. Offenses can involve a single event, a few isolated events, or a large number of events with multiple victims. Juvenile sex offenders come from a variety of social and family backgrounds and can either be well-functioning or have multiple problems. A number but not all have experienced maltreatment or exposure to violence. In some cases, a history of childhood sexual abuse appears to contribute to later juvenile sex offending, but most sexual abuse victims do not become sex offenders. Among preteen children with sexual behavior problems, a history of sexual abuse is particularly prevalent.

In addition to a diversity of backgrounds, variety in motivation is evident. Some juvenile sex offenders seem to be motivated primarily by sexual curiosity. Others have long-standing patterns of violating the rights of others. Some offenses occur in conjunction with serious mental health problems. Some of the offending behavior is compulsive, but it more often appears impulsive or reflects poor judgment.

Very Young Offenders

Most juvenile sex offenders are teenagers, but about 16 percent of those who come to police attention are younger than age 12. Professionals commonly use other terms, such as “children with sexual behavior problems,” to describe this group. Younger offenders are also more likely to offend against family members and in a residential environment, and to target male victims close to their own age. Their most serious offense is more likely to be fondling and less likely to be rape.

Female Juvenile Sex Offenders

Female juvenile sex offenders are another group that has attracted a particular interest among clinicians and law enforcement officials. They constitute only a small proportion (7 percent) of all juvenile sex offenders, but they have several features that distinguish them from male juvenile sex offenders. Female offenders are younger than their male counterparts. Of the female offenders, 31 percent were younger than 12, compared with 14 percent of male offenders. Female offenders were considerably more likely than male offenders to offend in conjunction with others (36 percent versus 23 percent) and in conjunction with adults (13 percent versus 5 percent). They were also more likely than male offenders to be involved in incidents with multiple victims (23 percent versus 12 percent) and to be considered by investigators to be victims at the same time they were offending. Female offenders are somewhat more likely to offend in a residence or home and less likely to offend at a school. They were more likely than male offenders to have male victims (37 percent versus 21 percent) and victims younger than age 11 (60 percent versus 43 percent).

CRITICAL THINKING

Should juvenile offenders be treated or punished? Do you view them as being younger versions of adult pedophiles, or are they a separate class who were most likely victims themselves?

SOURCE: David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, and Mark Chaffin, “Juveniles Who Commit Sex Offenses Against Minors” (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009),  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

In addition to these statistics, the UCR gathers data on the number and characteristics (age, race, and gender) of individuals who have been arrested for these and all other crimes, referred to as  Part II crimes ). This is particularly important for delinquency research because it shows how many minors are arrested each year.

Part II crimes

All crimes other than Part I crimes; recorded by local law enforcement officers, arrests for these crimes are tallied quarterly and sent to the FBI for inclusion in the UCR.

Compiling the Uniform Crime Report

The methods used to compile the UCR are quite complex. Each month, law enforcement agencies report the number of crimes known to them. These data are collected from records of all crime complaints that victims, officers who discovered the infractions, or other sources reported to these agencies.

Whenever crime complaints are found through investigation to be unfounded or false, they are eliminated from the actual count. However, the number of actual offenses known is reported to the FBI whether or not anyone is arrested for the crime, the stolen property is recovered, or prosecution ensues.

In addition, each month, law enforcement agencies also report how many crimes were cleared. Crimes are cleared in two ways: (1) when at least one person is arrested, charged, and turned over to the court for prosecution, or (2) by exceptional means, when some element beyond police control precludes the physical arrest of an offender (such as when the offender leaves the country). Data on the number of clearances involving the arrest of only juvenile offenders, data on the value of property stolen and recovered in connection with Part I offenses, and detailed information pertaining to criminal homicide are also reported. Traditionally, slightly more than 20 percent of all reported Part I crimes are cleared by arrest each year (see  Figure 2.1 ).

figure 2.1: Percent of Crimes Cleared by Arrest

SOURCE: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011.

Violent crimes are more likely to be solved than property crimes because police devote additional resources to these more serious acts. For these types of crime, witnesses (including the victim) are frequently available to identify offenders, and in many instances the victim and offender were previously acquainted.

The UCR uses three methods to express crime data. First, the number of crimes reported to the police and arrests made are expressed as raw figures (for instance, 14,612 murders occurred in 2011). Second, crime rates per 100,000 people are computed. That is, when the UCR indicates that the murder rate was 5 in 2011, it means that 4.7 people in every 100,000 were murdered between January 1 and December 31, 2011. This is the equation used:

Number of Reported CrimesTotal U.S. Population  × 100 , 000 = Rate per  100 , 000

Third, the FBI computes changes in the number and rate of crime over time. Murder rates decreased 1.5 percent between 2010 and 2011; between 2007 and 2011, the murder rate declined 17 percent; since 2002, the murder rate has decreased almost 17 percent.

Is the UCR Valid?

Though the UCR is the primary source of official crime data, experts have long questioned its accuracy. Surveys indicate that fewer than half of all crime victims report incidents to police. Those who don’t report crime may believe that the victimization was a “private/personal matter,” that the crime was “not important enough,” to report or it was “reported to some other official.” 3  Some victims do not trust the police or have confidence in their ability to solve crimes. Others do not have property insurance and therefore believe it is useless to report theft. In other cases, victims fear reprisals from an offender’s friends or family or, in the case of family violence, from their spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. 4  They may believe that they are themselves somehow responsible for the crime: for example, the date rape victim who was drinking or took drugs before the attack. 5  Some crimes that directly influence children, such as child abuse, may be underreported considering the age of the victims and their ability to contact police authorities. Crime reporting practices can have a significant influence on the crime rate and can shape the crime trends reported in the UCR. 6  What may be viewed as a significant decline in crime may in fact represent a change in victims’ behavior more than in criminals’ behavior.

Another problem: local law enforcement agencies may make intentional and/or unintentional errors in their reporting practices. Some departments may define crimes loosely—for example, reporting an assault on a woman as an attempted rape—whereas others pay strict attention to FBI guidelines. 7  There is evidence that, under intense political pressure, police departments may alter record keeping to show they are effective at fighting crime and their methods are providing positive results. 8  And ironically, as the tech revolution takes hold, police departments are getting better at recording and reporting crime. In some local jurisdictions, what appears to be a rising crime rate may simply be an artifact of improved police record-keeping ability! 9

The complex scoring procedure used by the FBI means that many serious crimes are not counted. For example, during an armed bank robbery, the offender strikes a teller with the butt of a handgun. The offender then runs from the bank and steals an automobile at the curb. Although the offender has technically committed robbery, aggravated assault, and motor vehicle theft, because robbery is the most serious offense, it is the only one recorded in the UCR. 10  There are also definitional differences between jurisdictions so that what might be considered a minor crime in one state may be ranked as a felony in another. Because definitions of crime are constantly shifting, those used in the UCR may also change accordingly. For example, the definition of rape is undergoing revision and expansion to include more forms of sexual assault, making it compatible with the way local police departments categorize sex crimes.

Although these questions are troubling, the problems associated with collecting and verifying the official UCR data are consistent and stable over time. This means that although the absolute accuracy of the data can be questioned, the trends and patterns they show are probably reliable. In other words, we cannot be absolutely sure about the actual number of adolescents who commit crimes, but it is likely that the teen crime rate has been in a significant decline.

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

The FBI is currently instituting a program called the  National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)  that collects data on each reported crime incident. Instead of submitting statements of the kinds of crime that individual citizens reported to the police and summary statements of resulting arrests, when fully implemented NIBRS will require local police agencies to provide at least a brief account of each incident and arrest, including the incident, victim, and offender information. Under NIBRS, law enforcement authorities provide information to the FBI on each criminal incident involving 46 specific offenses, including the eight Part I crimes, that occur in their jurisdiction; arrest information on the 46 offenses plus 11 lesser offenses is also provided in NIBRS. These expanded crime categories include numerous additional crimes, such as blackmail, embezzlement, drug offenses, and bribery; this allows a national database on the nature of crime, victims, and criminals to be developed. Currently the FBI has certified 26 state programs for NIBRS participation. Twelve state programs are in the various stages of testing NIBRS. Eight other state agencies are in various states of planning and development.

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)

Program that collects data on each reported crime incident and requires local police to provide at least a brief account of each incident and arrest.

Measuring the full extent of delinquency is difficult because many acts are not included in the UCR. Here, a young man is escorted past his family after a court appearance on a charge of making a false bomb threat while boarding a flight. Would this act be reported to the FBI’s program?

While official data are used quite often in delinquency research, the data only represent the number of kids arrested and not how many are actually committing delinquent acts. To remedy this flaw, researchers often rely on self-report data in their research.

Self-Report Surveys

One of the most important tools to measure delinquency and youthful misconduct is the  self-report survey . These surveys ask kids to describe, in detail, their recent and lifetime participation in antisocial activity—for example, “How many times in the past year did you take something worth more than $50?” In many instances, but not always, self-reports are given in groups, and the respondents are promised anonymity in order to ensure the validity and honesty of the responses. 11  But even when the reports are given on an individual basis, respondents are guaranteed that their answers will remain confidential.

self-report survey

Questionnaire or survey technique that asks subjects to reveal their own participation in delinquent or criminal acts.

In addition to questions about delinquent behavior, most self-report surveys contain questions about attitudes, values, and behaviors. There may be questions about a participant’s substance abuse history (e.g., how many times have you used marijuana?) and the participant’s family history (e.g., did your parents ever strike you with a stick or a belt?). By correlating the responses, delinquency experts are able to analyze the relationships among values, attitudes, personal factors, and delinquent behaviors. Statistical analysis of the responses can be used to determine such issues as whether people who report being abused as children are also more likely to use drugs as adults or if school failure leads to delinquency. 12

Some self-report surveys are carried out on an annual basis and employ national samples so that delinquency trends can be recorded and analyzed. An indispensable source of self-report data is the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, which researchers at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research (ISR) have been conducting annually since 1978. This national survey typically involves more than 2,500 high school seniors. 13  The MTF is considered the national standard to measure substance abuse trends among American teens.

The MTF data indicate that the number of people who break the law is far greater than the number projected by official statistics. Almost everyone questioned is found to have violated a law at some time, including truancy, alcohol abuse, false ID use, shoplifting or larceny under $50, fighting, marijuana use, and damage to the property of others. Furthermore, self-reports dispute the notion that criminals and delinquents specialize in one type of crime or another; offenders seem to engage in a mixed bag of crime and deviance. 14

Are Self-Reports Valid?

Critics of self-report studies frequently suggest that it is unreasonable to expect kids to candidly admit illegal acts. Some surveys contain an overabundance of trivial offenses, such as shoplifting small items or using false identification to obtain alcohol, often lumped together with serious crimes to form a total crime index. Consequently, comparisons between groups can be highly misleading. Responses may be embellished by some subjects who wish to exaggerate the extent of their deviant activities, and understated by others who want to shield themselves from possible exposure.

The “missing cases” phenomenon is also a concern. Even if 90 percent of a school population voluntarily participate in a self-report study, researchers can never be sure whether the few who refuse to participate or are absent that day make up a significant portion of the school’s population of persistent high-rate offenders. Research indicates that offenders with the most extensive prior criminality are the most likely “to be poor historians of their own crime commission rates.” 15  It is also unlikely that the most serious chronic offenders in the teenage population are willing to cooperate with researchers administering self-report tests. 16  Institutionalized youths, who are not generally represented in the self-report surveys, are not only more delinquent than the general youth population but are also considerably more misbehaving than the most delinquent youths identified in the typical self-report survey. 17  Consequently, self-reports may measure only nonserious, occasional delinquents while ignoring hard-core chronic offenders who may be institutionalized and unavailable for self-reports.

Reporting practices may differ among racial, ethnic, and gender groups. One study found that while girls are generally more willing to report drug use than boys, Hispanic girls tend to underreport substance abuse. Such gender/cultural differences in self-reporting can skew data and provide misleading results. 18

To address these criticisms, various techniques have been used to verify self-report data. 19  The “known group” method compares youths who are known to be offenders with those who are not to see whether the former report more delinquency. Some research shows that when kids are asked if they have ever been arrested or sent to court, their responses accurately reflect their true life experiences. 20  However, some kids with an official arrest record deny legal involvement, while others who remain arrest-free report having an official record. Why would adolescents claim to have engaged in antisocial behaviors such as getting arrested or using drugs when in fact they had not? One reason is that they may live in a subculture that requires kids to be tough rule-breakers, unafraid of conventional authority. Kids may fear that they would be taunted or harassed if anyone found out they were not really “experienced” delinquents. 21

Self-report data must be interpreted with some caution. Asking subjects about their past behavior may capture more serious crimes but miss minor criminal acts; that is, people remember armed robberies and rapes better than they do minor assaults and altercations. 22  Some kids fabricate their criminal histories, while others (e.g., substance abusers) may have a tough time accounting for their prior misbehavior. 23  Other factors that influence self-report validity are age, criminal history, currency of the reported event, IQ, education level, and variety of criminal acts. Despite these caveats, some of the most recent research supports the validity of the self-report method with both occasional and committed (e.g., gang members) delinquents. 24  They therefore remain a fixture in delinquency research methodology.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

An issue of interest for delinquency scholars is juvenile victimization. How many kids are victims each year, and who are the adolescents most likely to become crime victims? To address this issue, the federal government sponsors the  National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) , a comprehensive, nationwide survey of victimization in the United States.

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

The ongoing victimization study conducted jointly by the Justice Department and the US Census Bureau that surveys victims about their experiences with law violation.

In the most recent survey, more than 40,000 households and 73,000 individuals age 12 or older were interviewed twice for the NCVS. 25  Households stay in the sample for three years, and new households are rotated into the sample on an ongoing basis. The NCVS collects information on crimes suffered by individuals and households, whether or not those crimes were reported to law enforcement. It estimates the proportion of each crime type reported to law enforcement, and it summarizes the reasons that victims give for reporting or not reporting. In 1993, the survey was redesigned to provide detailed information on the frequency and nature of the crimes of rape, sexual assault, personal robbery, aggravated and simple assault, household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. In 2006, significant changes were also made to the way the NCVS is collected. The methodological changes included a new sampling method, a change in the method of handling first-time interviews with households, and a change in the method of interviewing. Computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) replaced paper and pencil interviewing (PAPI). While these issues are critical, there is no substitute available that provides national information on crime and victimization with extensive detail on victims and the social context of the criminal event.

The NCVS finds that fewer than half of violent crimes, fewer than one-third of personal theft crimes (such as pocket picking), and fewer than half of household thefts are reported to police. Victims seem to report to the police only crimes that involve considerable loss or injury. If we are to believe NCVS findings, the official UCR statistics do not provide an accurate picture of the crime problem because many crimes go unreported to the police.

While it contains many underreported incidents, the NCVS may also suffer from some methodological problems. As a result, its findings must be interpreted with caution. Among the potential problems are the following:

·  Overreporting due to victims’ misinterpretation of events. A lost wallet may be reported as stolen, or an open door may be viewed as a burglary attempt.

·  Underreporting due to the embarrassment of reporting crime to interviewers, fear of getting in trouble, or simply forgetting an incident.

·  Inability to record the personal criminal activity of those interviewed, such as drug use or gambling; murder is also not included, for obvious reasons.

·  Sampling errors, which produce a group of respondents who do not represent the nation as a whole.

·  Inadequate question format that invalidates responses. Some groups, such as adolescents, may be particularly susceptible to error because of question format and wording. 26

In addition to these primary sources of crime data, criminologists use other data in their studies. These are set out in  Exhibit 2.1 .

exhibit 2.1: Secondary Sources of Delinquency Data

In addition to the primary sources of crime data—UCR, NCVS, and self-report surveys—criminologists use several other methods to acquire data. Although this list is not exhaustive, the methods described here are routinely used in criminological research and data collection.

Cohort Research Data

Collecting cohort data involves observing over time a group of people who share certain characteristics. Researchers might select all girls born in Boston in 1970 and then follow their behavior patterns for 20 years. The research data might include their school experiences, arrests, and hospitalizations, along with information about their family life (marriages, divorces, parental relations, for example). If the cohort is carefully drawn, it may be possible to accumulate a complex array of data that can be used to determine which life experiences are associated with criminal careers.

Experimental Data

Sometimes criminologists conduct controlled experiments to collect data on the cause of crime. To conduct experimental research, criminologists manipulate, or intervene in, the lives of their subjects to see the outcome or the effect of the intervention. True experiments usually have three elements: (1) random selection of subjects, (2) a control or comparison group, and (3) an experimental condition.

Observational and Interview Research

Sometimes criminologists focus their research on relatively few subjects, interviewing them in depth or observing them as they go about their activities. This research often results in the kind of in-depth data that large-scale surveys do not yield.

Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Meta-analysis involves gathering data from a number of previous studies. Compatible information and data are extracted and pooled together. When analyzed, the grouped data from several different studies provide a more powerful and valid indicator of relationships than the results provided by a single study. Similar to meta-analysis, a systematic review involves collecting the findings from previously conducted scientific studies that address a particular problem, appraising and synthesizing the evidence, and using the collective evidence to address a particular scientific question.

Data Mining

A relatively new criminological technique, data mining uses multiple advanced computational methods, including artificial intelligence (the use of computers to perform logical functions), to analyze large data sets that usually involve one or more data sources. The goal is to identify significant and recognizable patterns, trends, and relationships that are not easily detected through traditional analytical techniques.

Crime Mapping

Criminologists now use crime mapping to create graphical representations of the spatial geography of crime. Computerized crime maps enable criminologists to analyze and correlate a wide array of data to create immediate, detailed visuals of crime patterns.

Trends in Crime and Delinquency

Crime and delinquency rates trended upward between 1960 and 1991, when police recorded about 15 million crimes. Since then the number of crimes has been in decline; about 10 million crimes were reported in 2012, a drop of more than 4 million reported crimes since the 1991 peak, and this despite a boost of about 50 million in the general population.

What the UCR Tells Us about Delinquency

Because the UCR arrest statistics are  disaggregated  (broken down) by suspect’s age, they can be used to estimate adolescent delinquency. Juvenile arrest data must be interpreted with caution, however. First, the number of teenagers arrested does not represent the actual number of youths who have committed delinquent acts. Some offenders are never counted because they are never caught. Others are counted more than once because multiple arrests of the same individual for different crimes are counted separately in the UCR. Consequently, the total number of arrests does not equal the number of people who have been arrested. Put another way, if 2 million arrests of youths under 18 years of age were made in a given year, we could not be sure if 2 million individuals had been arrested once or if 500,000 chronic offenders had been arrested four times each. When an arrested offender commits multiple crimes, only the most serious one is recorded. In addition, we know that only 20 percent of crimes are cleared by arrest. If this ratio applies to juveniles, it is possible that the 2 million arrested juveniles committed 10 million crimes before they were apprehended. If 2 million juveniles are arrested, the number of crimes committed is at least 2 million, but it may be much higher.

disaggregated

Analyzing the relationship between two or more independent variables (such as murder convictions and death sentence) while controlling for the influence of a dependent variable (such as race).

Despite these limitations, the nature of arrest data remains constant over time. Consequently, arrest data can provide some indication of the nature and trends in juvenile crime. What does the UCR tell us about the nature and extent of delinquency?

Juvenile Arrest Trends

The latest data available show an estimated 12.4 million arrests in 2011. Of these arrests, about 530,000 were for serious Part I violent crimes and 1.6 million for serious Part I property crimes. Among both serious and minor crimes, the highest number of arrests were for drug abuse violations (estimated at 1.5 million), larceny-theft (estimated at 1.2 million), and driving under the influence (estimated at 1.2 million).

Juveniles were responsible for about 12 percent of all arrests, including about 13 percent of the Part I violent crime arrests and about 20 percent of the property crime arrests (see  Table 2.1 ). Because kids ages 14 to 17, who account for almost all underage arrests, constitute less than 10 percent of the population, these data show that teens account for a significantly disproportionate share of all arrests.

table 2.1: Persons Arrested for Serious Crimes, by Age

	Under 15	Under 18	Over 18
Serious violent crime	4%	13%	87%
Serious property crime	6%	20%	80%
Total all crimes	3%	12%	88%
SOURCE: FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011.

About 1 million juvenile arrests were made in 2011 for Part II offenses. Included in this total were status violations: 69,000 arrests for liquor law violations, 106,000 for disorderly conduct, and 59,000 for curfew violations.

Recent trends in juvenile delinquency arrests reflect the general crime rate. The juvenile arrest rate began to climb in the 1980s, peaked during the mid-1990s, and then began to fall; it has since been in decline. For example, arrests of juveniles for all offenses decreased 11 percent in 2011 when compared with the 2010 number; during the same period arrests of adults declined less than 4 percent.

Even the teen murder rate, which had remained stubbornly high, has undergone a decline during the past few years. 27  In 1997, 1,700 youths were arrested for murder, a number that by 2011 had declined by more than half (650 arrests for murder). Similarly, 3,800 juveniles were arrested for rape in 1997, falling to less than 2,000 in 2011. In all, about 52,000 youths 18 and under are being arrested for violent crimes and 259,000 for property crimes.

FOCUS on delinquency: Shaping Delinquency Trends

Delinquency experts have identified a variety of social, economic, personal, and demographic factors that influence juvenile crime rate trends. The most important influences on delinquency rates are discussed here.

Age

Because teenagers have relatively high crime rates, crime experts view changes in the population age distribution as having the greatest influence on crime trends: As a general rule, the crime rate follows the proportion of young males in the population. Kids who commit a lot of crime early in childhood are also likely to continue to commit crime in their adolescence and into adulthood. The more teens in the population, the higher the crime rate. However, the number of senior citizens is also expanding, and their presence in the population may have a moderating effect on crime rates (seniors do not commit much crime), offsetting the effect of teens.

Economy/Jobs

There is debate over the effect the economy has on crime rates. It seems logical that when the economy turns down, people (especially those who are unemployed) will become more motivated to commit theft crimes. Kids who find it hard to get after-school jobs or find employment after they leave school may be motivated to seek other forms of income such as theft and drug dealing. As the economy heats up, delinquency rates should decline because people can secure good jobs; why risk breaking the law when there are legitimate opportunities?

However, this issue is far from settled. A poor economy may actually help lower delinquency rates because it limits the opportunity kids have to commit crime: unemployed parents are at home to supervise children and guard their possessions, and because there is less money to spend, people have fewer valuables worth stealing. Law-abiding kids do not suddenly begin to violate the law just because there is an economic downturn.

Although the effect of the economy on delinquency rates is still in question, it is possible that over the long haul a strong economy will help lower delinquency rates, while long periods of sustained economic weakness and unemployment may eventually lead to increased rates. Crime skyrocketed in the 1930s during the Great Depression; crime rates fell when the economy surged for almost a decade during the 1990s. Also, economic effects may be very localized: People in one area of the city are doing well, but people living in another part of town may be suffering unemployment. The economic effect on the delinquency rates may vary by neighborhood or even by street.

Immigration

Immigration has become one of the most controversial issues in American society. One reason given by those who want to tighten immigration laws is that immigrants have high crime rates and should be prevented from entering the country. However, the most empirically sound research indicates that immigrants are actually less violent and criminal than the general population. Mexican immigrants, for example, experience lower rates of violence compared to their native-born counterparts. Immigration has a negative effect on overall levels of homicides and drug-related homicides specifically. In sum, as the number of immigrants in the population increases, the overall delinquency may decline.

Social Problems

As the level of social problems increases—such as single-parent families, dropout rates, racial conflict, and teen pregnancies—so do delinquency rates. Delinquency rates are correlated with the number of unwed mothers in the population. It is possible that children of unwed mothers need more social services than children in two-parent families. As the number of kids born to single mothers increases, the child welfare system is taxed and services depleted. The teenage birthrate has trended downward in recent years, and so have delinquency rates.

Racial conflict may also increase delinquency rates. Areas undergoing racial change, especially those experiencing a migration of minorities into predominantly white neighborhoods, seem prone to significant increases in their delinquency rate. Whites in these areas may be using violence to protect what they view as their home turf. Racially motivated crimes actually diminish as neighborhoods become more integrated and power struggles are resolved.

Abortion

In a controversial work, John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt found empirical evidence that the recent drop in the delinquency rate can be attributed to the availability of legalized abortion. In 1973,  Roe v. Wade  legalized abortion nationwide. Within a few years of Roe v. Wade, more than 1 million abortions were being performed annually, or roughly one abortion for every three live births. Donohue and Levitt suggest that the delinquency rate drop, which began approximately 18 years later, in 1991, can be tied to the fact that at that point the first groups of potential offenders affected by the abortion decision began reaching the peak age of criminal activity. The researchers found that states that legalized abortion before the rest of the nation were the first to experience decreasing delinquency rates and that states with high abortion rates have seen a greater drop in delinquency since 1985.

Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court ruled that a right to privacy under the due process clause extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state’s interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women’s health.

It is possible that the link between delinquency rates and abortion is the result of three mechanisms: (1) selective abortion on the part of women most at risk to have children who would engage in delinquent activity, (2) improved childrearing or environmental circumstances because women are having fewer children, and (3) absence of unwanted children who stand the greatest risk of delinquency. If abortion were illegal, Donohue and Levitt find, delinquency rates might be 10 to 20 percent higher than they currently are with legal abortion. Carter Hay and Michelle Evans found that children unwanted by their mothers do in fact commit more delinquency than children who were wanted or planned; the effect, however, was only modest and temporary. By their late teens and 20s, unwanted kids commit as much crime as their wanted brothers and sisters, a finding that seems to contradict Donohue and Levitt.

Guns

The availability of firearms may influence the delinquency rate, especially the proliferation of weapons in the hands of teens. Surveys of high school students indicate that between 6 and 10 percent carry guns at least some of the time. Guns also cause escalation in the seriousness of delinquency. As the number of gun-toting students increases, so does the seriousness of violent delinquency: A school yard fight may well turn into murder.

Gangs

Another factor that affects delinquency rates is the explosive growth in teenage gangs. Surveys indicate that there are more than 800,000 gang members in the United States. Boys who are members of gangs are far more likely to possess guns than nongang members; criminal activity increases when kids join gangs.

Drug Use

Some experts tie increases in the violent delinquency rate between 1980 and 1990 to the crack epidemic, which swept the nation’s largest cities, and to drug-trafficking gangs that fought over drug turf. These well-armed gangs did not hesitate to use violence to control territory, intimidate rivals, and increase market share. As the crack epidemic has subsided, so has the violence in New York City and other metropolitan areas where crack use was rampant. A sudden increase in drug use, on the other hand, may be a harbinger of future increases in the delinquency rate.

Media

Some experts argue that violent media can influence the direction of delinquency rates. The introduction of home video players, DVDs, cable TV, computers, and video games coincided with increasing teen violence rates. Perhaps the increased availability of media violence on these platforms produced more aggressive teens? Watching violence on TV may be correlated with aggressive behaviors, especially when viewers have a preexisting tendency toward delinquency and violence. Research shows that the more kids watch TV, the more often they get into violent encounters.

Juvenile Justice Policy

Some law enforcement experts have suggested that a reduction in delinquency rates may be attributed to adding large numbers of police officers and using them in aggressive police practices aimed at reducing gang membership, gun possession, and substance abuse. It is also possible that tough laws such as waiving juveniles to adult courts or sending them to adult prisons can affect crime rates. The fear of punishment may inhibit some would-be delinquents, and tough laws place a significant number of chronic juvenile offenders behind bars, lowering delinquency rates.

CRITICAL THINKING

Although juvenile delinquency rates have been declining in the United States, they have been increasing in Europe. Is it possible that factors that correlate with delinquency rate changes in the United States have little utility in predicting changes in other cultures? What other factors may increase or reduce delinquency rates?

SOURCES: Jeremy Staff, D. Wayne Osgood, John Schulenberg, Jerald Bachman, and Emily Messersmith, “Explaining the Relationship Between Employment and Juvenile Delinquency,” Criminology 48:1101–1131 (2010); Tim Wadsworth, “Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000,” Social Science Quarterly 91:531–553 (2010); Ramiro Martinez Jr., Jacob Stowell, and Matthew Lee, “Immigration and Crime in an Era of Transformation: A Longitudinal Analysis of Homicides in San Diego Neighborhoods, 1980–2000,” Criminology 48:797–830 (2010); Scott Decker, Charles Katz, and Vincent Webb, “Understanding the Black Box of Gang Organization: Implications for Involvement in Violent Crime, Drug Sales, and Violent Victimization,” Crime and Delinquency 54:153–172 (2008); Carter Hay and Michelle Evans, “Has Roe v. Wade Reduced U.S. Crime Rates? Examining the Link Between Mothers’ Pregnancy Intentions and Children’s Later Involvement in Law-Violating Behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:36–66 (2006); Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson, “Media Violence and the American Public,” American Psychologist 56:477–489 (2001); John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt, “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116:379–420 (2001).

So despite a continuing media barrage covering the havoc caused by violent youth gangs roaming the streets, arrests of juveniles actually decreased significantly in the past decade. And while juveniles account for a disproportionate number of arrests, the recent decline in the juvenile arrest rate has been significant, far outstripping that experienced by adults.

What factors account for change in the crime and delinquency rates? This is the topic of the Focus on Delinquency box entitled “Shaping Delinquency Trends.”

Self-Reported Findings

Most self-report studies indicate that the number of children who break the law is far greater than official statistics would lead us to believe. 28  In fact, when truancy, alcohol consumption, petty theft, and recreational drug use are included in self-report scales, delinquency appears to be almost universal. The most common offenses are truancy, drinking alcohol, using a false ID, shoplifting or larceny under five dollars, fighting, using marijuana, and damaging the property of others. In  Chapter 11 , self-report data will be used to gauge trends in adolescent drug abuse.

A great deal of delinquent activity is not recorded in the official crime statistics. Take teen drug use. Here, at an “outlaw” party in Queens, New York, an ecstasy deal takes place. Self-report studies can measure the delinquent activity that would otherwise escape detection.

As you may recall, the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research’s Monitoring the Future (MTF) survey is considered one of the most important ongoing self-report studies. In its current form, approximately 50,000 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students are surveyed each year. In addition, annual follow-up questionnaires are mailed to a sample of each graduating class for a number of years after their initial participation.

Table 2.2  contains some of the data from the latest available MTF survey. A surprising number of these typical teenagers reported involvement in serious criminal behavior. About 12 percent reported hurting someone badly enough that the victim needed medical care (6 percent said they did it more than once); about 25 percent reported stealing something worth less than $50, and another 9 percent stole something worth more than $50; 24 percent reported shoplifting; 11 percent had damaged school property.

table 2.2: Survey of Criminal Activity of High School Seniors, 2011

	Percentage Engaging in Offenses
Crime	Committed at Least Once	Committed More than Once
Set fire on purpose	1	2
Damaged school property	6	5
Damaged work property	2	2
Auto theft	2	2
Auto part theft	2	2
Break and enter	11	13
Theft, less than $50	11	14
Theft, more than $50	4	5
Shoplift	10	14
Gang fight	9	8
Hurt someone badly enough to require medical care	6	6
Used force or a weapon to steal	1	2
Hit teacher or supervisor	1	2
Participated in serious fight in school or at work	7	5
SOURCE: “Monitoring the Future, 2012,” used by permission of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Percentages are rounded.

If the MTF data are accurate, the juvenile crime problem is much greater than official statistics would lead us to believe. There are approximately 40 million youths between the ages of 10 and 18. Extrapolating from the MTF findings, this group accounts for more than 100 percent of all the theft offenses reported in the UCR. About 4 percent of high school students said they had used force to steal (which is the legal definition of a robbery) at least once. At this rate, high school students alone commit more than 1 million robberies per year. In comparison, the UCR tallied about 354,000 robberies for all age groups in 2011. Over the past decade, the MTF surveys indicate that with a few exceptions, self-reported teenage participation in theft, violence, and damage-related crimes seems to be more stable than the trends reported in the UCR arrest data.

Are the Data Sources Compatible?

Each source of crime data has strengths and weaknesses. The FBI survey contains data on the number and characteristics of people arrested, information that the other data sources lack. It is also the source of information on particular crimes such as murder, which no other data source can provide. 29  While used extensively, the UCR omits the many crimes that victims choose not to report to police, and relies on the reporting accuracy of individual police departments.

The NCVS includes unreported crime missed by the UCR and also contains important information on the personal characteristics of victims. However, the data consist of estimates made from relatively limited samples of the total US population, so that even narrow fluctuations in the rates of some crimes can have a major impact on findings. The NCVS also relies on personal recollections that may be inaccurate. It does not include data on important crime patterns, including murder and drug abuse.

Self-report surveys provide useful information because questions on delinquent activity are often supplemented with items measuring the personal characteristics of offenders, such as their attitudes, values, beliefs, and psychological profiles. Self-reports can also be used to measure drug and alcohol abuse; these data are not included in the UCR and NCVS. Yet, at their core, self-reports rely on the honesty of criminal offenders and drug abusers, a population not generally known for accuracy and integrity.

Although their tallies of delinquency are certainly not in synch, the patterns and trends measured by various data sources are often quite similar: When the UCR shows a drop in illegal activity, so too does the NCVS. 30  They all generally agree about the personal characteristics of serious delinquents (i.e., age and gender) and where and when delinquency occurs (i.e., urban areas, nighttime, and summer months). Because the measurement problems inherent in each source are consistent over time, the sources are reliable indicators of changes and fluctuations in delinquency rates.

What the Future Holds

Today, approximately 17 percent of the population is between ages 5 and 18, resulting in a school-age population of around 50 million. Although many come from supportive homes, others lack stable families and adequate supervision; these are some of the children who will soon enter their prime crime years. 31  Though teen violence may increase, it is unlikely that this will translate into skyrocketing crime rate increases, because the effect of teenage crime is offset by the growing number of relatively crime-free senior citizens. 32

Of course, prognostications, predictions, and forecasts are based on contemporary conditions that can change at any time due to the sudden emergence of war, terrorism, social unrest, economic meltdown, and the like. 33

Correlates of Delinquency

Measurement of the personal traits and social characteristics associated with adolescent misbehavior is a crucial aspect of delinquency research. If, for example, a strong association exists between delinquent behavior and family income, then poverty and economic deprivation must be considered in any explanation of the onset of adolescent criminality. If the delinquency-income association is not present, then other forces may be responsible for producing antisocial behavior. It would be fruitless to concentrate delinquency control efforts in areas such as job creation and vocational training if social status were found to be unrelated to delinquent behavior. Similarly, if only a handful of delinquents are responsible for most serious crimes, then crime control policies might be made more effective by identifying and treating these offenders. The next sections discuss where and when delinquent acts take place, as well as the relationship between delinquency and the characteristics of gender, race, social class, and age.

The Time and Place of Delinquency

Most delinquent acts occur during the warm summer months of July and August. Weather may affect delinquent behavior in a number of different ways. During the summer, teenagers are out of school and have greater opportunity to commit crime. Homes are left vacant more often during the summer, making them more vulnerable to property crimes. Weather may also have a direct effect on behavior: As it gets warmer kids get more violent. 34  However, some experts believe if it gets too hot, over 85 degrees, the frequency of some violent acts such as sexual assault will begin to decline. 35

There are also geographic differences in the incidence of delinquent behaviors. Large urban areas have by far the highest juvenile violence rates; rural areas have the lowest. Typically, the western and southern states have had consistently higher delinquency rates than the Midwest and Northeast, which have been linked to differences in cultural values, population makeup, gun ownership, and economic differences.

Gender and Delinquency

Males are significantly more delinquent than females. The teenage gender ratio for serious violent crime is approximately four to one, and for property crime, approximately two to one, male to female. The only exception to this pattern is arrests for being a runaway: girls are more likely than boys to be arrested as runaways. There are two possible explanations for this. Girls could be more likely than boys to run away from home, or police may view the female runaway as the more serious problem and therefore are more likely to process girls through official justice channels. This may reflect paternalistic attitudes toward girls, who are viewed as likely to “get in trouble” if they are on the street.

While males still commit more crimes than females, and the arrest rate for both sexes has declined in the past decade, more than 330,000 teenage girls are arrested each year, including about 60 for murder, 1,600 for robbery, and almost 8,000 for aggravated assault. The total number of female arrests has declined about 25 percent since 2002.

Three young women cover their faces while waiting in a holding room before their individual court appearances in Bartow, Florida. They were among seven girls accused of beating a classmate and putting the half-hour video on YouTube. One of the girls was sentenced to 15 days behind bars, the others received probation. Young women are now involved in the same violent offenses as their male peers.

Official arrest data may significantly underreport the total amount of female delinquency. Self-report data also seem to show that the incidence of female delinquency is much higher than believed earlier, and that the most common crimes committed by males are also the ones most female offenders commit. 36   Table 2.3  shows the percentages of male and female high school seniors who admitted engaging in delinquent acts during the past 12 months in the latest MTF survey. As the table indicates, more than 20 percent of all boys and girls admitted to shoplifting; 12 percent of boys and 6 percent of girls said they stole something worth more than $50; and 17 percent of boys and 6 percent of girls said they hurt someone badly enough that they required medical care. Over the past decade girls have increased their self-reported delinquency, whereas boys report somewhat less involvement. Because the relationship between gender and delinquency rate is so important, this topic will be discussed further in  Chapter 7 .

table 2.3: Percentage of High School Seniors Admitting to at Least One Offense During the Past 12 Months, by Gender

Delinquent Acts	Males	Females
Serious fight	14	9
Gang fight	19	13
Hurt someone badly	17	6
Used a weapon to steal	5	2
Stole less than $50	29	20
Stole more than $50	12	6
Shoplift	28	23
Breaking and entering	27	17
Arson	4	1
Damaged school property	15	6
SOURCE: From “Monitoring the Future, 2012,” used by permission of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

case profile: Jamesetta’s Story

JAMESETTA was born in a poor, urban neighborhood. As her parents struggled with substance abuse, poverty, and unemployment, Jamesetta suffered both physical and sexual abuse before being placed in foster care at the age of 5. By the age of 9, Jamesetta was shoplifting, skipping school, and violating curfew. At age 13, she physically assaulted her foster mother and entered the juvenile justice system with charges of disorderly conduct and being a habitual delinquent. Her foster home placement was terminated and Jamesetta was sent to live with her aunt, uncle, and six cousins. It wasn’t long before her relatives began to have additional concerns that Jamesetta was exhibiting sexualized behavior, “sneaking around” with her 17-year-old boyfriend, staying out all night, and being disrespectful. They felt she was out of control.

Jamesetta had been ordered by the juvenile court to cooperate with her family’s household rules, attend school on a regular basis, have no further law violations, complete 25 hours of community service, and pay restitution for the shoplifting, but she refused to cooperate with any of the programs or services, continuing to come and go as she pleased. The family was receiving support from Jamesetta’s intensive supervision program counselor, as well as a family therapist, but during the second month of placement with her relatives, at the age of 14, Jamesetta disclosed that she was pregnant and planning to keep her baby. The program counselor and other professionals involved in Jamesetta’s case had to work with her and her family to reevaluate their plan.

Jamesetta was enrolled in a school specifically designed to support teens who are pregnant or already parenting, where in addition to her academic studies to complete high school, she would receive help from parenting classes, independent living courses, and relationship counseling. Jamesetta also received services from a neighborhood intervention program that focused on providing structure and accountability for her through counselors and daily group meetings to encourage her. Even with these additional supports and interventions, Jamesetta continued to get involved in some minor status offenses: She skipped school, didn’t come home on time, and would not follow household rules. Nonetheless, she had no involvement with more serious delinquent activities.

Jamesetta continued to live with her aunt and uncle, and did eventually complete her community service and restitution payment. After the baby was born Jamesetta began to understand the consequences of her actions. With continued services and support from her counselors, she started following the rules and expectations of her family. Upon taking responsibility to find the necessary medical and child care for her daughter, Jamesetta found employment—a position in retail—and started planning for her future. Despite being at high risk for dropping out of school, Jamesetta completed her high school education and had a positive view of her future. The team of involved professionals continued to provide the needed supports and encouraged Jamesetta to make good decisions for both herself and her new baby. She still struggles at times, but has remained free of further law violations.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Jamesetta received a number of interventions to address her issues, but it still took a long time for her to reduce her delinquent behavior. How long should the juvenile justice system give a young person to change? How many chances should a teen get? Do you think she would have likely been removed from her aunt and uncle’s home if her criminal behavior had continued?

2.

As Jamesetta grew older, she was less involved in criminal activity. Discuss the reasons for the “aging-out” process and apply them to this case example.

3.

What childhood risk factors did Jamesetta have regarding the possibility of becoming a persistent delinquent? How was this avoided? What can be done to reduce chronic offending among at-risk youth?

The Case Profile entitled “Jamesetta’s Story” tells the true story of how one young girl overcame the adversities that made her “at risk” for delinquency.

Race and Delinquency

There are approximately 40 million white and 11 million African American youths under 18 in the United States, a ratio of about four to one. The official statistics show that minority youths are arrested for serious criminal behavior at a rate that is disproportionate to their representation in the population. For example, 54 percent of teens arrested for murder are African American and 68 percent of those arrested for robbery; African American teens are represented in more than half of all arrests for serious violent crimes.

To many delinquency experts, this pattern reflects discrimination in the juvenile justice system. In other words, African American youths are more likely to be formally arrested by the police, who, in contrast, will treat white youths informally. One way to examine this issue is to compare the racial differences in self-reported data with those found in the official delinquency records. Given the disproportionate numbers of African Americans arrested, charges of racial discrimination would be supported if we found little difference between the number of self-reported minority and white crimes.

Early researchers found that the relationship between race and self-reported delinquency was virtually nonexistent. 37  This suggests that racial differences in the official crime data may reflect the fact that African American youths have a much greater chance of being arrested and officially processed. 38  Self-report studies also suggest that the delinquent behavior rates of African American and white teenagers are generally similar and that differences in arrest statistics may indicate discrimination by police. 39  The MTF survey, for example, generally shows that offending differences between African American and white youths are marginal. 40  However, some experts warn that African American youths may underreport more serious crimes, limiting the ability of self-reports to be a valid indicator of racial differences in the crime rate. 41

Institutional Racism and Delinquency

How can the disproportionate number of African American youngsters arrested for serious crimes be explained? One view is that it is a result of bias by the police and courts. Police are more likely to arrest African American youth and courts more likely to punish them because of their race. 42  To make matters worse, according to the  racial threat theory , as the percentage of minorities in the population increases, so too does the amount of social control imposed on minority citizens at every stage of the justice system, from arrest to final release. 43  For example, when Malcolm Holmes and his colleagues studied law enforcement actions in southwestern border communities they found that as the numbers of poor Hispanics increase, affluent Anglos demand greater levels of police protection. 44  The result is a stepped-up effort to control and punish minority citizens, and isolate them in barrios. 45

racial threat theory

As the size of the black population increases, the perceived threat to the white population increases, resulting in a greater amount of social control imposed against African Americans by police.

As pressure grows to contain “the racial threat,” police will then routinely search, question, and detain all African American males in an area if a violent criminal has been described as “looking or sounding black”; this is called  racial profiling , made famous by the Trayvon Martin case. A recent meta-analysis of numerous studies that estimates the effect of race on the police decision to arrest found significant evidence that minority suspects are more likely to be arrested than white suspects when stopped by police for the same behaviors. 46  Racial profiling may be more common in communities where there are relatively few racial minorities (i.e., “white neighborhoods”). In racially segregated communities, police may be especially suspicious of people based on their race if it is inconsistent with the neighborhood racial composition. 47

racial profiling

Police practice of routinely searching, questioning, and detaining all African American males in an area, especially after a crime has been committed involving a black suspect.

Racial profiling takes a particular toll on younger African American males who often see their experience with police as unfair or degrading. They approach future encounters with preexisting hostility; police take this as a sign that young black men pose a special danger. They respond with harsh treatment, and a never-ending cycle of mutual mistrust is created. 48

The Effects of Profiling

In the event they are picked up again and sent back to juvenile court, their earlier record makes them eligible for harsher treatment. 49  Racial discrimination at the onset of the justice system ensures that minorities receive greater punishments at its conclusion. 50

Juvenile court judges may see the offenses committed by minority youths as more serious than those committed by white offenders. Consequently, they are more likely to keep minority juveniles in detention pending trial in juvenile court than they are white youths with similar backgrounds. 51  White juveniles are more likely to receive lenient sentences or have their cases dismissed. 52  As a result, African American youths, suspected by police, are more likely to accumulate an adult criminal record and face a bleak future in a jobless economy in which those with a criminal record are less likely to receive job offers. 53

In sum, according to the institutional racism view, the disproportionate number of minority youth who are arrested is less a function of their involvement in serious crime and more the result of the race-based decision making in the juvenile justice system. 54  Institutional racism by police and the courts is still an element of daily life in the African American community, a factor that undermines faith in social and political institutions and weakens confidence in the justice system. 55

Structural Racism and Delinquency

Another view of race differences in the delinquency rate holds that although evidence of some racial bias does exist in the justice system, there is enough correspondence between official and self-report data to conclude that racial differences in the crime rate are real. 56  If African American youths are arrested at a disproportionately high rate for crimes such as robbery and assault, it is a result of actual offending rates rather than bias on the part of the criminal justice system. 57

If they exist, how can racial differences in the delinquency rate be explained? According to the structural racism view, racial differentials are tied to the social and economic disparity suffered by African American youths. Too many are forced to live in the nation’s poorest areas that suffer high crime rates. 58  Many black youths are forced to attend essentially segregated schools that are underfunded and deteriorated, a condition that increases the likelihood of their being incarcerated in adulthood. 59  The burden of social and economic marginalization has weakened the African American family structure. When families are weakened or disrupted, their ability to act as social control agents is compromised. 60

Even during times of economic growth, lower-class African Americans are left out of the economic mainstream, causing a growing sense of frustration and failure. 61  As a result of being shut out of educational and economic opportunities enjoyed by the rest of society, this population may be prone, some believe, to the lure of illegitimate gain and criminality. However, even among at-risk African American kids growing up in communities characterized by poverty, high unemployment levels, and single-parent households, those who do live in stable families with reasonable incomes and educational achievement are much less likely to engage in violent behaviors than those lacking family support. 62  Consequently, racial differences in the delinquency rate would evaporate if the social and economic characteristics of racial minorities were improved to levels currently enjoyed by whites, and African American kids could enjoy the same social, economic, and educational privileges. 63

For more information about race-related issues in America, visit the University of Pittsburgh’s Center on Race and Social Problems ( http://www.crsp.pitt.edu/ ). You can also find this information by going to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Socioeconomic Status (SES) and Delinquency

Determining the true association between socioeconomic status (SES) and delinquency is critical and a key element in the study of delinquency. If youth crime is purely a lower-class phenomenon, its cause must be rooted in the social forces that are found solely in lower-class areas: poverty, unemployment, social disorganization, culture conflict, and alienation. However, if delinquent behavior is spread throughout the social structure, its cause must be related to some noneconomic factor: intelligence, personality, socialization, family dysfunction, educational failure, or peer influence. According to this line of reasoning, providing jobs or economic incentives would have little effect on the crime rate.

At first glance, the relationship between SES and delinquency should be clear-cut:

·  Youths who lack wealth or social standing should be the ones who use illegal means to achieve their goals and compensate for their lack of economic resources.

·  Communities that lack economic and social opportunities should have the highest delinquency rates.

·  Kids who live in these areas believe that they can never compete socially or economically with adolescents being raised in more affluent areas. They may turn to illegal behavior for monetary gain and psychological satisfaction. 64

·  Family life is most likely to be frayed and disrupted in low-income areas. As a consequence, gangs and law-violating youth groups should thrive in a climate that undermines and neutralizes the adult supervision that families provide. 65

·  Kids who live in poor families within poor communities are doubly at risk for delinquency and find it hard to resist the lure of streets. 66

Research on Social Class and Delinquency

The social class–delinquency relationship was challenged by pioneering some self-report studies, specifically those that revealed no direct relationship between social class and the commission of delinquent acts. 67  Instead, socioeconomic class was related to official processing by police, court, and correctional agencies. 68  Police may devote more resources to poor areas, and consequently apprehension rates may be higher there. Similarly, police may be more likely to formally arrest and prosecute poor kids than those in the middle and upper classes, which may account for the lower class’s overrepresentation in official statistics and the prison population. 69  Self-report data do show that kids in all levels of society and in all social classes commit crime, but arrest rates are higher in lower-class communities. 70  Although both poor and affluent kids get into fights, shoplift, and take drugs, only the indigent are likely to be arrested and sent to juvenile court. 71  This finding casts doubt on the assumption that poverty and lower-class position are significant causes of delinquent behavior.

Those who fault self-report studies also point to the inclusion of trivial offenses—for example, using a false ID—in most self-report instruments. Although middle- and upper-class youths may appear to be as delinquent as those in the lower class, it is because they engage in significant amounts of such status offenses. Lower-class youths are more likely to engage in serious delinquent acts. 72

In sum, there are those experts who believe that antisocial behavior occurs at all levels of the social strata. While some middle- and upper-class youths engage in some forms of minor illegal activity and theft offenses, it is members of the under-class who are responsible for the majority of serious delinquent acts. 73  The prevailing wisdom is that kids who engage in the most serious forms of delinquency (such as gang violence) are more likely to be members of the lower class.

Age and Delinquency

It is generally accepted that age is inversely related to criminality: Deviance in adolescence is fueled by the need for money and sex and reinforced by a teen culture whose informal rules stress defying conventional morality. It is not a coincidence that kids get piercings and tattoos as soon as the law allows.

At the same time, teenagers are becoming independent from parents and other adults who enforce conventional standards of morality and behavior. They have a new sense of energy and strength and are involved with peers who are similarly vigorous and frustrated.

It is not surprising then that regardless of race, sex, social class, intelligence, or any other social variable, people commit less crime as they age. As noted in  Chapter 1 , this is referred to as the aging-out process, sometimes called desistance from crime or spontaneous remission. 74  Aging out of crime may be a function of the natural history of the human life cycle, and no one is immune. 75  Even the most chronic juvenile offenders commit less crime as they age. Though high-rate offenders will commit more crime as adults than their nondelinquent peers, even these committed and persistent delinquents will slow down as they age; few people get into as much trouble when they are 51 as they did when they were 15. 76

Age also impacts delinquency because the earlier kids commit crime in their life cycle, the more serious and aggressive their criminal involvement.  Age of onset  is an important determinant of the length and seriousness of a delinquent career. Kids who are persistent offenders begin committing crime early in their childhood, rapidly increase their offending activities in late adolescence, and only begin to slow down in adulthood. 77  Those kids who demonstrate antisocial tendencies at a very early age are also more likely to commit more crimes and for a longer period of time.

age of onset

Age at which youths begin their delinquent careers; early onset is believed to be linked with chronic offending patterns.

In sum, youths who get involved with delinquency at a very early age are most likely to become career criminals; age is a key determinant of delinquency. 78

Why Does Crime Decline with Age?

Delinquency experts have developed a number of reasons for the aging-out process:

·  Growing older means having to face the future. Young people, especially the indigent and antisocial, tend to “discount the future.” 79  Why should they delay gratification when faced with an uncertain future? As they mature, troubled youths are able to develop a long-term life view and resist the need for immediate gratification. 80

·  With maturity comes the ability to resist the “quick fix” to their problems. Research shows that some kids may turn to crime as a way to solve the problems of adolescence, loneliness, frustration, and fear of peer rejection. As they mature, conventional means of problem solving become available. Life experience helps former delinquents seek nondestructive solutions to their personal problems. 81

·  Maturation coincides with increased levels of responsibility. Petty crimes are risky and exciting social activities that provide adventure in an otherwise boring world. As youths grow older, they take on new responsibilities that are inconsistent with criminality. 82  For example, young people who marry, enlist in the armed services, or enroll in vocational training courses are less likely to pursue criminal activities. 83

·  Personalities can change with age. As youths mature, rebellious youngsters may develop increased self-control and be able to resist antisocial behavior. 84  In adulthood, people strengthen their ability to delay gratification and forgo the immediate gains that law violations bring. They also start wanting to take responsibility for their behavior and to adhere to conventional mores, such as establishing long-term relationships and starting a family. 85  Getting married, raising a family, and creating long-term family ties provide the stability that helps people desist from crime. 86

·  Young adults become more aware of the risks that accompany crime. As adults, they are no longer protected by the relatively kindly arms of the juvenile justice system. 87

Of course, not all juvenile criminals desist as they age; some go on to become chronic adult offenders. Yet even they slow down as they age. Crime is too dangerous, physically taxing, and unrewarding, and punishments too harsh and long lasting, to become a way of life for most people. 88

Jonathan Rosario, born to a drug-addicted mother, spent the first seven years of his life in a housing project in the Mott Haven section of the Bronx. As a young man, feeling rebellious, he began cutting classes and getting involved in trouble. He was arrested after he was caught smoking marijuana on the street. Then a friend asked him to hold on to three guns for safekeeping. Without giving it much thought, Rosario agreed to do so, storing them in the apartment he shared with a girlfriend. One day, the police showed up; there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. He had failed to appear in court a second time on the marijuana charges because he had not realized he had to. The police searched the apartment, found the guns, and charged him with possession of guns and ammunition. After a few days on Rikers Island, he was sentenced to three years of probation. Why does someone like Rosario continually get involved in offending? Later he was able to turn his life around, with the help of a settlement house program. Does his story mean that even chronic offenders can one day leave a life of crime?

Chronic Offending: Careers in Delinquency

Although most adolescents age out of crime, a relatively small number of youths begin to violate the law early in their lives (early onset) and continue at a high rate well into adulthood (persistence). The association between early onset and high-rate persistent offending has been demonstrated in samples drawn from a variety of cultures, time periods, and offender types. These offenders are resistant to change and seem immune to the effects of punishment. Arrest, prosecution, and conviction do little to slow down their offending careers. However, as the Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature entitled “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy” indicates, some treatment interventions may help.

These chronic offenders are responsible for a significant amount of all delinquent and criminal activity. Because almost everyone commits less crime as they age, it is difficult to predict or identify in advance the relatively few offenders who will continue to commit crime as they travel through their life course. 89

Current interest in the delinquent life cycle was prompted in part by the “discovery” in the 1970s of the chronic juvenile (or delinquent) offender. According to this view, a relatively small number of youthful offenders commit a significant percentage of all serious crimes, and many of these same offenders grow up to become chronic adult criminals.

Chronic offenders can be distinguished from other delinquent youths. Many youthful law violators are apprehended for a single instance of criminal behavior, such as shoplifting or joyriding. Chronic offenders begin their delinquent careers at a young age (under 10 years), have serious and persistent brushes with the law, and may be excessively violent and destructive. They do not age out of crime but continue their law-violating behavior into adulthood. 90  Most research shows that early, repeated delinquent activity is the best predictor of future adult criminality.

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Treatment: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a treatment that focuses on patterns of thinking and the beliefs, attitudes, and values that underlie thinking. Cognitive behavioral therapy can help restructure distorted thinking and perception, which in turn changes a person’s behavior for the better. Characteristics of distorted thinking may include the following:

·  Immature or developmentally arrested thoughts

·  Poor problem solving and decision making

·  Inability to consider the effects of one’s behavior

·  An egocentric viewpoint with a negative view or lack of trust in other people

·  Hampered ability to reason and accept blame for wrongdoing

·  A mistaken belief of entitlement, including an inability to delay gratification, confusing wants and needs, and ignoring the rights of other people

·  A tendency to act on impulse, including a lack of self-control and empathy

·  Inability to manage feelings of anger

·  Use of force and violence as a means to achieve goals

Recently, Patrick Clark reviewed the existing literature on cognitive behavior to assess its effectiveness. He found that unlike other approaches, CBT places responsibility in the hands of clients while supplying them with the tools to solve their problems, focusing on the present rather than the past. People taking part in CBT learn specific skills that can be used to solve the problems they confront all the time as well as skills they can use to achieve legitimate goals and objectives. CBT first concentrates on developing skills to recognize distorted or unrealistic thinking when it happens, and then on changing that thinking or belief to mollify or eliminate problematic behavior.

The programs, often offered in small group settings, incorporate lessons and exercises involving role play, modeling, or demonstrations. Individual counseling sessions are often part of CBT. Clients are given homework and conduct experiments between sessions. These components are used to gauge the individual’s readiness for change and foster engagement in that change. A willingness to change is necessary for CBT or any other treatment to be effective in reducing further criminal behavior.

Programs often limit clients to 20 to 30 sessions, lasting over a period of up to 20 weeks. The more treatment provided or the more sessions participants attend over time, the greater the impact on and decrease in recidivism.

The typical CBT program is provided by trained professionals or paraprofessionals. Training for nontherapist group facilitators often involves 40 hours or more of specialized lessons and skill building. Licensed and certified therapists are often part of cognitive programs, especially those involving individual counseling.

Characteristics of the counselor are important to a program’s effectiveness. Counselor honesty, empathy, and sensitivity are helpful traits. Support and encouragement, partnership or alliance, and acceptance are necessary in establishing effective rapport, which is especially important in CBT because counselors often take on the role of coach. Counselors need to be consistent in modeling and expressing the prosocial attitudes and behaviors, moral values, and reasoning that are often part of CBT with criminal offenders.

Program Effectiveness

CBT is one of the few approaches to behavioral change that has been broadly validated with research. Unlike other traditional and popular therapies, CBT has been the subject of more than 400 clinical trials involving a broad range of conditions and populations. It has shown to be reliably effective with a wide variety of personal problems and behaviors, including substance abuse, antisocial and aggressive behavior, and mood disorders, all of which have been linked to delinquency. It has successfully addressed many issues experienced by children, including disruptive or noncompliant behavior, oppositional defiant disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

In what is considered a milestone of evaluation, Mark Lipsey reviewed the results of more than 500 treatment programs and found that therapeutic approaches based on counseling, skill building, and multiple services had the greatest impact in reducing problem behavior. Lipsey showed that programs based on cognitive behavioral therapy are effective with juvenile offenders in various settings, including residential, probation, and aftercare; cognitive behavioral therapy significantly reduced recidivism even among high-risk offenders.

CRITICAL THINKING

Do you believe that a treatment program such as cognitive behavioral therapy can work with gang boys living in the most deteriorated inner-city neighborhoods, or are their problems beyond the scope of a program based on psychological counseling? If you do not believe such a program would work, how would you deal with the most hard-core juvenile offenders?

SOURCES: Patrick Clark, “Preventing Future Crime with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy,” National Institute of Justice Journal 265 (2010),  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/265/therapy.htm  (accessed May 2013); Mark Lipsey, “The Primary Factors that Characterize Effective Interventions with Juvenile Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Overview,” Victims and Offenders 4:124–147 (2009); Nana Landenberger and Mark Lipsey, “The Positive Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Programs for Offenders: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Associated with Effective Treatment,” Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1:451–476 (2005).

A number of research efforts have set out to chronicle the careers of serious delinquent offenders. The next sections describe these initiatives.

Delinquency in a Birth Cohort

The concept of the chronic career offender is most closely associated with the research efforts of Marvin Wolfgang. 91  In 1972, Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin published a landmark study, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. They followed the delinquent careers of a cohort of 9,945 boys born in Philadelphia from birth until they reached age 18. Data were obtained from police files and school records. Socioeconomic status was determined by locating the residence of each member of the cohort and assigning him the median family income for that area. About one-third of the boys (3,475) had some police contact. The remaining two-thirds (6,470) had none. Those boys who had at least one contact with the police committed a total of 10,214 offenses.

The most significant discovery of Wolfgang and his associates was that of the so-called chronic offender. The data indicated that 54 percent (1,862) of the sample’s delinquent youths were repeat offenders. The repeaters could be further categorized as nonchronic recidivists and chronic recidivists. Nonchronic recidivists had been arrested more than once but fewer than five times. In contrast, the 627 boys labeled chronic recidivists had been arrested five times or more. Although these offenders accounted for only 18 percent of the delinquent population (6 percent of the total sample), they were responsible for 52 percent of all offenses. Known today as the “chronic 6 percent,” this group perpetrated 71 percent of the homicides, 82 percent of the robberies, and 64 percent of the aggravated assaults (see  Figure 2.2 ).

figure 2.2: Distribution of Offenses in the Philadelphia Cohort

Arrest and juvenile court experience did little to deter chronic offenders. In fact, the greater the punishment, the more likely they were to engage in repeat delinquent behavior. Strict punishment also increased the probability that further court action would be taken. Two factors stood out as encouraging recidivism: the seriousness of the original offense and the severity of the punishment. The researchers concluded that efforts of the juvenile justice system to eliminate delinquent behavior may be futile.

Wolfgang and his colleagues conducted a second cohort study with children born in 1958 and substantiated the finding that a relatively few chronic offenders are responsible for a significant portion of all delinquent acts. 92  Wolfgang’s results have been duplicated in a number of research studies conducted in locales across the United States and also in Great Britain. 93  Some have used the records of court-processed youths, and others have employed self-report data. One study that followed a 10 percent sample of the original Pennsylvania cohort (974 subjects) to age 30 found that 70 percent of the persistent adult offenders had also been chronic juvenile offenders. Chronic juvenile offenders had an 80 percent chance of becoming adult offenders and a 50 percent chance of being arrested four or more times as adults. 94  Paul Tracy and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard conducted a follow-up study of all the subjects in the second 1958 cohort. By age 26, Cohort II subjects were displaying the same behavior patterns as their older peers. Kids who started their delinquent careers early, committed a violent crime, and continued offending throughout adolescence were most likely to persist in criminal behavior as adults. Delinquents who began their offending careers with serious offenses or who quickly increased the severity of their offending early in life were most likely to persist in their criminal behavior into adulthood. Severity of offending rather than frequency of criminal behavior had the greatest impact on later adult criminality. 95

These studies indicate that chronic juvenile offenders continue their law-violating careers as adults, a concept referred to as the  continuity of crime . Kids who are disruptive as early as age 5 or 6 are most likely to exhibit disruptive behavior throughout adolescence. 96

continuity of crime

The idea that chronic juvenile offenders are likely to continue violating the law as adults.

What Causes Chronic Offending?

Research indicates that chronic offenders suffer from a number of personal, environmental, social, and developmental deficits, as shown in  Exhibit 2.2 . Other research studies have found that involvement in criminal activity (for example, getting arrested before age 15), relatively low intellectual development, and parental drug involvement were key predictive factors for future chronic offending. 97  Measurable problems in learning and motor skills, cognitive abilities, family relations, and other areas also predict chronicity. 98  Youthful offenders who persist are more likely to abuse alcohol, become economically dependent, have lower aspirations, and have a weak employment record. 99  Apprehension and punishment seem to have little effect on their offending behavior. Youths who have long juvenile records will most likely continue their offending careers into adulthood.

exhibit 2.2: Childhood Risk Factors for Persistent Delinquency

Individual Factors

·  Early antisocial behavior

·  Emotional factors such as high behavioral activation and low behavioral inhibition

·  Poor cognitive development

·  Low intelligence

·  Hyperactivity

School and Community Factors

·  Failure to bond to school

·  Poor academic performance

·  Low academic aspirations

·  Living in a poor family

·  Neighborhood disadvantage

·  Disorganized neighborhoods

·  Concentration of delinquent peer groups

·  Access to weapons

Family Factors

·  Parenting

·  Maltreatment

·  Family violence

·  Divorce

·  Parental psychopathology

·  Familial antisocial behaviors

·  Teenage parenthood

·  Family structure

·  Large family size

Peer Factors

·  Association with deviant peers

·  Peer rejection

SOURCE: Gail Wasserman, Kate Keenan, Richard Tremblay, John Coie, Todd Herrenkohl, Rolf Loeber, and David Petechuk, “Risk and Protective Factors of Child Delinquency,” Child Delinquency Bulletin Series (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2003).

Policy Implications

Efforts to chart the life cycle of crime and delinquency will have a major influence on both theory and policy. Rather than simply asking why youths become delinquent or commit antisocial acts, theorists are charting the onset, escalation, frequency, and cessation of delinquent behavior. Research on delinquent careers has also influenced policy. If relatively few offenders commit a great proportion of all delinquent acts and then persist as adult criminals, it follows that steps should be taken to limit their criminal opportunities. 100  One approach is to identify persistent offenders at the beginning of their offending careers and provide early treatment. 101  This might be facilitated by research aimed at identifying traits (for example, impulsive personalities) that can be used to classify high-risk offenders. 102  Because many of these youths suffer from a variety of problems, treatment must be aimed at a broad range of educational, family, vocational, and psychological problems. Focusing on a single problem, such as a lack of employment, may be ineffective. 103

Sheila Pott poses with a portrait of her daughter Audrie in Los Altos, California, on May 23, 2013. Audrie Pott committed suicide in September 2012 after being sexually assaulted by three boys during a house party in Saratoga, California. Photos of the incident were circulated around Pott’s high school, prompting the teenager to hang herself in a bathroom at home. There has been a spate of such cyber victimizations that have resulted in young women taking their own lives.

Juvenile Victimization

Richard and Maureen Kanka thought their daughter Megan was safe in their quiet, suburban neighborhood in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. Then on July 29, 1994, their lives were shattered when 7-year-old Megan went missing. Maureen Kanka searched the neighborhood and met 33-year-old Jesse Timmendequas, who lived across the street. Timmendequas told her that he had seen Megan earlier that evening while he was working on his car. The police were called in and soon focused their attention on Timmendequas’s house when they learned that he and two other residents were convicted sex offenders who had met at a treatment center and decided to live together upon their release. Timmendequas soon confessed to luring Megan into his home by telling her she could see his puppy and then raping and strangling her to death.

youth stories: Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Dugard, and Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, Michelle Knight

Three cases that made recent national headlines illustrate the danger that youth face from adult predators. The first involved Elizabeth Smart, a 14-year-old Salt Lake City girl, who was kidnapped from her home on June 5, 2002. She was taken in the middle of the night from a room she shared with her 9- year-old sister, Mary Katherine, who pretended to be asleep. A massive search failed to find Elizabeth, and many felt the girl was gone forever. Months later, Mary Katherine suddenly remembered that she had heard the kidnapper’s voice before and that it belonged to a man named Emmanuel, whom the Smarts had hired to work around the house. The police did not consider this information reliable, so the family turned to a sketch artist to draw a rendering that was released to the media and given media attention on TV shows such as Larry King Live and America’s Most Wanted. Family members of Brian David Mitchell, the real name of Emmanuel, recognized him in the drawing and provided photos. Now wanted by police around the nation, Mitchell was spotted in Sandy, Utah, on March 12, 2003, nine months after the abduction. Mitchell and his wife, Wanda Barzee, were taken into custody and Elizabeth Smart reunited with her family. During the trial, Elizabeth Smart, now 23 years old, testified about her horrific experiences during the nine months she was held captive. She was raped every day and constantly threatened that she would be killed if she tried to escape. Mitchell was eventually found guilty of kidnapping and sexual assault, charges that brought him a life sentence in prison. Barzee had earlier pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years in prison.

Melissa Baum, whose 10-year-old daughter Lindsey disappeared in June 2009, wipes a tear from her eye after being introduced in 2013 to kidnap survivor Elizabeth Smart at a speaking engagement. Smart told Baum and the rest of her audience about her harrowing abduction at age 14 and her nine-month ordeal at the hands of her kidnapper.

Amanda Berry (right) hugs her sister, Beth Serrano, after they were reunited in a Cleveland hospital. Berry, along with Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight, were freed from a Cleveland house after 10 years of captivity. Next comes recovery from sexual abuse and their sudden, jarring reentry into a world much different than the one they were snatched from a decade ago.

In another tragic case, 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard had been abducted on June 10, 1991, at a school bus stop within sight of her home in South Lake Tahoe, California. After being grabbed off the street by Phillip Garrido, she was held captive for 18 years, living in a tent in a walled-off compound on land Garrido owned in Antioch, California. Raped repeatedly, Dugard bore two daughters, in 1994 and 1998. Law enforcement officers had visited the residence at least twice but failed to detect Jaycee or her children. Garrido and his wife were indicted on charges including kidnapping, rape, and false imprisonment. In 2011, Garrido received a sentence of 431 years to life and his wife Nancy was sentenced to 36 years to life.

The third and most recent case involved three young women missing at least a decade and miraculously freed from a home in downtown Cleveland. Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight were all held captive in a home owned by a local musician and bus driver named Ariel Castro. Amanda Berry had been kidnapped when she was 17 years old. She left her part-time job at a Burger King on April 21, 2003, and was not heard from again. Her family never gave up hope and sought public support on TV shows like America’s Most Wanted. Gina DeJesus was 14, in seventh grade, when she vanished while walking home from school on April 2, 2004. Michelle Knight was 21 when she disappeared. She was last seen at a cousin’s house on August 22, 2002, not far from where Berry and DeJesus were last seen.

After a decade, neighbors Angel Cordero and Charles Ramsey heard screaming and found Berry at the door of Castro’s house. The door was just wide enough to fit a hand through. She was trying desperately to get out and pleaded for help to reach police, so the two men kicked down the door to free Berry.

Neighbors then helped her to make a 911 call in which she said: “I’m Amanda Berry. I’ve been on the news for the last 10 years.” She begged police officers to come to the home before the man who had kidnapped her returned. “I’ve been kidnapped, and I’ve been missing for 10 years,” she told the dispatcher. “And I’m here. I’m free now.”

The three women had been chained up in the basement of Castro’s home and repeatedly beaten and raped. Berry gave birth in captivity and her child was six years old at the time of the rescue. The women told police that Castro’s beatings had resulted in their having numerous miscarriages. Michelle Knight told her rescuers that Castro had impregnated her multiple times and forced her to abort each time. Castro would starve Knight for weeks and then repeatedly punch her in the stomach until she miscarried.

All the women were survivors despite their brutal treatment. Elizabeth Smart has become a journalist and advocate for missing and abused children. In February 2012, Elizabeth married Matthew Gilmour, a Scot, whom she met while doing mission work in Europe. In July 2010, the State of California approved a $20 million settlement with Jaycee Dugard to compensate her for “various lapses by the Corrections Department [which contributed to] Dugard’s continued captivity, ongoing sexual assault, and mental and/or physical abuse.” Amanda Berry, Michelle Knight, and Gina DeJesus have reunited with their families.

These abductions are tragically not unique. Nearly 30,000 children are taken and sexually assaulted by strangers each year. So, while cases involving long-term abduction and sexual exploitation are relatively rare, detention and rape of children is all too common.

CRITICAL THINKING

The long-term kidnapping of young girls seems to occur all too often. How much punishment does a kidnapper deserve? Should a person such as Ariel Castro, who abducts a young woman, impregnates her, and then causes her to lose the child, be charged with murder?

SOURCES: Trip Gabriel and Steven Yaccino, “Officials, Citing Miscarriages, Weigh Death Penalty in Ohio Case,” May 9, 2013,  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/us/cleveland-kidnapping.html ; Eesha Pandit, “In the Cleveland Kidnapping Case, Bystander Intervention Worked. What Happens When It Doesn’t?” The Nation, May 13, 2013,  http://www.thenation.com/article/174302/cleveland-kidnapping-case-bystander-intervention-worked-what-happens-when-it-doesnt ; Russell Goldman, “Elizabeth Smart Tells Court Brian David Mitchell Would Pray for Sex,” ABC News, November 10, 2010,  http://abcnews.go.com/US/elizabeth-smart-tells-court-brian-david-mitchell-pray/story?id=12110773 ; David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak, “Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics,” US Department of Justice, 2002,  http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf ; Sarah Netter and Sabina Ghebremedhin, “Jaycee Dugard Found After 18 Years, Kidnap Suspect Allegedly Fathered Her Kids,” ABC News, August 27, 2009, http://abcnews .go.com/US/jaycee-lee-dugard-found-family-missing-girl-located/story?id=8426124 (all URLs accessed May 2013).

Megan’s death led to a national crusade to develop laws that require sex offenders to register with local police when they move into a neighborhood and require local authorities to provide community notification of the sex offender’s presence. On the federal level, the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Law passed in May 1996, which requires states to pass some version of “Megan’s Law” or lose federal aid. At least 47 states plus the District of Columbia have complied. Jesse Timmendequas was sentenced to death on June 20, 1997, and remained on New Jersey’s death row until December 17, 2007, when the state’s death penalty was abolished and his sentence was commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

As the Megan Kanka case sadly tells us, juveniles are also victims of crime. The difference is particularly striking when we compare teens with people over age 65: teens are 15 times more likely to become victims than their grandparents. The data also indicate that male teenagers have a significantly higher chance than females of becoming victims of most violent crime, and that African American youth have a greater chance of becoming victims of violent crimes than whites of the same age. Young girls are much more likely to be the victim of sexual assaults, while boys are much more likely to be the victims of robbery. In either event, the likelihood of victimization for both crimes declines after the teenage years.

In the previous Youth Stories feature, three notorious cases of juvenile victimization are discussed in some detail.

Juvenile Victimization Trends

Delinquency rates have been in decline for the past two decades so it comes as no surprise that so too have rates of adolescent victimization. Since 1994, the overall rate of serious violent crime—rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault—against youth has declined by more than 75 percent, down from 62 victimizations per 1,000 youth ages 12 to 17 in 1994 to 14 per 1,000 today. Among serious violent crimes against youth, the rate of rape or sexual assault declined by 68 percent, robbery declined by 77 percent, and aggravated assault declined by 80 percent. The overall rate of simple assault declined by 83 percent during the same period, from 125 victimizations per 1,000 youth in 1994 to 22 per 1,000.

While overall teen victim rates have been in sharp decline, some notable trends have taken place in the past two decades. Since 1994, a significant convergence has occurred in male and female teen victim rates. In 1994, male youth (79 per 1,000) were nearly twice as likely as female youth (44 per 1,000) to experience serious violent crime. Today male and female youth are equally likely to experience serious violent crime. In comparison, there has been a divergence in victimization trends among racial and ethnic groups. While rates of serious violent crime among white and Hispanic youth have been in sharp decline, rates have remained the same among black youth. 104  The Cyber Delinquency feature discusses a notorious example of how youths are being victimized in the cyber age.

Reporting Victimizations

How often do kids report their victimizations to police, school, and medical authorities? Results from the most recent (2012) National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) found that compared with a similar study in the early 1990s, authorities were more likely to know about incidents of violence, which may reflect an ongoing effort by authorities, criminal justice and child protection agencies, and advocates to promote disclosure. The survey found that 46 percent of children who were victimized in the previous year had at least one victimization known to school, police, and medical authorities, with school authorities (e.g., teachers, principals, and counselors) being the most likely to know of the victimizations. Police were most likely to know about many of the most serious victimizations. In general, authorities were most likely to know about serious victimizations, including sexual abuse by an adult, kidnapping, and gang or group assaults. They were least likely to know about victimizations committed by other youth, including peer and sibling assaults, dating violence, flashing, and completed or attempted rape.

So while disclosure is increasing, child victimizations are decreasing. 105  It is possible that an increase in reporting has produced sufficient action by authorities to help limit juvenile victimization.

Teen Victims

NCVS data can also tell us something about the relationship between victims and offenders. This information is available because victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery, can identify the age, sex, and race of their attackers.

In general, teens tend to be victimized by their peers, whereas victims age 20 and over identified their attackers as being 21 or older. However, people in almost all age groups who are victimized by groups of offenders identify their attackers as teenagers or young adults.

The data also tell us that victimization is intraracial (within race). White teenagers tend to be victimized by white teens, and African American teenagers tend to be victimized by African American teens.

CYBER delinquency: Christopher Gunn

In 2011, 31-year-old Christopher Gunn pleaded guilty to producing child pornography in connection with an online sextortion scheme that spanned the globe. Over a period of more than two years, Gunn repeatedly used chat rooms and other social media outlets to threaten hundreds of young girls ages 9 to 16 located throughout the United States and internationally and coerce them into sending him sexually suggestive photos. The first scheme—dubbed “The New Kid Ruse”—involved contacting the victims over Facebook and pretending to be a new kid in town looking for friends. Once he had gained their trust through chatting, Gunn would ask the girls a series of personal questions, such as their sexual histories, intimate details about their bodies, and so on. If they divulged that personal information, Gunn would then ask the girls to send him a topless photo. If they refused, he would threaten to email their intimate conversation to the school principal or post it on Facebook for everyone to see. The second scheme—dubbed “The Justin Bieber Ruse”—involved pretending to be pop star Justin Bieber, contacting young girls via video chat services, such as Omegle and Skype, and offering them free concert tickets, backstage passes, or some other fan-related benefits if they would agree to send him a webcam transmission or a photo of themselves with their breasts exposed.

For those who complied, Gunn continued sending further demands and more threatening communications. If any of his demands were not met, Gunn would threaten to withhold the benefits he had promised the girls and/or to injure the girls’ reputations by publishing their compromising images and videos over the Internet. More than 10 girls were forced to send him sexually suggestive photos. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor read a transcript of a conversation between Gunn and a 13-year-old victim. In the transcript, the victim told Gunn that she did not want to take her shirt off in front the webcam. Gunn replied that if she didn’t, he would push Send, meaning send the prior pictures to the victim’s friends and family. The victim responded that she was only 13 years old and that she had “a life, please do not ruin it.” Gunn responded, “I am sending it now since u won’t do what I want.” The victim then told Gunn that if he pushed Send, she would kill herself. Gunn completely disregarded her cry for help and demanded that she take off her top. The victim complied. Gunn was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his crimes against children.

CRITICAL THINKING

In order to deter predators like Christopher Gunn, what’s more effective—to educate kids about the dangers of online involvement with strangers or to harshly punish adults whom prey upon children?

SOURCE: US Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Alabama, “Montgomery Man Pleads Guilty to Massive Online Sextortion Plot,” August 23, 2012,  http://www.fbi.gov/mobile/press-releases/2012/montgomery-man-pleads-guilty-to-massive-online-sextortion-plot  (accessed May 2013).

As  Table 2.4  shows, young people are more often victimized by strangers than adults and the likelihood of stranger victimization declines with age.  Table 2.4  also shows that the chances of victimization have declined significantly over the past two decades. For teens, the average annual rate of violent victimization committed by strangers against persons ages 12 to 17 was 15 per 1,000, slightly lower than the rate of 18 per 1,000 for persons ages 18 to 24. Persons age 65 or older experienced the lowest rate of violence by strangers (1.6 per 1,000). 106

table 2.4: Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, by Victim’s Age

		Average Annual Rate, per 1,000
Age	1993–1998	1999–2004	2005–2010
12–17	52.2	21.7	15.5
18–24	61.0	31.5	18.3
25–34	41.1	19.4	14.3
35–49	26.7	12.2	9.5
50–64	12.9	8.5	5.6
65 or older	3.1	1.6	1.6
SOURCE: Erika Harrell, Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993–2010, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012,  http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

SUMMARY

· 1 Explain how the UCR data are gathered and used

·  Official data on delinquent behavior are gathered in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR).

·  The UCR gathers data on the number and characteristics (age, race, and gender) of individuals who have been arrested. This is particularly important for delinquency research because it shows how many underage minors are arrested each year.

·  The accuracy of the UCR is somewhat suspect because surveys indicate that fewer than half of all crime victims report incidents to police.

· 2 Discuss the concept of self-reported delinquency

·  These surveys ask kids to describe, in detail, their recent and lifetime participation in antisocial activity.

·  Self-reports are given in groups, and the respondents are promised anonymity in order to ensure the validity and honesty of the responses.

·  In addition to questions about delinquent behavior, most self-report surveys contain questions about attitudes, values, and behaviors.

· 3 Be familiar with the National Crime Victimization Survey

·  The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a comprehensive, nationwide survey of victimization in the United States.

·  Each year data are obtained from a large nationally representative sample who are asked to report their experiences with crimes.

·  Due to the care with which the samples are drawn and the high completion rate, NCVS data are considered a relatively unbiased, valid estimate of all victimizations for the target crimes included in the survey.

· 4 Describe alternative measures of delinquent activity and behavior

·  Delinquency experts routinely use a number of other methods to acquire data on youth crime and delinquency.

·  Collecting cohort data involves observing over time a group of kids who share a like characteristic.

·  Sometimes researchers are able to conduct controlled experiments to collect data on the causes of delinquency.

·  Meta-analysis involves gathering data from a number of previous studies.

·  Data mining uses multiple advanced computational methods, including artificial intelligence (the use of computers to perform logical functions), to analyze large data sets usually involving one or more data sources.

· 5 Be familiar with recent trends in juvenile delinquency

·  Crime and delinquency rates trended upward between 1960 and 1991 when police recorded about 15 million crimes. Since then the number of crimes has been in decline.

·  More than 1 million juvenile arrests are now being made annually.

·  Juvenile delinquency continues to have a significant influence on the nation’s overall crime statistics.

· 6 Recognize the factors that affect the juvenile crime rate

·  Because teenagers have extremely high crime rates, crime experts view changes in the population age distribution as having the greatest influence on crime trends.

·  As a general rule, the crime rate follows the proportion of young males in the population.

·  There is debate over the effect the economy has on crime rates. A drop in the delinquency rate has been linked to a strong economy. Some believe that a poor economy may actually help lower delinquency rates because it limits the opportunity kids have to commit crime.

·  As the level of social problems increases—such as single-parent families, dropout rates, racial conflict, and teen pregnancies—so do delinquency rates.

·  Racial conflict may also increase delinquency rates.

·  There is evidence that the recent drop in the delinquency rate can be attributed to the availability of legalized abortion.

·  The availability of firearms may influence the delinquency rate, especially the proliferation of weapons in the hands of teens.

·  Another factor that affects delinquency rates is the explosive growth in teenage gangs.

·  Some experts argue that violent media can influence the direction of delinquency rates.

· 7 List and discuss the social and personal correlates of delinquency

·  Delinquents are disproportionately male, although female delinquency rates are rising faster than those for males.

·  Minority youth are overrepresented in the delinquency rate, especially for violent crime.

·  Experts are split on the cause of racial differences. Some believe they are a function of system bias; others see them as representing actual differences in the delinquency rate.

·  Disagreement also exists over the relationship between class position and delinquency. Some experts believe that adolescent crime is a lower-class phenomenon, whereas others see it throughout the social structure.

·  Problems in methodology have obscured the true class-crime relationship. However, official statistics indicate that lower-class youths are responsible for the most serious delinquent acts.

·  There is general agreement that delinquency rates decline with age.

· 8 Discuss the concept of the chronic offender

·  Some experts believe this phenomenon is universal, whereas others believe a small group of offenders persist in crime at a high rate.

·  The age-crime relationship has spurred research on the nature of delinquency over the life course.

·  Delinquency data show the existence of a chronic persistent offender who begins his or her offending career early in life and persists as an adult.

·  Marvin Wolfgang and his colleagues identified chronic offenders in a series of cohort studies conducted in Philadelphia.

· 9 Identify the causes of chronic offending

·  Ongoing research has identified the characteristics of persistent offenders as they mature, and both personality and social factors help us predict long-term offending patterns.

·  Early involvement in criminal activity, relatively low intellectual development, and parental drug involvement have been linked to later chronic offending.

·  Measurable problems in learning and motor skills, cognitive abilities, family relations, and other areas also predict chronicity.

·  Apprehension and punishment seem to have little effect on offending behavior. Youths who have long juvenile records will most likely continue their offending careers into adulthood.

· 10 Be familiar with the factors that predict teen victimization

·  Teenagers are much more likely to become victims of crime than are people in other age groups.

·  Teens tend to be victimized by their peers.

·  A majority of teens have been victimized by other teens, whereas victims ages 20 and over identified their attackers as being 21 or older.

·  Teen victimization is intraracial. White teenagers tend to be victimized by white teens, and African American teenagers tend to be victimized by African American teens.

KEY TERMS

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),  p. 39

Uniform Crime Report (UCR),  p. 39

Part I crimes,  p. 40

Part II crimes,  p. 40

National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS),  p. 42

self-report survey,  p. 43

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),  p. 45

disaggregated,  p. 46

Roe v. Wade,  p. 48

racial threat theory,  p. 55

racial profiling,  p. 55

age of onset,  p. 58

continuity of crime,  p. 62

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

What factors contribute to the aging-out process?

2.

Why are males more delinquent than females? Is it a matter of lifestyle, culture, or physical properties?

3.

Discuss the racial differences found in the crime rate. What factors account for differences in the African American and white crime rates?

4.

Should kids who have been arrested more than three times be given mandatory incarceration sentences?

5.

Do you believe that self-reports are an accurate method of gauging the nature and extent of delinquent behavior?

VIEWPOINT

As a juvenile court judge you are forced to make a tough decision during a hearing: whether a juvenile should be waived to the adult court. It seems that gang activity has become a way of life for residents living in local public housing projects. The Bloods sell crack, and the Wolfpack controls the drug market. When the rivalry between the two gangs exploded, 16-year-old Shatiek Johnson, a Wolfpack member, shot and killed a member of the Bloods; in retaliation, the Bloods put out a contract on his life. While in hiding, Shatiek was confronted by two undercover detectives who recognized the young fugitive. Fearing for his life, Shatiek pulled a pistol and began firing, fatally wounding one of the officers. During the hearing, you learn that Shatiek’s story is not dissimilar from that of many other children raised in tough housing projects. With an absent father and a single mother who could not control her five sons, Shatiek lived in a world of drugs, gangs, and shootouts long before he was old enough to vote. By age 13, Shatiek had been involved in the gang-beating death of a homeless man in a dispute over $10, for which he was given a one-year sentence at a youth detention center and released after six months. Now charged with a crime that could be considered first-degree murder if committed by an adult, Shatiek could—if waived to the adult court—be sentenced to life in prison or even face the death penalty.

At the hearing, Shatiek seems like a lost soul. He claims he thought the police officers were killers out to collect the bounty put on his life by the Bloods. He says that killing the rival gang boy was an act of self-defense. The district attorney confirms that the victim was in fact a known gang assassin with numerous criminal convictions. Shatiek’s mother begs you to consider the fact that her son is only 16 years old, that he has had a very difficult childhood, and that he is a victim of society’s indifference to the poor.

·  Would you treat Shatiek as a juvenile and see if a prolonged stay in a youth facility could help this troubled young man, or would you transfer (waive) him to the adult justice system?

·  Does a 16-year-old like Shatiek deserve a second chance?

·  Is Shatiek’s behavior common among adolescent boys or unusual and disturbing?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

To help you answer these questions and to learn more about gang membership, go to the Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program website ( http://www.great-online.org/ ). The G.R.E.A.T. program is a school-based, law enforcement officer–instructed classroom curriculum. With prevention as its primary objective, the program is intended as an immunization against delinquency, youth violence, and gang membership.

Another valuable site is Find Youth Info ( http://findyouthinfo.gov/ ), a collaborative web-based resource supported by various federal agencies focused on general youth-related issues. Find Youth Info is the US government website that helps users create, maintain, and strengthen effective youth programs. Included are youth facts, funding information, and tools to help users assess community assets, generate maps of local and federal resources, search for evidence-based youth programs, and keep up to date on the latest youth-related news.

For more information about these websites, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Sharon Chen, “Teens to Grow Old in Prison for Brutal Double Rape,” Fox5 San Diego, January 31, 2013,  http://fox5sandiego.com/local-news/stories/teens-guilty-of-raping-girls-in-park/  (accessed May 2013).

2. FBI, Crime in the United States, 2011 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2012).

3. Bureau of Justice Statistics Data, 2012,  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index .cfm?ty=tp&tid=96  (accessed May 2013).

4. Richard Felson, Steven Messner, Anthony Hoskin, and Glenn Deane, “Reasons for Reporting and Not Reporting Domestic Violence to the Police,” Criminology 40:617–648 (2002).

5. Bonnie Fisher, Leah Daigle, Francis Cullen, and Michael Turner, “Reporting Sexual Victimization to the Police and Others: Results from a National-Level Study of College Women,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 30:6–39 (2003).

6. Eric P. Baumer and Janet L. Lauritsen, “Reporting Crime to the Police, 1973–2005: A Multivariate Analysis of Long-term Trends in the National Crime Survey (NCS) and National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS),” Criminology 48:131–185 (2010).

7. Duncan Chappell, Gilbert Geis, Stephen Schafer, and Larry Siegel, “Forcible Rape: A Comparative Study of Offenses Known to the Police in Boston and Los Angeles,” in James Henslin, ed., Studies in the Sociology of Sex (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1971), pp. 169–193.

8. William K. Rashbaum, “Retired Officers Raise Questions on Crime Data,” New York Times, February 6, 2010,  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/nyregion/07crime.html?scp=1&sq=police% 20crime%20data&st=cse  (accessed May 2013).

9. Robert O’Brien, “Police Productivity and Crime Rates: 1973–1992,” Criminology 34:183–207 (1996).

10. FBI, UCR Handbook (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1998), p. 33.

11. A pioneering effort in self-report research is A. L. Porterfield, Youth in Trouble (Fort Worth, TX: Leo Potishman Foundation, 1946); for a review, see Robert Hardt and George Bodine, Development of Self-Report Instruments in Delinquency Research: A Conference Report (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Youth Development Center, 1965). See also Fred Murphy, Mary Shirley, and Helen Witner, “The Incidence of Hidden Delinquency,” American Journal of Orthopsychology 16:686–696 (1946).

12. Christiane Brems, Mark Johnson, David Neal, and Melinda Freemon, “Childhood Abuse History and Substance Use among Men and Women Receiving Detoxification Services,” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 30:799–821 (2004).

13. Lloyd Johnston, Patrick O’Malley, and Jerald Bachman, Monitoring the Future, 2012 (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 2012),  http://www.monitoringthefuture.org  (accessed May 2013).

14. D. Wayne Osgood, Lloyd Johnston, Patrick O’Malley, and Jerald Bachman, “The Generality of Deviance in Late Adolescence and Early Adulthood,” American Sociological Review 53:81–93 (1988).

15. Leonore Simon, “Validity and Reliability of Violent Juveniles: A Comparison of Juvenile Self-Reports with Adult Self-Reports Incarcerated in Adult Prisons,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, November 1995, p. 26.

16. Stephen Cernkovich, Peggy Giordano, and Meredith Pugh, “Chronic Offenders: The Missing Cases in Self-Report Delinquency Research,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 76:705–732 (1985).

17. Terence Thornberry, Beth Bjerregaard, and William Miles, “The Consequences of Respondent Attrition in Panel Studies: A Simulation Based on the Rochester Youth Development Study,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:127–158 (1993).

18. Julia Yun Soo Kim, Michael Fendrich, and Joseph S. Wislar, “The Validity of Juvenile Arrestees’ Drug Use Reporting: A Gender Comparison,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:419–432 (2000).

19. See Spencer Rathus and Larry Siegel, “Crime and Personality Revisited: Effects of MMPI Sets on Self-Report Studies,” Criminology 18:245–251 (1980); John Clark and Larry Tifft, “Polygraph and Interview Validation of Self-Reported Deviant Behavior,” American Sociological Review 31:516–523 (1966).

20. Mallie Paschall, Miriam Ornstein, and Robert Flewelling, “African-American Male Adolescents’ Involvement in the Criminal Justice System: The Criterion Validity of Self-Report Measures in Prospective Study,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:174–187 (2001).

21. David Kirk, “Examining the Divergence Across Self-report and Official Data Sources on Inferences About the Adolescent Life-course of Crime,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 22:107–129 (2006).

22. Jennifer Roberts, Edward Mulvey, Julie Horney, John Lewis, and Michael Arter, “A Test of Two Methods of Recall for Violent Events,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:175–193 (2005).

23. Lila Kazemian and David Farrington, “Comparing the Validity of Prospective, Retrospective, and Official Onset for Different Offending Categories,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:127–147 (2005).

24. Vincent Webb, Charles Katz, and Scott Decker, “Assessing the Validity of Self-Reports by Gang Members: Results from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program,” Crime and Delinquency 52:232–252 (2006).

25. Michael Planty and Jennifer Truman, Criminal Victimization, 2011 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012),  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv11.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

26. L. Edward Wells and Joseph Rankin, “Juvenile Victimization: Convergent Validation of Alternative Measurements,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:287–307 (1995).

27. Thomas Bernard, “Juvenile Crime and the Transformation of Juvenile Justice: Is There a Juvenile Crime Wave?” Justice Quarterly 16:336–356 (1999).

28. For example, the following studies have noted the great discrepancy between official statistics and self-report studies: Maynard Erickson and LaMar Empey, “Court Records, Undetected Delinquency, and Decision Making,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 54: 456–469 (1963); Martin Gold, “Undetected Delinquent Behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 3:27–46 (1966); James Short and F. Ivan Nye, “Extent of Unrecorded Delinquency, Tentative Conclusions,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 49:296–302 (1958).

29. Barbara Warner and Brandi Wilson Coomer, “Neighborhood Drug Arrest Rates: Are They a Meaningful Indicator of Drug Activity? A Research Note,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:123–139 (2003).

30. Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and Richard Rosenfeld, “Trend and Deviation in Crime Rates: A Comparison of UCR and NCVS Data for Burglary and Robbery,” Criminology 29:237–248 (1991). See also Michael Hindelang, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis, Measuring Delinquency (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981).

31. James A. Fox, Trends in Juvenile Violence: A Report to the United States Attorney General on Current and Future Rates of Juvenile Offending (Boston: Northeastern University, 1996).

32. Steven Levitt, “The Limited Role of Changing Age Structure in Explaining Aggregate Crime Rates,” Criminology 37:581–599 (1999).

33. Julie Phillips, “The Relationship between Age Structure and Homicide Rates in the United States, 1970 to 1999,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:230–260 (2006).

34. Brad Bushman, Morgan Wang, and Craig Anderson, “Is the Curve Relating Temperature to Aggression Linear or Curvilinear? Assaults and Temperature in Minneapolis Reexamined,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:62–66 (2005).

35. Paul Bell, “Reanalysis and Perspective in the Heat-Aggression Debate,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:71–73 (2005); Ellen Cohn, “The Prediction of Police Calls for Service: The Influence of Weather and Temporal Variables on Rape and Domestic Violence,” Journal of Environmental Psychology 13:71–83 (1993).

36. Michael Hindelang, Travis Hirschi, and Joseph Weis, Measuring Delinquency (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981); Gary Jensen and Raymond Eve, “Sex Differences in Delinquency: An Examination of Popular Sociological Explanation,” Criminology 13:427–448 (1976); Michael Hindelang, “Age, Sex, and the Versatility of Delinquent Involvements,” Social Problems 18:522–535 (1979); James Short and F. Ivan Nye, “Extent of Unrecorded Juvenile Delinquency, Tentative Conclusions,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 49:296–302 (1958).

37. Leroy Gould, “Who Defines Delinquency? A Comparison of Self-Report and Officially Reported Indices of Delinquency for Three Racial Groups,” Social Problems 16:325–336 (1969); Harwin Voss, “Ethnic Differentials in Delinquency in Honolulu,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 54:322–327 (1963); Ronald Akers, Marvin Krohn, Marcia Radosevich, and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, “Social Characteristics and Self-Reported Delinquency,” in Gary Jensen, ed., Sociology of Delinquency (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981), pp. 48–62.

38. David Huizinga and Delbert Elliott, “Juvenile Offenders: Prevalence, Offender Incidence, and Arrest Rates by Race,” Crime and Delinquency 33:206–223 (1987); see also Dale Dannefer and Russell Schutt, “Race and Juvenile Justice Processing in Court and Police Agencies,” American Journal of Sociology 87:1113–1132 (1982).

39. Paul Tracy, “Race and Class Differences in Official and Self-Reported Delinquency,” in Marvin Wolfgang, Terrence Thornberry, and Robert Figlio, eds., From Boy to Man, from Delinquency to Crime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), p. 120.

40. Monitoring the Future, 2012.

41. Samuel Walker, Cassia Spohn, and Miriam DeLone, The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America (Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1992), pp. 46–47.

42. Miriam Sealock and Sally Simpson, “Unraveling Bias in Arrest Decisions: The Role of Juvenile Offender Typescripts,” Justice Quarterly 15:427–457 (1998).

43. Andres F. Rengifo and Don Stemen, “The Unintended Effects of Penal Reform: African American Presence, Incarceration, and the Abolition of Discretionary Parole in the United States,” Crime and Delinquency, first published online on May 25, 2012; David Eitle and Susanne Monahan,” Revisiting the Racial Threat Thesis: The Role of Police Organizational Characteristics in Predicting Race-Specific Drug Arrest Rates,” Justice Quarterly 26:528–561 (2009).

44. Malcolm Holmes, Brad Smith, Adrienne Freng, and Ed Muñoz, “Minority Threat, Crime Control, and Police Resource Allocation in the Southwestern United States,” Crime and Delinquency 54:128–152 (2008).

45. Bradley Keen and David Jacobs, “Racial Threat, Partisan Politics, and Racial Disparities in Prison Admissions,” Criminology 47:209–238 (2009).

46. Tammy Rinehart Kochel, David B. Wilson, and Stephen D. Mastrofski, “Effect of Suspect Race on Officers’ Arrest Decisions,” Criminology 49:473–512 (2011).

47. Kenneth Novak and Mitchell Chamlin, “Racial Threat, Suspicion, and Police Behavior: The Impact of Race and Place in Traffic Enforcement,” Crime and Delinquency 58:275–300 (2012).

48. Richard Rosenfeld, Jeff Rojek, and Scott Decker, “Age Matters: Race Differences in Police Searches of Young and Older Male Drivers “Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49:31–55 (2011).

49. Rodney Engen, Sara Steen, and George Bridges, “Racial Disparities in the Punishment of Youth: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of the Literature,” Social Problems 49:194–221 (2002).

50. Karen Parker, Brian Stults, and Stephen Rice, “Racial Threat, Concentrated Disadvantage and Social Control: Considering the Macro-Level Sources of Variation in Arrests,” Criminology 43: 1111–1134 (2005); Lisa Stolzenberg, Stewart J. D’Alessio, and David Eitle, “A Multilevel Test of Racial Threat Theory,” Criminology 42: 673–698 (2004).

51. Michael Leiber and Kristan Fox, “Race and the Impact of Detention on Juvenile Justice Decision Making,” Crime and Delinquency 51:470–497 (2005); Traci Schlesinger, “Racial and Ethnic Disparity in Pretrial Criminal Processing,” Justice Quarterly 22:170–192 (2005).

52. Christina DeJong and Kenneth Jackson, “Putting Race into Context: Race, Juvenile Justice Processing, and Urbanization,” Justice Quarterly 15:487–504 (1998).

53. Michael Hallett, “Reentry to What? Theorizing Prisoner Reentry in the Jobless Future,” Critical Criminology 20:213–228 (2012).

54. Engen, Steen, and Bridges, “Racial Disparities in the Punishment of Youth.”

55. David Eitle, Stewart D’Alessio, and Lisa Stolzenberg, “Racial Threat and Social Control: A Test of the Political, Economic, and Threat of Black Crime Hypotheses,” Social Forces 81:557–576 (2002); Michael Leiber and Jayne Stairs, “Race, Contexts, and the Use of Intake Diversion,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:56–86 (1999); Darrell Steffensmeier, Jeffery Ulmer, and John Kramer, “The Interaction of Race, Gender, and Age in Criminal Sentencing: The Punishment Cost of Being Young, Black, and Male,” Criminology 36:763–798 (1998).

56. Robert Sampson, “Race and Criminal Violence: A Demographically Disaggregated Analysis of Urban Homicide,” Crime and Delinquency 31:47–82 (1985).

57. Walker, Spohn, and DeLone, The Color of Justice, pp. 47–48.

58. Mallie Paschall, Robert Flewelling, and Susan Ennett, “Racial Differences in Violent Behavior among Young Adults: Moderating and Confounding Effects,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:148–165 (1998).

59. Gary LaFree and Richard Arum, “The Impact of Racially Inclusive Schooling on Adult Incarceration Rates among U.S. Cohorts of African Americans and Whites Since 1930,” Criminology 44:73–103 (2006).

60. Julie Phillips, “Variation in African-American Homicide Rates: An Assessment of Potential Explanations,” Criminology 35:527–559 (1997).

61. Melvin Thomas, “Race, Class, and Personal Income: An Empirical Test of the Declining Significance of Race Thesis, 1968–1988,” Social Problems 40:328–339 (1993).

62. Thomas McNulty and Paul Bellair, “Explaining Racial and Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Violence: Structural Disadvantage, Family Well-Being, and Social Capital,” Justice Quarterly 20:1–32 (2003).

63. Julie Phillips, “White, Black, and Latino Homicide Rates: Why the Difference?” Social Problems 49:349–374 (2002).

64. Robert Agnew, “A General Strain Theory of Community Differences in Crime Rates,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:123–155 (1999).

65. Bonita Vesey and Steven Messner, “Further Testing of Social Disorganization Theory: An Elaboration of Sampson and Groves’s ‘Community Structure and Crime,’” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:156–174 (1999).

66. Carter Hay, Edward Fortson, Dusten Hollist, Irshad Altheimer, and Lonnie Schaible, “Compounded Risk: The Implications for Delinquency of Coming from a Poor Family that Lives in a Poor Community,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36:593–605 (2007).

67. James Short and Ivan Nye, “Reported Behavior as a Criterion of Deviant Behavior,” Social Problems 5:207–213 (1958).

68. Classic studies include Ivan Nye, James Short, and Virgil Olsen, “Socioeconomic Status and Delinquent Behavior,” American Journal of Sociology 63:381–389 (1958); Robert Dentler and Lawrence Monroe, “Social Correlates of Early Adolescent Theft,” American Sociological Review 26:733–743 (1961); Charles Tittle, Wayne Villemez, and Douglas Smith, “The Myth of Social Class and Criminality: An Empirical Assessment of the Empirical Evidence,” American Sociological Review 43:643–656 (1978).

69. Nancy Rodriguez, “Concentrated Disadvantage and the Incarceration of Youth: Examining How Context Affects Juvenile Justice,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, first published on December 13, 2011.

70. Charles Tittle and Robert Meier, “Specifying the SES/Delinquency Relationship,” Criminology 28:271–301 (1990); R. Gregory Dunaway, Francis Cullen, Velmer Burton, and T. David Evans, “The Myth of Social Class and Crime Revisited: An Examination of Class and Adult Criminality,” Criminology 38:589–632 (2000).

71. Dunaway, Cullen, Burton, and Evans, “The Myth of Social Class and Crime Revisited.”

72. Margaret Farnworth, Terence Thornberry, Marvin Krohn, and Alan Lizotte, Measurement in the Study of Class and Delinquency: Integrating Theory and Research, working paper no. 4, rev. (Albany, NY: Rochester Youth Development Survey, 1992), p. 19.

73. G. Roger Jarjoura and Ruth Triplett, “Delinquency and Class: A Test of the Proximity Principle,” Justice Quarterly 14:765–792 (1997).

74. See, generally, David Farrington, “Age and Crime,” in Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, eds., Crime and Justice: An Annual Review, vol. 7 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), pp. 189–250; Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, “Age and the Explanation of Crime,” American Journal of Sociology 89:552–584 (1983).

75. James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985), pp. 126–147.

76. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, “The True Value of Lambda Would Appear to Be Zero: An Essay on Career Criminals, Criminal Careers, Selective Incapacitation, Cohort Studies, and Related Topics,” Criminology 24:213–234 (1986); further support for their position can be found in Lawrence Cohen and Kenneth Land, “Age Structure and Crime,” American Sociological Review 52:170–183 (1987).

77. Misaki Natsuaki, Xiaojia Ge, and Ernst Wenk, “Continuity and Changes in the Developmental Trajectories of Criminal Career: Examining the Roles of Timing of First Arrest and High School Graduation,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37:431–444 (2008).

78. Marvin Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972); Lyle Shannon, Assessing the Relationship of Adult Criminal Careers to Juvenile Careers: A Summary (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1982); D. J. West and David P. Farrington, The Delinquent Way of Life (London: Heinemann, 1977); Donna Hamparian, Richard Schuster, Simon Dinitz, and John Conrad, The Violent Few (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978).

79. Margo Wilson and Martin Daly, “Life Expectancy, Economic Inequality, Homicide, and Reproductive Timing in Chicago Neighbourhoods,” British Journal of Medicine 31:1271–1274 (1997).

80. Edward Mulvey and John LaRosa, “Delinquency Cessation and Adolescent Development: Preliminary Data,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:212–224 (1986).

81. Timothy Brezina, “Delinquent Problem-Solving: An Interpretive Framework for Criminological Theory and Research,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:3–30 (2000).

82. Gordon Trasler, “Cautions for a Biological Approach to Crime,” in Sarnoff Mednick, Terrie Moffitt, and Susan Stack, eds., The Causes of Crime, New Biological Approaches (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 7–25.

83. Alicia Rand, “Transitional Life Events and Desistance from Delinquency and Crime,” in Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, eds., From Boy to Man, pp. 134–163.

84. Marc LeBlanc, “Late Adolescence Deceleration of Criminal Activity and Development of Self- and Social-Control,” Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 2:51–68 (1993).

85. Ibid.

86. Ryan King, Michael Massoglia, and Ross MacMillan, “The Context of Marriage and Crime: Gender, the Propensity to Marry, and Offending in Early Adulthood,” Criminology 45:33–65 (2007).

87. Barry Glassner, Margaret Ksander, Bruce Berg, and Bruce Johnson, “Note on the Deterrent Effect of Juvenile vs. Adult Jurisdiction,” Social Problems 31:219–221 (1983).

88. Neal Shover and Carol Thompson, “Age, Differential Expectations, and Crime Desistance,” Criminology 30:89–104 (1992).

89. Lila Kazemian and David Farrington, “Exploring Residual Career Length and Residual Number of Offenses for Two Generations of Repeat Offenders,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:89–113 (2006).

90. Arnold Barnett, Alfred Blumstein, and David Farrington, “A Prospective Test of a Criminal Career Model,” Criminology 27:373–388 (1989).

91. Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort.

92. Paul Tracy, Marvin Wolfgang, and Robert Figlio, Delinquency in Two Birth Cohorts, Executive Summary (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 1985).

93. Shannon, Assessing the Relationship of Adult Criminal Careers to Juvenile Careers; Howard Snyder, Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1988); Donald J. West and David P. Farrington, The Delinquent Way of Life (London: Heinemann, 1977); Donna Hamparian, Richard Schuster, Simon Dinitz, and John Conrad, The Violent Few (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978).

94. See, generally, Wolfgang, Thornberry, and Figlio, From Boy to Man.

95. Paul Tracy and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, Continuity and Discontinuity in Criminal Careers (New York: Plenum, 1996).

96. R. Tremblay, R. Loeber, C. Gagnon, P. Charlebois, S. Larivee, and M. LeBlanc, “Disruptive Boys with Stable and Unstable High Fighting Behavior Patterns During Junior Elementary School,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 19:285–300 (1991).

97. Peter Jones, Philip Harris, James Fader, and Lori Grubstein, “Identifying Chronic Juvenile Offenders,” Justice Quarterly 18:478–507 (2001).

98. Jennifer White, Terrie Moffitt, Felton Earls, Lee Robins, and Phil Silva, “How Early Can We Tell? Predictors of Childhood Conduct Disorder and Adolescent Delinquency,” Criminology 28:507–535 (1990).

99. Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, Paul Tracy, and James Howell, “Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: The Relationship of Delinquency Career Types to Adult Criminality,” Justice Quarterly 18: 449–478 (2001).

100. Kimberly Kempf, “Crime Severity and Criminal Career Progression,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 79:524–540 (1988).

101. Jeffrey Fagan, “Social and Legal Policy Dimensions of Violent Juvenile Crime,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:93–133 (1990).

102. Peter Greenwood, Selective Incapacitation (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1982).

103. Terence Thornberry, David Huizinga, and Rolf Loeber, “The Prevention of Serious Delinquency and Violence,” in James Howell, Barry Krisberg, J. David Hawkins, and John Wilson, eds., Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1995).

104. Nicole White and Janet Lauritsen, Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994–2010, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics 2012,  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

105. David Finkelhor, Richard Ormrod, Heather Turner, and Sherry Hamby, Child and Youth Victimization Known to Police, School, and Medical Authorities, OJJDP National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence Series, 2012,  http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/235394.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

106. Erika Harrell, Violent Victimization Committed by Strangers, 1993–2010, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012,  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

3: Individual Views of Delinquency

Chapter Outline

Rational Choice Theory

· The Rational Delinquent

· Shaping Delinquent Choices

· Routine Activities

Controlling Delinquency

· General Deterrence

· Specific Deterrence

· Incapacitation

· Situational Crime Prevention

· Why Do Delinquents Choose Delinquency?

Trait Theories: Biosocial and Psychological Views

· Origins of Trait Theory

Contemporary Biosocial Theory

· Vulnerability vs. Differential Susceptibility

· Biochemical Factors

· Neurological Dysfunction

· Genetic Influences

· The Association between Inherited Traits and Delinquency

· Evolutionary Theory

Psychological Theories of Delinquency

· Psychodynamic Theory

· Attachment Theory

· Mental Disorders and Delinquency

· Behavioral Theory

· Cognitive Theory

· Personality and Delinquency

· Intelligence and Delinquency

· Critiquing Individual-Level Theories

· Trait Theory and Delinquency Prevention

Learning Objectives

· 1 Be familiar with and distinguish between the two branches of individual-level theories of delinquency

· 2 Know the principles of choice theory

· 3 Discuss the routine activities theory of delinquency

· 4 Know the principles of general deterrence theory

· 5 Be familiar with the concept of specific deterrence

· 6 Discuss the concept of situational crime prevention

· 7 Trace the history and development of trait theory

· 8 Be familiar with the branches and substance of biological trait theory

· 9 Know the various psychological theories of delinquency

· 10 Be familiar with the psychological traits that have been linked to delinquency

chapter features

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice— prevention: Using Diet to Control Delinquent Behavior

Case profile: Timothy’s Story

Professional Spotlight: Julie Medlin, Ph.D .

focus on Delinquency: The Media and Delinquency

Youth Stories: The Zantop Killings

Case profile: Eric’s Story

FROM THE TIME HE WAS LITTLE, Adam Lanza couldn’t bear to be touched. By middle school, the commotion in his classroom upset him and kept him apart from other kids. At age 6, he was diagnosed with “sensory integration disorder”—now known as sensory processing disorder (SPD), which made him over-respond to stimuli and find clothing, physical contact, light, sound, and food unendurable. Those with SPD may also under-respond and feel little or no reaction to pain or extreme hot and cold. There may be sensory motor problems that can cause weakness and clumsiness or delay in developing motor skills. His mother, Nancy, warned people about him. One of her friends told reporters, “Adam was a quiet kid. He never said a word. There was a weirdness about him, and Nancy warned me once at one of the Scout meetings… ‘Don’t touch Adam.’ She said he just can’t stand that. He’d become teary-eyed and I think he would run to his mother.” Could his psychological condition be the reason why on December 14, 2012, the withdrawn Lanza shot his mother four times in her own bed, then went to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and killed six female teachers and administrators and massacred 20 first-graders before taking his own life? 1

The recent spate of mass killings highlights the fact that the availability of mental health treatment may be linked to violent crime rates. Take for example mass shootings such as the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre in which the perpetrator Adam Lanza is believed to have suffered mental illness. Adam Lankford studied mass shootings and found that in the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87. At the same time, the availability of mental-health treatment has been reduced by budget cuts, and as a result the number of state hospital beds in America per capita has dropped to 1850 levels, or 14.1 beds per 100,000 people. 2  If more treatment were available for people like Lanza, would such incidents of mass shootings as the Newtown massacre be prevented?

Adam Lanza, 13 years old

Some delinquency experts believe that the decision to commit an illegal act is a product of an individual-level decision-making process shaped by the personal characteristics and traits of the decision maker. Delinquents are not in fact a “product of their environment,” but instead, individual actors, sometimes directed by some inner trait—selfish temperament, impulsive personality, abnormal hormones, mental illness—in their choice of antisocial over conventional behaviors.

If delinquency, the argument goes, reflects social and economic factors, how is it that many youths residing in the most dangerous and deteriorated neighborhoods are law-abiding citizens? According to the most recent US Census Bureau data (2011), more than 48 million Americans live in poverty, including millions of children, yet the vast majority of poor people do not become delinquents and criminals or join law-violating youth gangs. 3  Research indicates that relatively few youths in any population, even the most economically disadvantaged, actually become hard-core, chronic delinquents. 4  If poverty and environment were solely responsible for antisocial behaviors, there would be many more delinquent youths, and crime rates would be increasing.

If social factors are not responsible for the onset of delinquency, what is? To some theorists, the locus of delinquency is rooted in the individual: how the individual makes decisions, the quality of his or her biological makeup, and his or her personality and psychological profile.

Individual-level explanations of delinquency can be divided into two distinct categories. One position, referred to as  choice theory , suggests that young offenders choose to engage in antisocial activity because they believe their actions will be beneficial and profitable. Whether they join a gang, steal cars, or sell drugs, their delinquent acts are motivated by the reasoned belief that illegal acts can be profitable and relatively risk free. They have little fear of getting caught and, if they are apprehended, discount the legal consequences. Some are motivated by fantasies of riches, whereas others may simply enjoy the excitement and short-term gratification produced by delinquent acts such as beating up an opponent or stealing a car.

choice theory

Holds that youths will engage in delinquent and criminal behavior after weighing the consequences and benefits of their actions; delinquent behavior is a rational choice made by a motivated offender who perceives that the chances of gain outweigh any possible punishment or loss.

All youthful misbehavior, however, cannot be traced to rational choice, profit motive, or criminal entrepreneurship. Some delinquent acts, especially violent ones, seem irrational, selfish, and/or hedonistic. Some delinquency experts believe that these seemingly irrational and destructive antisocial behaviors, such as Adam Lanza’s mass shooting, may be inspired by aberrant physical or psychological traits rather than rational thought and decision making. While it may be true that some youths choose to get involved in delinquent behaviors, others may be driven by biological or psychological abnormalities, such as hyperactivity, low intelligence, biochemical imbalance, or genetic defects. This view of delinquency is referred to here generally as  trait theory  because it links delinquency to biological and psychological traits that control human development.

trait theory

Holds that youths engage in delinquent or criminal behavior due to aberrant physical or psychological traits that govern behavioral choices; delinquent actions are impulsive or instinctual rather than rational choices.

Choice and trait theories, though independent, are linked here because they share some common ground:

·  Both focus on mental and behavioral processes at the individual level. Delinquency is an individual-level problem, not a social problem.

·  Both recognize that because all people are different, each person reacts to the same set of environmental and social conditions in a unique way. Not all people living under the same socioeconomic conditions behave in the same manner or react in the same manner.

·  Because the root cause of delinquency is located at the individual level, delinquency prevention and control efforts must be directed at the individual offender. We must change people rather than society.

This chapter first covers those theoretical models that focus on individual choice. Then we discuss the view that biological and psychological development controls youngsters’ ability to make choices, rendering some of them violent, aggressive, and antisocial.

Rational Choice Theory

The first formal explanations of crime and delinquency held that human behavior was a matter of choice. Because it was assumed that people had  free will  to choose their behavior, those who violated the law were motivated by personal needs such as greed, revenge, survival, and hedonism. Over 250 years ago, Cesare Beccaria argued that people weigh the benefits and consequences of their future actions before deciding on a course of behavior. 5  His writings formed the core of what is referred to today as  classical criminology .

free will

View that people are in charge of their own destinies and are free to make personal behavior choices unencumbered by environmental factors.

classical criminology

Holds that decisions to violate the law are weighed against possible punishments, and to deter crime, the pain of punishment must outweigh the benefit of illegal gain; led to graduated punishments based on seriousness of the crime (let the punishment fit the crime).

According to this “classical view,” the decision to violate the law comes after a careful weighing of the benefits and costs of criminal behaviors. Most potential law violators would cease their actions if the potential pain associated with a behavior outweighed its anticipated gain; conversely, law-violating behavior seems attractive if the future rewards seem far greater than the potential punishment. 6

Classical criminologists argued that punishment should be only severe enough to deter a particular offense and that punishments should be graded according to the seriousness of particular crimes: “Let the punishment fit the crime.” In his famous analysis, Beccaria stated that to be effective, punishment must be sufficiently severe, certain, and swift to control crime. If rapists and murderers were punished in a similar fashion—put to death—it might encourage a rapist to kill his victims in order to prevent them from calling the police or testifying in court. 7

The Rational Delinquent

According to the rational choice view, delinquents are rational decision makers who choose to violate the law. Before they decide to commit a delinquent act, they weigh the possible benefits or profits, such as cash to buy cars, clothes, and other luxury items, with the potential costs or penalties, such as arrest followed by a long stay in a juvenile facility. If, for instance, they believe that drug dealers are rarely caught and even then usually avoid severe punishments, the youths will more likely choose to become dealers than if they believe that dealers are almost always caught and punished by lengthy prison terms. Some kids may know people or hear about criminals who make a significant income from illegal activities and want to follow in their footsteps. 8

Once involved in antisocial activities, many delinquent kids take a reasoned approach to their criminal enterprises. Those who join drug-dealing street gangs demonstrate a reasoned analysis of market conditions, interests, and risks. When James Densley studied gangs in London, he found that they evolved from nonviolent, noncriminal adolescent peer groups and into organized criminal enterprises. 9  Nothing was left to chance, one gang member, street name “Wolverine,” explained to Denlsey,

We was committing crimes so we sat down together, it was like a meeting, I suppose and we just gave each other names and it started like that. Because it was not like socializing, it was actually going out to commit crime and do stuff. We was premeditating what we was doing before it happened. Planning it up.

Get more information on Cesare Beccaria via the Constitution Society ( http://www.constitution.org/cb/beccaria_bio.htm ) and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( http://www.iep.utm.edu/beccaria/ ), or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Densley found that gang boys learn special skills—how to seize territory, how to use violence, how to maintain secrecy, how to obtain intelligence—that enable them to successfully regulate and control the production and distribution of illegal drugs while maximizing their profits.

Shaping Delinquent Choices

Choice theorists believe that law-violating behavior occurs when a reasoning offender decides to take the chance of violating the law after considering his or her personal situation (need for money, learning experiences, opportunities for conventional success), values (conscience, moral values, need for peer approval), and situation (overcoming some immediate problem). What are some of the most important social developments that produce or influence delinquent decision making?

Personal Problems

Kids may be forced to choose delinquent behavior to help them solve problems. 10  Adolescents may find themselves feeling “out of control” because society limits their opportunities and resources. By engaging in antisocial behaviors, some adolescents are able to exert control over their own lives and destinies. When they cut school they are avoiding a situation they find uncomfortable; when they run away from home they may be fleeing from physical or sexual abuse. Delinquency may also enable them to obtain things they desire by stealing or selling drugs to buy stylish outfits, or deal with rivals or adversaries by getting a gun for self-protection from a local gang.

Financial Needs/Rewards

The choice of delinquency may be shaped by economic needs. Kids who use drugs may increase their delinquent activities in proportion to the costs of their habit. As the cost of their drug habit increases, the lure of illegal profits becomes overwhelmingly attractive. 11

Kids may also choose delinquency because they believe they have little chance of becoming successful in the conventional world. In the long run, they view drug dealing and car thefts as their ticket to a better life; in the short run, delinquency can provide them with the cash for bling. When Steven Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh studied the financial rewards of being in a drug gang, they found that despite enormous risks to their health, life, and freedom, the average gang member earned slightly more than what they could in the legitimate labor market (about $6–$11 per hour). 12  Why did they stay in the gang? Gang members believed that there was a strong potential for future riches if they stayed in the drug business and achieved a “management” position as a gang leader who earned quite a bit more than the rank-and-file members. 13  In reality, the likelihood of becoming a well-off gang leader was pretty remote, but kids based their behavior on what they believed would happen in the future and not upon what was really likely to occur—for example, the likelihood that they would get shot, go to jail, and never actually become a gang leader.

Parental Controls and Supervision

Adolescents whose parents are poor supervisors have the freedom to socialize with their peers, an opportunity that enables them to engage in deviant behaviors. 14  Teenage boys may have the highest crime rates because they, rather than their sisters, are given autonomy and unsupervised socialization. 15  Physically mature girls have a lifestyle more similar to boys, and without parental supervision they are the ones most likely to engage in antisocial acts. 16

The lack of supervision can neutralize any positive benefits accrued from after-school or summer jobs. Though gainful employment sounds like a healthy choice, an adolescent’s work experience may actually increase delinquency rather than limit its occurrence. Rather than saving for college as their parents hope, kids who get jobs use their cash to buy drugs and alcohol; after-school jobs may attract teens who are more impulsive than ambitious. 17  At work, they have the opportunity for unsupervised socialization with their peers; lack of parental supervision increases criminal motivation. 18  Though some adults may think that providing teens with a job will reduce criminal activity—under the theory that “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”—some aspects of the work experience, such as autonomy, increased social status among peers, and increased income, may neutralize the positive effects of working. The after-school job effect is most pronounced on novice delinquents who may be experiencing unsupervised freedom for the first time. In contrast, experienced offenders may actually benefit from an after-school job. 19

Revenge, Deterrence, and Vengeance

Some adolescents may choose crime in order to retaliate against a hated rival or seek vengeance for an actual or perceived wrong. Psychologist Richard Felson argues that violence can be used to achieve a number of specific goals:

·  Control. The violent person may want to control his victim’s behavior and life.

·  Retribution. Violence may be used to punish someone without calling the police or using the justice system to address grievances. Kids will take the law into their own hands if they do not trust the law.

·  Deterrence. The attacker may want to stop or deter someone from repeating acts that he considers hostile or provocative.

·  Reputation. An attack may be motivated by the need to enhance reputation and create self-importance in the eyes of others. Kids with a tough rep shield themselves from revenge and retribution if they choose to victimize other adolescents. 20

Scott Jacques investigated the forms of drug market retaliation and found that dealers use a number of rational techniques to retaliate if they feel they have been wronged or cheated;  Exhibit 3.1  shows the patterns Jacques found that seem to follow a rational pattern. 21

exhibit 3.1: Forms of Retaliation in the Drug Trade

Nonviolent Retaliation

·  Stealth retaliation. Defined as “nonviolent revenge gained through resource confiscation without interaction between the retaliator and wrongdoer during the transfer.” Here, some kind of resource, such as drugs, money, or jewelry, is taken or confiscated in retaliation for a perceived wrong. So if a dealer feels he may have been ripped off, he may break into his victim’s apartment and take his plasma TV and a kilo of drugs for good measure.

·  Fraudulent retaliation. Defined as “nonviolent retribution accomplished using deception to trick a wrongdoer into an unfair trade.” For example, after realizing he was short-changed in a drug deal, a gang boy sells his rival a gram of bogus or doctored cocaine. Fraudulent retaliation schemes can involve immediate payback, or may involve elaborate scams that take weeks to pull off.

Violent Retaliation

·  Violent confiscation. Defined as “retaliation that involves both violence and resource confiscation.” Sometimes drug dealers will use violence to rip off their opponents. They may stage a robbery and steal a pound of marijuana or kidnap a member of a rival gang and hold him for ransom.

·  Pure fight. Defined as “violent vengeance that does not involve resource transfer between disputants.” A pure fight may occur when a gang boy feels a rival is poaching on his territory and decides to “take him out” in order to protect his turf and maintain his tough guy rep.

SOURCE: From Scott Jacques, “The Necessary Conditions for Retaliation: Toward a Theory of Non-Violent and Violent Forms in Drug Markets,” Justice Quarterly 27:186–205. Copyright © 2010 by Routledge. Reprinted by permission.

Creating Scripts

As they gain experience some kids create scripts that guide their interactions with victims. If they follow the script, they can commit their crimes and avoid detection. For example, before committing their crimes, young sex offenders will go through a series of steps, first locating their victims in institutional, domestic, or public locations, then gaining their victims’ trust, and then formulating strategies to proceed to the best location for sexual contact. For that purpose, offenders will usually promise rewards or give inducements such as money to the victim or even threaten or use violence to get their way. 22

Routine Activities

Given the fact that youthful behavior may be shaped by life experiences, why do some kids choose to commit crimes while others are resigned to a conventional lifestyle? And are there structural factors that influence delinquent decision making? According to  routine activities theory , originally developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, the volume and distribution of  predatory crime  (violent crimes against the person and crimes in which an offender attempts to steal an object directly from its holder) are influenced by the interaction of three variables that reflect the routine activities found in everyday American life: the lack of capable guardians (such as homeowners and their neighbors, friends, and relatives), the availability of suitable targets (such as homes containing easily salable goods), and the presence of motivated offenders (such as unemployed teenagers). If each of these components is present, there is greater likelihood that a predatory crime will take place (see  Figure 3.1 ). 23

routine activities theory

View that crime is a “normal” function of the routine activities of modern living; offenses can be expected if there is a motivated offender and a suitable target that is not protected by capable guardians.

predatory crime

Violent crimes against people, and crimes in which an offender attempts to steal an object directly from its holder.

figure 3.1: Routine Activities Theory Posits the Interaction of Three Factors Helps Explain Fluctuations in the Delinquency Rate

Capable Guardians

The presence of capable guardians who can protect homes and possessions can reduce the motivation to commit delinquent acts. Even the most motivated offenders may ignore valuable targets if they are well guarded. Private homes and/or public businesses may be considered off-limits if they are well protected by capable guardians and efficient security systems. 24  Since 1970, the number of adult caretakers at home during the day decreased because more women entered the workforce. Because mothers are at work and children are in daycare, homes are left unguarded and become suitable targets. Similarly, with the growth of suburbia and the decline of the traditional neighborhood, the number of such familiar guardians as family, neighbors, and friends has diminished. 25  Research shows that crime levels are relatively low in neighborhoods where residents keep a watchful eye on their neighbors’ property. 26  Parents who monitor their children’s activities serve as guardians. The more time kids spend with their parents and the less time with their friends, the more limited their opportunity to commit delinquent activities. 27

Betty, 14 (right), with her friend, Christian, 14, are shown hanging out in a city park. Betty, the newcomer in the park, decided to run away after getting involved in numerous family conflicts. “I’m just tired of it all, and I don’t want to be in my house anymore,” she said, explaining why she had run away. “One month there is money, and the next month there is none. One day, she [her mother] is taking it out on me and hitting me, and the next day she is ignoring me. It’s more stable out here…. I can survive fine out here,” Betty said as she brandished a switchblade she pulled from her dirty sweatshirt pocket. At a nearby picnic table was part of the world she and the others were trying to avoid: a man with swastikas tattooed on his neck and an older homeless woman with rotted teeth, holding a pit bull named Diablo. Was Betty’s decision to run away truly rational?

Delinquent youth are also wary of police guardianship. In order to convince them that “crime does not pay,” cities have been putting more police on the street. Proactive, aggressive law enforcement officers who quickly get to the scene of the crime help deter would-be delinquents by reducing their criminal motivation. 28

Suitable Targets

Routine activities theory suggests that the availability of suitable targets such as easily transportable commodities will increase delinquency rates. 29  Research has generally supported the fact that the more wealth a home contains, the more likely it will become a target. 30  As laptop computers, smart phones, tablets such as iPads, and netbooks become more commonplace, burglary rates have risen. The more high-priced, easily transported, and easily resold goods are made available, the more offenders will be motivated to profit from their theft. 31

Motivated Offenders

As the number and motivation of offenders increase, so too do delinquency rates. What increases delinquent motivation? One possible source is scarcity of resources. Delinquency rates may increase if there is a surplus of youths of the same age category competing for a limited number of jobs and educational opportunities.

Motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the lack of guardianship have an interactive effect. Delinquency rates will increase if these motivated offenders are placed in close proximity to unguarded, suitable targets. Take after-school programs, for example. Although many adults believe that such programs can reduce delinquency levels, after-school programs designed to reduce criminal activity may produce higher crime rates because they lump together motivated offenders—teen boys—with vulnerable victims, other teen boys. 32

Controlling Delinquency

If delinquency is a rational choice as some believe, then delinquency prevention is a matter of three general strategies: (1) It stands to reason that it can be prevented by convincing potential delinquents that they will be severely punished for committing delinquent acts; then (2) they must be punished so severely that they never again commit crimes; or (3) it must be so difficult to commit crimes that the potential gain is not worth the risk. This vision has generated four strategies of control: general deterrence, specific deterrence, incapacitation, and situational crime prevention. Each is discussed below.

General Deterrence

The  general deterrence  concept holds that the choice to commit delinquent acts is structured by the threat of punishment. If kids believe they will get away with illegal behavior, they may choose to commit crime. 33  If, on the other hand, kids believe that their illegal behavior will result in apprehension and severe punishment, only the truly irrational would commit crime; they would be deterred. 34

general deterrence

Crime control policies that depend on the fear of criminal penalties, such as long prison sentences for violent crimes; the aim is to convince law violators that the pain outweighs the benefit of criminal activity.

One of the guiding principles of deterrence theory is that the more severe, certain, and swift the punishment, the greater its deterrent effect will be. 35  Even if a particular crime carries a severe punishment, there will be relatively little deterrent effect if most people do not believe they will be caught. 36  Conversely, even a mild sanction may deter delinquency if kids believe punishment is certain. 37  So if the juvenile justice system can convince would-be delinquents that they will be caught—for example, by putting more police officers on the street—they may decide that delinquency simply does not pay. 38

Perception and Deterrence

According to deterrence theory, not only the actual chance of punishment but also the perception that punishment will be forthcoming influence the decision to engage in delinquency. 39  A central theme of deterrence theory is that people who believe or imagine that they will be punished for crimes in the present will avoid doing those crimes in the future. 40  Even the most committed young offenders (e.g., gang members) who fear legal punishments will forego delinquent activities. 41  Conversely, the likelihood of being arrested and punished will have little effect on kids if they believe that they have only a small chance of suffering apprehension and punishment in the future. If kids can be convinced that illegal activities will lead to serious punishment, they will be deterred regardless of the actual or real chance of their being caught and punished.

While logical, the association between perception and deterrence is not a simple one nor does it appear to be linear—that is, the greater the perception of punishment, the less kids are willing to commit crime. Perception of punishment appears to change and evolve over time, shaped by a delinquent’s experience and personality. Some kids are more deterrable than others, their perceptions shaped by their own personal experiences. It comes as no surprise that when delinquent offenders are separated into two groups—high-rate offenders who constantly break the law and low-rate offenders who occasionally are involved in antisocial behaviors—the former group’s members perceive less risk and more reward from delinquent acts; low-rate offenders tend to view it as less rewarding. 42

Actual Deterrence and Delinquency

Not only are people deterred from the perceived threat of punishment, but they will also avoid a life of crime if the threat of punishment is real. The more cops are likely to make arrests, the courts to convict, and the correctional system to punish, they less likely it is that kids will engage in delinquency. This approach may work with youth because, unlike adults who do a poor job of estimating their chances of being punished, kids actually are more aware of the threat of punishment and the likelihood it will be applied if they get caught. 43

How have actual deterrence measures been operationalized? If kids choose delinquency because “it pays,” then it stands to reason that they will forgo illegal behavior if they can be convinced that “crime does not pay.” 44  Such measures as adding police officers and having them aggressively patrol the streets, adding school resource officers, and creating antigang units are all measures designed to convince would-be delinquents that the chances of apprehension are too great to risk crime. Another approach is to threaten harsh punishments such as waiver to adult court and a sentence to prison. Many kids know that as they age they will no longer be treated as a juvenile, and that an adult prison sentence is much more serious than a stay in a juvenile correctional center. Soon they may begin to realize that the risks of crime are greater than the potential profits and decide to go straight.

One approach has been to put more cops on the street and have them aggressively enforce the law. Recently, John Worrall and Tomislav Kovandzic found that cities that increase the size of their patrol force are the ones most likely to experience a reduction in crime and delinquency. 45  Proactive, aggressive law enforcement officers who quickly get to the scene of the crime may help deter delinquent activities. 46  Increasing the visibility of the police, hiring more officers, and allocating them in ways that increase the perceived risk of apprehension does produce significant deterrent effects. Deterring potential offenders, they conclude, is a more economical crime control mechanism than incapacitating people in prison after they have committed a criminal offense. 47

Focusing police activity on particular problems seems to work best. 48  Police are now more willing to use aggressive tactics, such as gang-busting units, to deter membership in drug-trafficking gangs. Youthful-looking officers have been sent undercover into high schools in order to identify, contact, and arrest student drug dealers. 49

Traditionally the juvenile court relied on the parens patriae philosophy, which mandates that children be treated and not punished. This limits the power of the law to deter juvenile crime. Kids know that the sanctions given out in juvenile court are far more lenient than those given adults, and that knowledge negates the application of get-tough measures. However, the juvenile courts have also attempted to initiate a deterrence strategy. Juvenile court judges have been willing to waive youths to adult courts. 50  In sum, actual deterrence policies may work and their application seems to have had a significant influence on the declining delinquency rate.

Shame and Humiliation

One aspect of deterrence that seems to have an impact on juveniles is shame, embarrassment, and social disgrace. If kids fear being rejected by family and peers, they will be reluctant to engage in deviant behavior. 51  Kids who say they would be ashamed if their involvement in crime becomes public are less likely to offend than those not so easily embarrassed. 52

While shame can be a powerful deterrent, young offenders also seem to be influenced by forgiveness and acceptance. They are less likely to repeat their delinquent acts if victims are willing to grant them forgiveness. 53

The fear of exposure and consequent shaming may vary according to the cohesiveness of community structure and the type of crime. Informal sanctions may be most effective in highly unified areas where everyone knows one another and the crime cannot be hidden from public view. The threat of informal sanctions seems to have the greatest influence on instrumental crimes, which involve planning, and not on impulsive or expressive criminal behaviors or those associated with substance abuse. 54

Do General Deterrence Strategies Work?

Punishment is up, millions of people are behind bars, and the crime rate is down. So it seems like deterrence strategies do work! Or do they? While the general deterrence concept makes logical sense, there is actually little conclusive evidence that the threat of apprehension and punishment alone can deter delinquency. 55  There are a number of reasons why strategies that attempt to frighten teens may not work:

·  Deterrence strategies are based on the idea of a rational, calculating offender; they may not be effective when applied to immature young people. Many offenders are under the influence of drugs when they commit crimes, others suffer from mental illness, while many bear the burden of both mental illness and drug abuse. 56  They may be impulsive and imprudent rather than reasoning and calculating. Minors tend to be less capable of making mature judgments about their behavior choices when under the influence of drugs and alcohol. In sum, even the harshest deterrence strategies may have little effect on psychologically or drug-impaired youth. 57

·  The deterrent threat of punishment may have little influence among high-risk offenders, such as teens living in economically depressed neighborhoods whom actually commit most of the crimes in the United States. Even if they truly fear the consequences of the law, they must commit crime to survive in a hostile environment. 58  Young people in these areas have less to lose if arrested; they have a limited stake in society and are not worried about their future. They also may not make connections between delinquent behavior and punishment because they see many people in their neighborhood commit crimes and not get caught or punished. 59

·  It is also possible that experience with the law and punishment actually defuses fear of punishment, thus neutralizing its deterrent effect. Greg Pogarsky and his associates found that getting arrested had little deterrent effect on youth and that kids who experienced punishment were the ones most likely to continue committing crime. One reason may be that crime-prone youth, the ones who have a long history of delinquency, know that crime provides immediate gratification, whereas the threat of punishment remains far in the future. 60

·  Kids may learn to adapt to deterrent measures. Police crackdowns and gang sweeps may convince them that it’s too dangerous for them to commit crime at the moment, but that does not mean they are willing to forgo future delinquent activities. They find ways to adapt to this perceived threat:

·  They reduce the number of crimes they are willing to commit during a particular period of time.

·  They commit less-serious crimes, assuming that even if they are apprehended, the punishment will not be as severe for a “minor” infraction. They are unlikely to be placed in a juvenile facility or waived to adult court for shoplifting, but robbery is another matter entirely.

·  They take action to reduce the chance that they will be caught and to reduce the risk of detection (e.g., stop wearing their gang colors or tagging walls).

·  They relocate to more favorable terrain. 61

In sum, deterring delinquency through the fear of punishment may have value under some but not all circumstances. 62  Deterrence may work for some offenders and some crimes—for example, where a small group of chronic offenders is responsible for a great majority of the delinquent activity in the community. Under these circumstances a targeted strategy that directs a surge of law enforcement activity against a few repeat offenders may help reduce delinquency rates. 63

Specific Deterrence

The theory of  specific deterrence  holds that the more severely young offenders are punished, the less likely they are to repeat their illegal acts. General deterrence focuses on potential offenders; specific deterrence targets offenders who have already been apprehended. For example, juveniles are sent to secure incarceration facilities with the understanding that their ordeal will deter future misbehavior.

specific deterrence

Sending convicted offenders to secure incarceration facilities so that punishment is severe enough to convince offenders not to repeat their criminal activity.

Specific deterrence strategies suppose that people can “learn from their mistakes” and that kids who are caught and punished will perceive greater risk than those who have escaped detection. 64  As the perceived benefits of crime decline, desistance escalates. 65  Specific deterrence strategies may actually work better with young, inexperienced juvenile offenders than adult miscreants. Research shows that punishment has less of an effect on the experienced offender than it does on the novice. 66  Therefore punishing an inexperienced juvenile offender may convince them that “crime does not pay,” while punishing a more experienced offender is simply “business as usual.”

While novice delinquents may be scared off by an arrest, the more experienced offender will not, and these experienced delinquents, who after multiple arrests are placed in a juvenile justice facility, may actually be more likely to persist in their delinquent behaviors. 67  In fact, a history of prior arrests, convictions, and punishments has proven to be the best predictor of rearrest among young offenders released from correctional institutions. 68  So once involved in the system, the threat of punishment seems to have little deterrent effect. Why is this so?

·  Offenders may believe that though they were caught and punished, the experience was actually beneficial: they have learned from their experiences, now know how to beat the system, and can get away with crime. 69

·  Kids who have already been severely punished by being placed in a juvenile facility may represent the “worst of the worst,” who will offend again no matter what punishments they experience. 70

·  Punishment may bring defiance rather than deterrence. Adolescents who are harshly treated may want to show that they cannot be broken by the system.

·  Punishment might be perceived to be capricious, unjust, or unfair, causing some kids to want to lash out and retaliate against what they consider to be unfair treatment.

·  Harsh treatment labels and stigmatizes kids, locking them into a delinquent career.

Incapacitation

It stands to reason that delinquents’ ability to commit illegal acts will be eliminated or at least curtailed by putting them behind bars. About 70,000 young people are now housed in juvenile correctional facilities, and others, because their case has been waived to the adult court, are incarcerated in adult prisons; there are about 25,000 teenagers serving time in adult prisons. 71

While it seems logical that incarcerating the most dangerous repeat juvenile offenders will reduce their ability to commit delinquent acts, a strict incapacitation policy does not always produce the desired effect:

·  Incarceration, especially in an adult prison, exposes younger offenders to higher-risk, more experienced inmates who can influence their lifestyle and help shape their attitudes. These prisons are “schools for crime.” The short-term delinquency-reduction effect of incapacitating offenders is negated if the experience has the long-term effect of escalating the frequency and severity of their future criminality upon release.

·  If crime and delinquency are functions of rational choice, the profits of illegal activity are sure to convince kids that “crime pays.” Therefore, there will always be someone ready to take the place of the incarcerated offenders and replace them in the gang, group, or clique. New delinquents will be recruited and trained, offsetting any benefit accrued by incarceration.

·  Imprisoning established offenders may open new opportunities for competitors who were suppressed by more experienced delinquents or controlled by their tougher rivals. Incarcerating gang members may open illegal markets to new groups and gangs who are even hungrier and more aggressive than the ones they replaced.

·  Teens are unlikely to be incarcerated in a juvenile facility or sent to prison until well into their offending career. By the time they are arrested, waived, and sent to an adult prison they are already past the age when they are likely to commit crime. As a result, a strict incarceration policy may keep people in prison beyond the time they are a threat to society while a new cohort of high-risk adolescents is on the street. 72

·  An incapacitation strategy is also terribly expensive. The prison system costs billions of dollars each year, and incarcerating a juvenile in some jurisdictions costs in excess of $50,000 per year. Even if incarceration could reduce the crime rate, the costs would be enormous.

·  Even if incarceration can have a short-term effect, almost all delinquents eventually return to society. Because many of these kids are drug- and gang-involved, most come from comparatively few urban inner-city areas. Their return may contribute to family disruption, undermine social institutions, and create community disorganization. Rather than acting as a crime suppressant, incarceration may have the long-term effect of accelerating crime rates. 73

So while it is logically correct that a stay in a secure facility can reduce the length of a criminal career, there is some question whether increasing the size of the prison population reduces crime rates. 74

Situational Crime Prevention

According to the concept of  situational crime prevention , in order to reduce delinquent activity, planners must be aware of the characteristics of sites and situations that are at risk to crime; the things that draw or push kids toward these sites and situations; what equips potential delinquents to take advantage of illegal opportunities offered by these sites and situations; and what constitutes the immediate triggers for delinquent actions. 75  Delinquency can be neutralized if (a) potential targets are carefully guarded, (b) the means to commit crime are controlled, and (c) potential offenders are carefully monitored. Desperate people may contemplate crime, but only the truly irrational will attack a well-defended, inaccessible target and risk strict punishment.

situational crime prevention

Crime prevention method that relies on reducing the opportunity to commit criminal acts by (a) making them more difficult to perform, (b) reducing their reward, and (c) increasing their risks.

Rather than deterring or punishing individuals in order to reduce delinquency rates, situational crime prevention strategies aim to reduce the opportunities people have to commit particular crimes. The idea is to make it so difficult to commit specific criminal acts that would-be delinquent offenders will be convinced that the risks of crime are greater than the rewards. 76  Controlling the situation of crime can be accomplished by increasing the effort, increasing the risks, and/or reducing the rewards attached to delinquent acts.

Typically, situational crime prevention programs are divided into six categories:

·  Increasing the effort to commit delinquent acts

·  Increasing the risks of delinquent activity

·  Reducing the rewards attached to delinquent acts

·  Increasing the shame of committing a delinquent act

·  Reducing provocations that produce delinquent acts

·  Removing excuses for committing a delinquent act

Increasing the effort required to commit delinquency can involve  target-hardening techniques  such as placing steering locks on cars, putting unbreakable glass on storefronts, or installing a locking device on cars that prevents drunken drivers from starting the vehicle (breath-analyzed ignition interlock device). 77  Access control can be maintained by locking gates and fencing yards. 78  The facilitators of crime can be controlled by such measures as banning the sale of spray paint to adolescents in an effort to cut down on graffiti, or having photos put on credit cards to reduce their value if stolen.

target-hardening technique

Crime prevention technique that makes it more difficult for a would-be delinquent to carry out the illegal act—for example, by installing a security device in a home.

Increasing the risks of delinquency might involve such measures as improving surveillance lighting, using closed-circuit TV (CCTV) monitoring, creating neighborhood watch programs, controlling building entrances and exits, installing burglar alarms and security systems, and increasing the number of private security officers and police patrols. Research conducted in the United States and England indicates that installation of streetlights may convince would-be burglars that their entries will be seen and reported. 79  Closed-circuit TV cameras have been shown to reduce the amount of car theft from parking lots while reducing the need for higher-cost security personnel. 80  Delinquency rate reductions seem to be maximized when CCTV and improved street lighting are used in tandem. 81  In addition to these direct benefits, increasing the risk to commit one type of delinquent act may also help prevent others, known as  diffusion of benefits . 82  Video cameras set up in a mall to convince teens not to shoplift can also reduce property damage, because young graffiti artists fear they are being caught on camera. Police surveillance set up to control drug zones may reduce the incidence of prostitution and other public order crimes by scaring off would-be clients. 83  Intensive police patrols designed to target teen gangs may help reduce crime in neighboring areas as well. 84

diffusion of benefits

An effect that occurs when efforts to prevent one type of delinquent act may actually prevent another.

Reducing the rewards of delinquency includes strategies such as making car radios removable so they can be kept at home at night, marking property so that it is more difficult to sell when stolen, and having gender-neutral phone listings to discourage obscene phone calls. Tracking systems, such as those made by the LoJack Corporation, help police locate and return stolen vehicles.

Because delinquent acts are sometimes the result of extreme provocation, it might be possible to reduce delinquency rates by creating programs that reduce conflict. Posting guards outside schools at closing time might prevent childish taunts from escalating into full-blown brawls. Anti-bullying programs that have been implemented in schools are another method of reducing provocation. Because alcohol is a significant factor in various kinds of crime, including rape and assaults, increasing the drinking age, introducing non-alterable photo IDs, or raising the price of beer, wine, and hard liquor so that they are beyond the typical teenager’s budget might help reduce the incidence of violent crime. And there would be significant fringe benefits, including fewer auto accidents and more money for state treasuries. 85

For more information about crime prevention service for business, go to a website maintained by Rutgers University ( http://crimeprevention.rutgers.edu/ ) or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Some delinquents neutralize their responsibility for their acts by learning to excuse their behavior. They say things like “I didn’t know that was illegal” or “I had no choice.” It might be possible to reduce delinquency by eliminating excuses. Teenage vandalism may be reduced by setting up brightly colored litter receptacles that help eliminate the excuse “I just didn’t know where to throw my trash.” Reducing or eliminating excuses in this way also makes it physically easy for people to comply with laws and regulations, thereby reducing the likelihood they will choose crime. (See  Concept Summary 3.1  for a summary of the different delinquency prevention strategies.)

CONCEPT SUMMARY 3.1: Delinquency Control Strategies Based on Rational Choice

Situational Crime Prevention ·  This strategy is aimed at convincing would-be delinquents to avoid specific targets. It relies on the doctrine that crime can be avoided if motivated offenders are denied access to suitable targets. ·  Applications of this strategy are home security systems or guards, which broadcast the message that guardianship is great here, stay away; the potential reward is not worth the risk of apprehension. ·  Problems with the strategy are the extinction of the effect and displacement of crime. General Deterrence Strategies ·  These strategies are aimed at making potential delinquents fear the consequences of their acts. The threat of punishment is meant to convince rational delinquents that crime does not pay. ·  Applications of these strategies are mandatory sentences, waiver to adult court, and aggressive policing. ·  Problems with these strategies are that delinquents are immature and may not fear punishment, and the certainty of arrest and punishment is low.

Specific Deterrence Strategy ·  This strategy refers to punishing known delinquents so severely that they will never be tempted to repeat their offenses. If delinquency is rational, then painful punishment should reduce its future allure. ·  An application of this strategy is placement in a punitive juvenile detention facility or secure institution. ·  A problem with this strategy is that punishment may increase reoffending rates rather than deter future delinquency. Incapacitation Strategies ·  These strategies attempt to reduce crime rates by denying motivated offenders the opportunity to commit crime. If, despite the threat of law and punishment, some people still find crime attractive, the only way to control their behavior is to incarcerate them for extended periods. ·  An application of these strategies is long, tough, mandatory sentences, putting more kids behind bars. ·  A problem with these strategies is that people are kept in prison beyond the years they may commit crime. Minor, nondangerous offenders are locked up, and this is a very costly strategy.

Why Do Delinquents Choose Delinquency?

All the delinquency control methods based on choice theory assume the delinquent to be a motivated offender who breaks the law because he or she perceives an abundance of benefits and an absence of threat. Increase the threat and reduce the benefits, and the delinquency rate should decline.

This logic is hard to refute. The two decade-long crime drop seems to be linked to deterrence and incapacitation strategies and the use of situational crime prevention to reduce the opportunity to commit crime. Yet several questions still remain unanswered. First, why do some people continually choose to break the law, even after suffering its consequences? Why are some kids law abiding even though they are indigent and have little chance of gaining economic success? Conversely, why do some affluent youths break the law when they have everything to lose and little more to gain?

Choice theorists also have problems explaining seemingly irrational crimes, such as vandalism, arson, and even drug abuse. To say a teenager who painted swastikas on a synagogue or attacked a gay couple was making a “rational choice” seems inadequate to explain such a destructive, purposeless act.

The relationships observed by rational choice theorists can also be explained in other ways. For example, though the high victimization rates in lower-class neighborhoods can be explained by an oversupply of motivated offenders, they may also be due to other factors, such as social conflict and disorganization. 86

In sum, although choice theories can contribute to understanding criminal events and victim patterns, they leave a major question unanswered: Why do some people choose crime over legal activities?

Trait Theories: Biosocial and Psychological Views

A faithful and loyal choice theorist believes that selecting crime is usually part of an economic strategy, a function of carefully weighing the benefits of criminal over legal behavior. For example, youths decide to commit a robbery if they believe they will make a good profit, have a good chance of getting away with it, and, even if caught, stand little chance of being severely punished.

A number of delinquency experts believe that this model is incomplete. They consider it wrong to infer that all youths choose crime simply because they believe its advantages outweigh its risks. If that were the case, how could senseless and profitless crimes such as vandalism and random violence be explained? Is it possible that killers like Adam Lanza or Jared Lee Loughner—who opened fire in a supermarket parking lot in Tucson on January 8, 2011, killing six people and wounding many more—were mentally stable, rational decision makers? Though Loughner’s objective was to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, his long history of bizarre behavior makes it unlikely that his act was committed after he carefully weighed benefits and consequences. 87

Incidents such as the Connecticut and Tucson shootings convince experts that human violent or deviant behavioral choices are a function of an individual’s mental and/or physical makeup. Most law-abiding youths have personal traits that keep them within the mainstream of conventional society. In contrast, youths who choose to engage in repeated aggressive, antisocial, or conflict-oriented behavior manifest abnormal traits that influence their behavior choices. 88  Uncontrollable, impulsive behavior patterns place some youths at odds with society, and they soon find themselves in trouble with the law. Although delinquents may choose their actions, the decision is a product of all but uncontrollable mental and physical properties and traits.

The view that delinquents are somehow “abnormal” is not a new one. Some of the earliest theories of criminal and delinquent behavior stressed that crime was a product of personal traits and that measurable physical and mental conditions, such as IQ and body build, determined behavior. This view is generally referred to today as “positivism.” Positivists believe that the scientific method can be used to measure the causes of human behavior and that behavior is a function of often uncontrollable factors, such as mental illness.

The source of behavioral control is one significant difference between trait and choice theories. Whereas the former reasons that behavior is controlled by personal traits, the latter views behavior as purely a product of human reasoning. To a choice theorist, reducing the benefits of crime by increasing the likelihood and severity of punishment will eventually lower the crime rate. Biosocial, or trait, theory finds little association between crime rates and punishment because those who commit crimes lack the capacity to understand their consequences. In the following sections, the history and primary components of trait theory are reviewed.

Origins of Trait Theory

The first attempts to discover why criminal tendencies develop focused on the physical makeup of offenders. Biological traits present at birth were thought to predetermine whether people would live a life of crime.

The origin of this school of thought is generally credited to the Italian physician Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909). 89  Known as the father of criminology, Lombroso put his many years of medical research to use in his theory of  criminal atavism . 90  Lombroso found that delinquents manifest physical anomalies that make them biologically and physiologically similar to our primitive ancestors. These atavistic individuals are savage throwbacks to an earlier stage of human evolution. Because of this link, the “born criminal” has such physical traits as enormous jaws, strong canines, a flattened nose, and supernumerary teeth (double rows, as in snakes). Lombroso made such statements as, “It was easy to understand why the span of the arms in criminals so often exceeds the height, for this is a characteristic of apes, whose forelimbs are used in walking and climbing.” 91

criminal atavism

The idea that delinquents manifest physical anomalies that make them biologically and physiologically similar to our primitive ancestors, savage throwbacks to an earlier stage of human evolution.

Contemporaries of Lombroso refined the notion of a physical basis of crime. Rafaele Garofalo (1851–1934) shared Lombroso’s belief that certain physical characteristics indicate a criminal or delinquent nature. 92  Enrico Ferri (1856–1929), a student of Lombroso, believed that a number of biological, social, and organic factors caused delinquency and crime. 93

These early views portrayed delinquent behavior as a function of a single factor or trait, such as body build or defective intelligence. They had a significant impact on early American criminology, which relied heavily on developing a science of “criminal anthropology.” 94  Eventually, these views evoked criticism for their unsound methodology and lack of proper scientific controls. Some researchers used captive offender populations and failed to compare experimental subjects with control groups of nondelinquents or undetected delinquents. These methodological flaws made it impossible to determine whether biological traits produce delinquency. It is equally plausible that police were more likely to arrest, and courts convict, the mentally and physically abnormal. By the middle of the twentieth century, biological theories had fallen out of favor as an explanation of delinquency.

For a complete list of the crime-producing physical traits identified by Lombroso, visit these websites:  http://criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/week4.htm   http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n01/frenolog/lombroso.htm  Or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Contemporary Biosocial Theory

For most of the twentieth century, delinquency experts scoffed at the notion that a youth’s behavior was controlled by physical conditions present at birth. During this period, the majority of delinquency research focused on social factors, such as poverty and family life, which were believed to be responsible for law-violating behavior. However, today that view is softening and trait theory is now an accepted element of the study of delinquency. As John Paul Wright and Francis Cullen put it:

… the ideological dam preventing the development of biosocial perspectives is weakening and has sprung some leaks. The reality that humans are biological creatures who vary in biological traits is becoming too obvious to ignore. 95

Today, trait theorists focus attention on the biological and psychological conditions that promote antisocial behavior. They argue that no two people (with rare exceptions, such as identical twins) are alike, and therefore each will react to environmental stimuli in a distinct way. They assume that a combination of personal traits and the environment produces individual behavior patterns. People with pathological traits such as brain damage, an abnormal personality, or a low IQ may have a heightened risk for crime. This risk is elevated by environmental stresses such as poor family life, educational failure, substance abuse, and exposure to delinquent peers. For example, studies examining gene-environment interaction find that genetic makeup has a greater influence on violent behavior when an individual is exposed to neighborhood disadvantage and lives in a community with high violent crime rates. 96

Vulnerability vs. Differential Susceptibility

Trait theorists today recognize that delinquency-producing interactions involve both personal traits (such as defective intelligence, impulsive personality, and abnormal brain chemistry) and environmental factors (such as family life, educational attainment, socioeconomic status, and neighborhood conditions). However, there are actually two views on how this interaction unfolds. The  vulnerability model  supposes a direct link between traits and crime. Some people develop physical or mental traits at birth, or soon thereafter, that affect their social functioning and put them in danger of poor behavior choices. They suffer biological or psychological problems that render them defenseless to social pressures and vulnerable to developing behavior problems. 97

vulnerability model

Assumes there is a direct link between traits and crime; some people are vulnerable to crime from birth.

In contrast, the  differential susceptibility model  suggests that some people possess physical or mental traits that make them more susceptible to environmental influences. 98  Given their makeup, they are at risk when they encounter unfavorable social environments, but they can also benefit more than others from a favorable and supportive environment. When the social environment is adverse, individuals with this particular set of traits manifest more aggression; when the environment is supportive, those with the same makeup demonstrate less aggression than the average person. Their makeup makes them more susceptible to the environment, whether it be good or bad. 99

differential susceptibility model

The view that some people are predisposed to environmental influences.

The individual-level factors that have been linked to antisocial behavior cluster into three distinct areas: biochemical factors, neurological dysfunction, and genetic influences. These three views are discussed in some detail below.

Biochemical Factors

There is a suspected relationship between antisocial behavior and biochemical makeup. 100  One view is that body chemistry can govern behavior and personality, including levels of aggression and depression. 101  Adolescents may be exposed to damaging chemical contaminants in utero if their mothers ingest harmful substances during pregnancy. 102  The influence of damaging chemical and biological contaminants may also occur if the mother’s diet either lacks or has an excess of important nutrients, such as manganese, which may later cause developmental problems in their offspring. 103  In sum, exposure to harmful chemicals and poor diet in utero, at birth, and beyond may affect people throughout their life course.

Smoking and Drinking

Maternal alcohol abuse and smoking during gestation have long been linked to prenatal damage and subsequent antisocial behavior in adolescence. 104  When Lisa Gatzke-Kopp and Theodore Beauchaine examined relations between maternal smoking and child behavior they found that exposure to smoke was associated with increased psychopathology in offspring and that exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke during pregnancy predicted later conduct disorder. 105  Having a parent who smoked had a greater effect on behavior than other influences, including prematurity, low birthweight, and poor parenting practices.

Research now shows that people who start drinking by the age of 14 are five times more likely to become alcoholics than people who hold off on drinking until the age of 21. It is possible that early exposure of the brain to alcohol may short-circuit the growth of brain cells, impairing the learning and memory processes that protect against addiction. Thus, early ingestion of alcohol will have a direct influence on behavior. 106

Another view is that abnormal body chemistry is an indirect cause of antisocial behavior through its association with abnormal psychological and mental conditions. Research conducted over the past decade shows that an over- or undersupply of certain chemicals and minerals, including sodium, mercury, potassium, calcium, amino acids, and/or iron, can lead to depression, hyperactivity, cognitive problems, intelligence deficits, memory loss, or abnormal sexual activity; these conditions have been associated with crime and delinquency. 107  Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), believed to be a precursor of delinquent behaviors, has been linked to the presence of excessive iron. 108  (For more on ADHD see later in this chapter.)

Environmental Contaminants

One area of concern is that overexposure to particular environmental contaminants, including metals and minerals such as iron and manganese, may produce effects that put kids at risk for antisocial behavior. 109  Exposure to the now-banned PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls), a chemical once used in insulation materials, has been shown to influence brain functioning and intelligence levels. 110  Pesticides such as chlorpyrifos, once used heavily in inner-city neighborhoods, have also been linked to behaviors associated with delinquency. Children exposed to large amounts of chlorpyrifos before birth are at elevated risk for developmental delays and symptoms of ADHD. 111  Another suspected cause of dysfunctional behavior is phthalates, industrial chemicals widely used as solvents and ingredients in plastics. Thousands of household items, from shampoos to flooring products, contain phthalates, and research shows that exposure is related to childhood misbehavior and improper functioning. 112

Lead Contamination

Of all these contaminants, exposure to lead is the one that has been linked most often to antisocial behaviors on both the individual and group levels. 113  Recent research shows that almost any elevated level of lead ingestion is related to lower IQ scores, a factor linked to aggressive behavior. 114  There is also evidence linking lead exposure to mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, which have been linked to antisocial behaviors. 115  Young children (age 7) with high levels of lead in their blood later display antisocial behavioral symptoms such as “externalizing” (acting-out) behaviors and school problems. 116

Some positive news: A CDC survey found that among children ages 1 to 5, the average blood lead level was about 2.2 percent, which was down from 4.4 percent a decade ago. While the improvement is welcome, poor children are still being exposed to lead in homes containing lead-based paint; lead-contaminated dust remains a serious public health concern. 117  Research also shows that lead effects may actually begin in the womb due to the mother’s dietary consumption of foods, such as seafood, that are high in lead content. 118  Improved prenatal care may help mothers avoid the danger of lead exposure and reduce long-term crime rates.

Diet and Delinquency

There is also evidence that diet may influence behavior through its impact on body chemistry. Of particular concern is an unusually high intake of such items as artificial food coloring, milk, and sweets. Some scientists believe that chronic under- or oversupply of vitamins, such as C, B3, and B6, may be related to restlessness and antisocial behavior in youths. Evidence also exists that allergies to foods can influence mood and behavior, resulting in personality swings between hyperactivity and depression. 119

Biochemical research has linked diet to behavior. Excessive intake of certain substances, such as sugar, and the lack of proper vitamins and proteins have been tied to aggression and antisocial behaviors. Considering this connection, should teen diets be closely monitored?

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Prevention: Using Diet to Control Delinquent Behavior

Numerous experiments have been designed to prove that a proper diet can prevent antisocial behavior. The association can be direct (diet change reduces delinquency), or indirect (diet change improves personal traits that are related to delinquency). Three prominent examples of controlled scientific experiments are set out here in some detail.

Maternal Seafood Intake

Seafood is a major source of omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential for early brain development. It has been suspected that because contemporary Western diets often contain too little of these nutrients, this flaw in maternal diet during pregnancy may impede child development later in life. To test this theory, scientist Emily Oken and her colleagues studied more than 25,400 children born to mothers enrolled in the Danish National Birth Cohort, a long-term study that contains data on such topics as pregnancy, child development, and adult health outcomes. The researchers analyzed data on the mothers’ fish consumption during pregnancy and the amount of time the women breastfed. Information on the children’s mental and physical development at 6 and 18 months of age was obtained from interviews conducted with the mothers at those times.

Analysis of this data was used to determine the associations of maternal prenatal fish intake and breastfeeding duration with child developmental milestones. To determine the association, researchers used highly sophisticated multivariate statistical tests to evaluate the odds of higher developmental scores associated with maternal fish intake and breastfeeding, after adjustment for child age, sex, and growth; maternal size and pregnancy characteristics; and parental education and social status.

Oken and her research team found that higher maternal fish intake and greater duration of breastfeeding were associated with higher child developmental scores at 18 months. Associations were similar for development at 6 months. Their conclusion: maternal fish intake during pregnancy and the duration of breastfeeding are independently associated with better early child development. Future research and consumption guidelines, incorporating nutritional benefits as well as contaminant risks, should consider the overall effect of prenatal fish consumption on child development.

The Oken study shows that behavior is related to diet and that prevention of later antisocial activities can begin at the prenatal stage of development. Increasing a mother’s intake of omega-3 and fish oil may have long-term beneficial results.

Hyperactivity and Diet

There have been a number of controlled experiments linking diet to hyperactivity, a behavioral condition often linked to delinquency. Take for instance a recent study by Donna McCann and her associates that tested 153 3-year-olds and 144 children between the ages of 8 and 9 by exposing them to three different drink combinations:

·  “Mix A” contained the additives sunset yellow, carmoisine, tartrazine, ponceau 4R, and sodium benzoate, chemicals typically found in two single-serving bags of candy.

·  “Mix B” contained sunset yellow, carmoisine, quinoline yellow, allura red, and sodium benzoate, equal to what is in two to four bags of candy.

·  A placebo with no additives.

Using a carefully planned experimental design, the researchers found that Mix A markedly worsened the younger children’s hyperactivity scores, and that both Mix A and Mix B affected older children adversely.

Long-Term Effects of Diet

Adrian Raine and his colleagues charted the long-term effects of a two-year diet enrichment program for 3-year-olds in the African nation of Mauritania. One hundred randomly selected children were placed in a program providing them with nutritious lunches, physical exercise, and enhanced education. They were then compared with a control group made up of children who did not participate in the program. By age 17, kids who had been malnourished before they entered the nutrition program had higher scores on physical and psychological well-being than malnourished kids who had not been in the program. By age 23, the malnourished kids who had been in the program 20 years earlier still did better on personality tests and had lower levels of self-reported crimes than the malnourished children who had not been placed in the program. Overall, the results showed that providing children with nutritious diets and enriched environments is associated with greater mental health and reduced antisocial activities later in life.

CRITICAL THINKING

Discuss the morality of doing experimentation with diet. Is it fair, just, and moral to have a control group that is not given a proper diet in order to test the effect of nutrition on delinquency? Let’s say that the controls commit a lot more crime and get into a lot of trouble. What does that say about the cause of scientific inquiry? If you disagree with this approach, how else can you test the effect of diet?

SOURCES: Emily Oken, Marie Louise Østerdal, Matthew W. Gillman, Vibeke K. Knudsen, Thorhallur I. Halldorsson, Marin Strøm, David C. Bellinger, Mijna Hadders-Algra, Kim Fleischer Michaelsen, and Sjurdur F. Olsen, “Associations of Maternal Fish Intake during Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Duration with Attainment of Developmental Milestones in Early Childhood: A Study from the Danish National Birth Cohort,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 88:789–796 (2008); Donna McCann, Angelina Barrett, Alison Cooper, Debbie Crumpler, Lindy Dalen, Kate Grimshaw, Elizabeth Kitchin, Kris Lok, Lucy Porteous, Emily Prince, Edmund Sonuga-Barke, John O. Warner, and Jim Stevenson, “Food Additives and Hyperactive Behaviour in 3-year-old and 8/9-year-old Children in the Community: A Randomised, Double-blinded, Placebo-controlled Trial,” The Lancet 370:1560–1567 (2007); Adrian Raine, Kjetil Mellingen, Jianghong Liu, Peter Venables, and Sarnoff Mednick, “Effects of Environmental Enrichment at Age Three to Five Years on Schizotypal Personality and Antisocial Behavior at Ages Seventeen and Twenty-Three Years,” American Journal of Psychiatry 160:1–9 (2003).

Research conducted in the United States and abroad has linked youth violence and misbehavior to dietary intake. A number of specific food products have been linked to antisocial behaviors, such as the omega-6 fats found in corn, safflower, soybean, cottonseed, and sunflower oils. National Institutes of Health scientists have found that the murder rate is 20 times higher in countries with the highest omega-6 intake, compared with those with the lowest.

It is also possible that a poor diet is indirectly related to antisocial activity. For example, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has been linked to delinquency and its cause may be diet driven. Specific foods linked to a higher rate of ADHD included fast foods, processed meats, red meat, high-fat dairy products, and candy. 120

Though more research is needed before the scientific community reaches a consensus on the specific association between diet and crime, there is mounting evidence that vitamins, minerals, chemicals, and other nutrients from a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains can improve brain function, basic intelligence, and academic performance. In contrast, those lacking in proper diet seem at greatest risk to crime and delinquency. The Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature illustrates some of the efforts to identify diets that can prevent delinquency.

Hormonal Levels

Another area of biochemical research is concerned with hormonal levels. Antisocial behavior allegedly peaks in the teenage years because hormonal activity is at its highest level during this period. Research suggests that increased levels of the male androgen testosterone are responsible for excessive levels of violence among teenage boys. 121

Adolescents who experience more intense moods, mood swings, anxiety, and restlessness than people at other points in development also have the highest crime rates. 122  These mood and behavior changes have been associated with family conflict and antisocial behavior.

An association between hormonal activity and antisocial behavior is suggested because rates of both factors peak in adolescence. 123  Hormonal sensitivity may begin at the very early stages of life when the fetus can be exposed to abnormally high levels of testosterone while in the uterus. This may trigger a heightened response to the release of testosterone when an adolescent male reaches puberty. Although testosterone levels appear normal, the young male is at risk for overaggressive behavior responses.

Hormonal activity as an explanation of gender differences in the delinquency crime rate will be discussed further in  Chapter 7 .

Neurological Dysfunction

Another focus of biosocial theory is the  neurological —or brain and nervous system—structure of offenders. It has been suggested that children who manifest behavioral disturbances may have neurological deficits, such as damage to the hemispheres of the brain; this is sometimes referred to as  minimal brain dysfunction (MBD) . 124  Impairment in brain functioning may be present at birth, produced by factors such as low birthweight, brain injury during pregnancy, birth complications, and inherited abnormalities. Brain injuries can also occur later in life as a result of brutal beatings or sexual abuse by a parent and can actually cause adverse physical changes in the brain, and these deformities can lead to depression, anxiety, and other serious emotional conditions. 125  Regardless of its cause, the association between crime and neurological impairment is quite striking: about 20 percent of known offenders report some type of traumatic brain injury and suffer from a number of antisocial traits throughout their life course. 126

neurological

Pertaining to the brain and nervous system structure.

minimal brain dysfunction (MBD)

Damage to the brain itself that causes antisocial behavior injurious to the individual’s lifestyle and social adjustment.

Teenage Brains

Is there something about teenage brains that make their owners crime prone? There is evidence that aggressive teen behavior may be linked to the amygdala, an area of the brain that processes information regarding threats and fear, and to a lessening of activity in the frontal lobe, a brain region associated with decision making and impulse control.

Research psychiatrist Guido Frank investigated why some teenagers are more prone than others to “reactive” aggression—that is, unpremeditated aggression in response to a trigger (for instance, an accidental bump from a passerby). He found that reactively aggressive adolescents—most commonly boys—frequently misinterpret their surroundings, feel threatened, and act inappropriately aggressive. They tend to strike back when being teased, blame others when getting into a fight, and overreact to accidents. Their behavior is emotionally “hot,” defensive, and impulsive; teens with this behavior are at high risk for lifelong social, career, or legal problems.

Frank’s research helps explain what goes on in the brains of some teenage boys who respond with inappropriate anger and aggression to perceived threats. It is possible that rather than having a social or environmental basis, such behavior is associated with brain functioning and not environment, socialization, personality, or other social and psychological functions. 127

Another research study examining the relationship between brain structure and delinquency was conducted by Graeme Fairchild and colleagues with 25 girls between the ages of 14 and 18 who exhibited antisocial and/or violent behavior. 128  The study compared them with 30 girls with no history of violent behavior. Fairchild found that participants with a history of violence had major difficulties controlling their temper, lashing out and breaking things around their homes when they got angry, and had often been involved in serious fights. Fairchild and his team evaluated the girls’ ability to recognize six facial expressions: anger, disgust, sadness, fear, surprise, and happiness. They found that the violent or antisocial girls were significantly impaired in identifying anger and disgust. Fairchild’s findings suggest that antisocial behavior or violence may not simply reflect bad choices but that, at some level, the brains of individuals with antisocial behavior may work differently. This might make it harder for them to read emotions in others—particularly to realize that someone is angry with them—and to learn from punishment. Fairchild notes that the facial recognition deficits of the violent girls resemble the deficits seen in boys with childhood-onset conduct disorder. However, the girls’ violent behavior began in their teenage years rather than in childhood, suggesting differences in antisocial behavior between girls and boys, with girls being protected from showing antisocial behavior until their teenage years.

The Long-Term Effects of Neurological Trauma

Children who suffer from measurable neurological deficits at birth also may experience a number of antisocial traits throughout their life course. Such damage can lead to reduction in executive functioning (EF) a condition that refers to impairment of the cognitive processes that facilitate the planning and regulation of goal-oriented behavior. An extensive meta-analysis conducted by James Ogilvie and his associates found that antisocial groups performed significantly worse on measures of EF compared with controls. 129  Impairments in EF have been implicated in a range of developmental disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD), autism, and Tourette syndrome. EF impairments also have been implicated in a range of neuropsychiatric and medical disorders, including schizophrenia, major depression, alcoholism, and structural brain disease; research has even linked this type of deficit to becoming a habitual liar. 130

There is also a suspected link between brain dysfunction and  conduct disorder (CD) , considered a precursor of long-term chronic offending. Children with CD lie, steal, bully other children, frequently get into fights, and break schools’ and parents’ rules; many are callous and lack empathy and/or guilt. 131  Children suffering from one form of CD, antisocial substance disorder (ASD), have been found to repeatedly engage in risky antisocial and drug-using behaviors. Research has linked this behavior with misfiring in particular areas of the brain and suppressed neural activity. 132  Conduct disorder will be discussed more fully later in the chapter.

conduct disorder (CD)

A disorder of childhood and adolescence that involves chronic behavior problems, such as defiant, impulsive, or antisocial behavior and substance abuse.

Supporting Research

A number of research efforts have attempted to substantiate a link between neurological impairment and crime. There is evidence that this relationship can be detected quite early and that children who suffer from measurable neurological deficits at birth are more likely to become criminals later in life. 133  Measurement of the brain activity of antisocial youths has revealed impairments that might cause them to experience otherwise unexplainable outbursts of anger, hostility, and aggression. Evidence has been found linking brain damage to mental disorders such as schizophrenia and depression. 134  Cross-national studies also support a link between neurological dysfunction and antisocial behavior. 135

Clinical analysis of convicted murderers has found that a significant number had suffered head injuries as children, and this resulted in neurological impairment. 136  Not surprisingly, studies of death row inmates found that a significant number had suffered head injuries as children, resulting in damage to their central nervous system and neurological impairment. 137

Researchers have used the electroencephalogram to measure the brain waves and activity of delinquents and then compared them with those of law-abiding adolescents. Behaviors believed to be highly correlated with abnormal EEG functions include poor impulse control, inadequate social ability, hostility, temper tantrums, destructiveness, and hyperactivity. 138

Learning Disabilities

One specific type of MBD that has generated considerable interest is  learning disability (LD) , a term that has been defined by the National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children:

Children with special learning disabilities exhibit a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using spoken or written languages. They may be manifested in disorders of listening, thinking, talking, reading, writing, or arithmetic. They include conditions which have been referred to as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, developmental aphasia, etc. They do not include learning problems which are due to visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, to mental retardation, emotional disturbance, or to environmental disadvantages. 139

learning disability (LD)

Neurological dysfunction that prevents an individual from learning to his or her potential.

Learning-disabled kids usually exhibit poor motor coordination (such as problems with poor hand/eye coordination, trouble climbing stairs, clumsiness), have behavior problems (lack of emotional control, hostility, cannot stay on task), and have improper auditory and vocal responses (do not seem to hear, cannot differentiate sounds and noises).

The relationship between learning disabilities and delinquency has been highlighted by studies showing that arrested and incarcerated children have a far higher LD rate than do children in the general population. Though learning disabilities are quite common (approximately 10 percent of all youths have some form of learning disorder), estimates of LD among adjudicated delinquents range from 26 percent to 73 percent. 140  Do these statistics necessarily mean that learning disabilities somehow cause delinquent behavior?

The Learning Disabilities Association of America ( http://www.ldanatl.org ) aims to advance the education and general welfare of children and adults of normal or potentially normal intelligence who manifest disabilities of a perceptual, conceptual, or coordinative nature. For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Typically, there are two possible explanations of the link between learning disabilities and delinquency. 141  One view, known as the susceptibility rationale, argues that the link is caused by certain side effects of learning disabilities, such as impulsiveness, poor ability to learn from experience, and inability to take social cues. In contrast, the school failure rationale assumes that the frustration caused by the LD child’s poor school performance will lead to a negative self-image and acting-out behavior.

A number of recent research efforts have found that the LD child may not be any more susceptible to delinquent behavior than the non-LD child and that the proposed link between learning disabilities and delinquency may be an artifact of bias in the way the juvenile justice system treats LD youths. 142  Because of social bias, LD kids are more likely to get arrested, and if petitioned to juvenile court, their poor school record can influence the outcome of the case. LD youths bring with them to court a record of school problems and low grades and a history of frustrating efforts by agents of the educational system to help them. When information is gleaned from the school personnel at juvenile trials, LD children’s poor performance may work against them in the court. Consequently, the view that learning disabilities cause delinquency has been questioned, and the view that LD children are more likely to be arrested and officially labeled delinquent demands further inquiry. Self-reports show little difference between the behavior of LD and non-LD youth, a finding that supports the social bias view. 143

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

Many parents have noticed that their children do not pay attention to them—they run around and do things in their own way. Sometimes this inattention is a function of age; in other instances, it is a symptom of  attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) , in which a child shows a developmentally inappropriate lack of attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity. ADHD has various symptoms:

·  Lack of attention

·  Frequently fails to finish projects

·  Does not seem to pay attention

·  Does not sustain interest in play activities

·  Cannot sustain concentration on schoolwork or related tasks

·  Is easily distracted

·  Impulsivity

·  Frequently acts without thinking

·  Often calls out in class

·  Does not want to wait his or her turn

·  Shifts from activity to activity

·  Cannot organize tasks or work

·  Requires constant supervision in line or games

·  Hyperactivity

·  Constantly runs around and climbs on things

·  Shows excessive motor activity while asleep

·  Cannot sit still; is constantly fidgeting

·  Does not remain in his or her seat in class

·  Is constantly on the go like a “motor”

·  Has difficulty regulating emotions

·  Has difficulty getting started

·  Has difficulty staying on track

·  Has difficulty adjusting to social demands

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

A disorder in which a child shows a developmentally inappropriate lack of attention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity.

About 3 percent of US children (most often boys, but the condition can also affect girls) are believed to suffer from this disorder, and it is the most common reason children are referred to mental health clinics. The accompanying Case Profile focuses on the problems associated with ADHD.

ADHD has been associated with poor school performance, grade retention, placement in special needs classes, bullying, stubbornness, and lack of response to discipline. Although the origin of ADHD is still unknown, suspected causes include neurological damage, prenatal stress, and even reactions to food additives and chemical allergies. Some psychologists believe that the syndrome is essentially a chemical problem, specifically, an impairment in the chemical system that supports rapid and efficient communication in the brain’s management system. 144

case profile: Timothy’s Story

TIMOTHY was a 13-year-old biracial male residing with his mother and younger sister. His biological father was not involved in his life, and there was a history of domestic violence with his mother’s subsequent partners. There was also a family history of mental illness, criminal activity, child abuse, and poverty. Despite living in multiple homes and his family experiencing homelessness for periods of time, Timothy had attended the same school for the past three years due to an agreement with his school district; consequently, school staff knew him well. Although his teachers reported that Timothy was a bright child, his grades were poor and attendance was inconsistent. His school records indicated that, historically, he was a very good student with minimal behavioral problems. It was noted that other children picked on Timothy and viewed him as a “nerdy” child. Subsequently, Timothy was referred to his school social worker during his eighth-grade school year for emerging behaviors related to his bullying of other youths. He had harassed other students by texting and using social media websites to spread rumors over the Internet. There was significant concern that he was at risk for increased police contact and possible delinquency charges, although none had been filed.

After identifying Timothy as a student at risk, school staff worked with him to find a program that would meet his needs. A comprehensive mental health assessment determined that he was struggling with some issues related to an undiagnosed attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Despite this diagnosis, Timothy’s mother was against the use of medications. Given her own history, she was also very uncomfortable with any type of mental health involvement. She reported that she had been treated “poorly” and did not trust any professional assistance.

The community social worker worked diligently to establish a strong and trusting relationship with both Timothy and his mother. During this time the social worker helped the family to find more permanent housing and provided opportunities for the mother to better meet the children’s basic needs. Eventually Timothy’s mother agreed to the medication and service recommendations, and Timothy was able to focus on school and gain a better understanding of his behavioral consequences.

Timothy was accepted into a community program that had a strong focus on working with young people who have the potential to go to college and may need additional supports. He began a four-year pre-college technology access and training program for talented students of color and economically disadvantaged students. The program’s mission was to prepare students for technical, academic, and personal excellence. Timothy was provided with training, mentoring, leadership development, community service, and internship opportunities.

Timothy thrived in the program and today is a successful member of his community. He is employed and attending college. Timothy had no further issues related to bullying and was never involved in the juvenile justice system. He remains in contact with the program and the social worker who assisted him and his family.

CRITICAL THINKING

Should a disorder such as ADHD excuse people from responsibility if they get involved with delinquent behavior? Should they be treated rather than punished?

There are also ties to family turmoil: Parents of ADHD children are more likely to be divorced or separated, and ADHD children are much more likely to move to new locales than non-ADHD children. 145  It may be possible then that emotional turmoil either produces symptoms of ADHD or, if they already exist, causes them to intensify.

ADHD and Delinquency

A series of research studies now links ADHD to the onset and sustenance of a delinquent career. 146  One analysis of data on nearly 14,000 individuals participating in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health found that children with ADHD are at a heightened risk for criminality as adults. The data showed that participants with the inattentive type of ADHD were 6.5 percent more likely to commit a crime than their non-ADHD peers, while those with impulsive symptoms were 11 percent more likely, and those with a combination of inattention and hyperactivity were 5 percent more likely to report participating in criminal activities as young adults. 147  It is not surprising then that children with ADHD are more likely than non-ADHD youths to use illicit drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes in adolescence; be arrested; be charged with a felony; have multiple arrests; and be sent to prison. 148

In addition to adolescent misbehavior, hyperactive ADHD children are at greater risk for antisocial activity and drug use/abuse that persists into adulthood. 149  Many ADHD children also suffer from conduct disorder (CD) and continually engage in aggressive and antisocial behavior in early childhood. The disorders are sustained over the life course: children diagnosed as ADHD are more likely to be suspended from school and engage in criminal behavior as adults. 150

How is ADHD treated? Today, the most typical treatment is doses of stimulants, such as Ritalin, which ironically help control emotional and behavioral outbursts. Other therapies, such as altering diet and food intake, are now being investigated. 151  However, treatment is not always effective. Though some treated children with ADHD improve, many do not and continue to show a greater occurrence of externalizing (acting-out) behaviors and significant deficits in areas such as social skills, peer relations, and academic performance over the life course. They are more likely to require social services such as special education, tutoring, or psychotherapy. 152

The National Center for Learning Disabilities ( http://www.ncld.org/ ) provides national leadership in support of children and adults with learning disabilities. For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Arousal Theory

It has long been suspected that obtaining “thrills” is a motivator of crime. Adolescents may engage in such crimes as shoplifting and vandalism simply because they offer the attraction of getting away with it; delinquency is a thrilling demonstration of personal competence. 153  Is it possible that thrill seekers are people who have some form of abnormal brain functioning that directs their behavior?

Arousal theorists  believe that, for a variety of genetic and environmental reasons, some people’s brains function differently in response to environmental stimuli. All of us seek to maintain a preferred or optimal level of arousal: too much stimulation leaves us anxious and stressed out; too little makes us feel bored and weary. There is, however, variation in the way children’s brains process sensory input. Some nearly always feel comfortable with little stimulation, while others require a high degree of environmental input to feel comfortable. The latter group become “sensation seekers” who seek stimulating activities that may include aggressive, violent behavior patterns. 154

arousal theorists

Delinquency experts who believe that aggression is a function of the level of an individual’s need for stimulation or arousal from the environment. Those who require more stimulation may act in an aggressive manner to meet their needs.

The factors that determine a person’s level of arousal have not been fully explained. Suspected sources include brain chemistry (for example, serotonin levels) and brain structure. The number of nerve cells with receptor sites for neurotransmitters in the brain differs among people; some have many more than others. Another view is that adolescents with low heart rates are more likely to commit crimes because they seek stimulation to increase their arousal levels to normal levels. 155

Alyssa Bustamante, 15, was sentenced to life in prison for the October 2009 slaying of 9-year-old Elizabeth Olten in St. Martins, a small town just west of Jefferson City, Missouri. Bustamante, who had described the slaying of Elizabeth as an “ahmazing” thrill, was sentenced to a potential lifetime in prison. Can we conclude that she was a thrill seeker who craved arousal to gain a natural high from her risky behavior?

Genetic Influences

Individuals who share genes are alike in personality regardless of how they are reared, whereas rearing environment induces little or no personality resemblance. 156

Biosocial theorists also study the genetic makeup of delinquents. 157  The genes-crime association may be either direct or indirect. According to the direct view, (1) antisocial behavior is inherited, (2) the genetic makeup of parents is passed on to children, and (3) genetic abnormality is directly linked to a variety of antisocial behaviors. 158  For example, Ronald Simons and his associates found that adolescent genetic makeup is directly linked to an aggressive response to provocation. 159  It is also possible that the association is indirect: genes are related to some personality or physical trait that are also linked to antisocial behavior. 160  For example, genetic makeup may shape friendship patterns and orient people toward deviant peer associations; interacting with delinquent peers has been linked to antisocial behaviors. 161  Adolescent attachment to parents may be controlled by their genetic makeup; attachment that is weak and attenuated has been linked to criminality. 162

It has been hypothesized that youths, both males and females, maintain a heritable genetic configuration that predisposes them to delinquent behaviors. 163  Biosocial theorists believe that in the same way that genes for height and eye color are inherited, antisocial behavior characteristics and mental disorders may be passed down from one generation to the next.

Parent-Child Similarities

If antisocial tendencies are inherited, the children of criminal parents should be more likely to become law violators than the offspring of conventional parents. A number of studies have found that parental criminality and deviance do, in fact, powerfully influence delinquent behavior. 164  For example, there is a significant relationship between parent and child suicide attempts. 165  Some of the most important data on parental deviance were gathered by Donald J. West and David P. Farrington as part of the long-term Cambridge Youth Survey. These cohort data indicate that a significant number of delinquent youths have criminal fathers. 166  Whereas 8 percent of the sons of noncriminal fathers eventually became chronic offenders, about 37 percent of youths with criminal fathers were multiple offenders. 167  In another analysis, Farrington found that one type of parental deviance, school yard aggression or bullying, may be both inter- and intragenerational. Bullies have children who bully others, and these second-generation bullies grow up to father children who are also bullies, in a never-ending cycle. 168

Farrington’s findings are supported by some recent research data from the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS), a longitudinal analysis that has been monitoring the behavior of 1,000 area youths since 1988. RYDS researchers have also found an intergenerational continuity in antisocial behavior: criminal fathers produce delinquent sons who grow up to have delinquent children themselves. 169  It is possible that at least part of the association is genetic. 170

Sibling Similarities

It stands to reason that if the cause of crime is in part genetic, the behavior of siblings should be similar because they share genetic material. Research does show that if one sibling engages in antisocial behavior, so do his/her brothers and sisters; the effect is greatest among same-sex siblings. 171  Sibling pairs who report warm, mutual relationships and share friends are the most likely to behave in a similar fashion, including drug abuse and delinquency. 172

While the similarity of siblings’ behavior seems striking, what appears to be a genetic effect may also be explained by other factors:

·  Siblings who live in the same environment are influenced by similar social and economic factors.

·  Deviant siblings may grow closer because of shared interests.

·  Younger siblings who admire their older siblings may imitate the elders’ behavior.

·  The deviant sibling forces or threatens the brother or sister into committing delinquent acts.

·  Siblings living in a similar environment may develop similar types of friends; it is peer behavior that is the critical influence. 173

While these limitations need to be further explored, the research evidence seems to show a concordance of behavior in siblings that cannot be explained by environmental factors, that delinquency and crime runs in families, and that a few families with shared genetic traits account for a significant amount of all criminal and delinquent behaviors. 174

Twin Similarities

To control for environmental effects, biosocial theorists have compared the behavior of twins and non-twin siblings and found that the twins, who share more genetic material, are also more similar in their behavior. This indicates that it is heredity and not environment that controls behavior. 175  Recent twin studies have found a highly significant association in childhood antisocial and aggressive behaviors, including conduct disorder, ratings of aggression, delinquency, and psychopathic traits, a finding that supports a genetic basis to antisocial behavior. 176

An even more rigorous test of genetic theory involves comparison of the behavior of identical monozygotic (MZ) twins with same-sex fraternal dizygotic (DZ) twins; although the former have an identical genetic makeup, the latter share only about 50 percent of their genetic combinations. Research has shown that MZ twins are significantly closer in their personal characteristics, such as intelligence, than are DZ twins. 177  Other relevant findings include:

·  There is a significantly higher risk for suicidal behavior among monozygotic twin pairs than dizygotic twin pairs. 178

·  Differences between MZ and DZ twins have been found in tests measuring psychological dysfunctions, such as conduct disorders, impulsivity, and antisocial behavior. 179

·  MZ twins are closer than DZ twins in level of aggression and verbal skills. 180

·  Both members of MZ twin pairs who suffer child abuse are more likely to engage in later antisocial activity than DZ pairs. 181

·  Callous, unemotional traits in very young children can be a warning sign for future psychopathy and antisocial behavior. MZ twin pairs are more likely to be similar in levels of callous, unemotional behavior than DZ pairs. 182

One famous study of twin behavior still under way is the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart (also called the Minnesota Twin Family Study). This research compares the behavior of MZ and DZ twin pairs who were raised together with the behavior of twins who were separated at birth and in some cases did not even know of each other’s existence. The study shows some striking similarities in behavior and ability for twin pairs raised apart. An MZ twin reared away from a co-twin has about as good a chance of being similar to the co-twin in terms of personality, interests, and attitudes as one who has been reared with his or her co-twin. The conclusion: Similarities between twins are due to genes, not the environment. Because twins reared apart are so similar, the environment, if it influences them at all, makes them different (see  Exhibit 3.2 ). 183

exhibit 3.2: Findings from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart

·  MZ (identical) twins become more similar with respect to abilities such as vocabularies and arithmetic scores as they age. As DZ (fraternal) twins get older they become less similar with respect to vocabularies and arithmetic scores.

·  Identical (MZ) twin children have very similar brain wave patterns. By comparison, children who are fraternal (DZ) twins do not show as much similarity. These results indicate that the way the brain processes information may be greatly influenced by genes.

·  An EEG is a measure of brain activity or brain waves that can be used to monitor a person’s state of arousal. MZ twins tend to produce strikingly similar EEG spectra; DZ twins show far less similarity.

·  MZ twins tend to have more similar ages at the time of death than DZ twins do. That is, MZ twins are more likely to die at about the same age, and DZ twins are more likely to die at different ages.

SOURCE: Used by permission of the Minnesota Center for Twin and Family Research.

Adoption Studies

Another way to determine whether delinquency is an inherited trait is to compare the behavior of adopted children with that of their biological parents. If the criminal behavior of children is more like that of their biological parents (whom they have never met) than that of their adopted parents (who brought them up), it would indicate that the tendency toward delinquency is inherited, rather than shaped by the environment.

Studies of this kind have generally supported the hypothesis that there is a link between genetics and behavior. 184  Adoptees share many of the behavioral and intellectual characteristics of their biological parents despite the social and environmental conditions found in their adoptive homes. For example, biological parents of adopted hyperactive children are more likely to show symptoms of hyperactivity than are the adoptive parents; although not all hyperactive children become delinquent, a link has long been suspected. 185  Adoptees have been found to be more likely to get involved in criminality if their biological parent has also displayed a history of antisocial behaviors; the behavior of the biological parent may have a greater influence than that of the adopted parent. 186

The Association between Inherited Traits and Delinquency

Even if an association between inherited traits and delinquency can be demonstrated, its direction remains somewhat hazy. The relationship between inherited traits and delinquency may be either direct or indirect.

Direct Association

Possessing a particular genetic structure makes a person prone to aggression, violence, and antisocial behavior. 187  Regardless of environmental influences, kids with a particular genetic code are the ones most likely to get involved in antisocial behaviors. This explains antisocial behavior among upper-class youth, some of whom may be the product of a damaged genetic package. It also accounts for the fact that the majority of the poor and desperate are still neither violent nor delinquency prone. Since the environment plays only a secondary role in the production of deviant behaviors, it is heredity and not social forces that produces delinquency.

Indirect Association

Some kids possess inherited traits that make them prone to antisocial behavior. For example, psychopathy, impulsivity, and neuroticism have been found to be heritable; these conditions are also associated with delinquency. 188  Genetics may also shape family relationships, and the quality of parent-child relationships is related to antisocial behaviors. 189

Connecting delinquent behavior to heredity is quite controversial because it implies that the cause of delinquency is (a) present at birth, (b) “transmitted” from one generation to the next, and (c) cannot be easily changed (because genes cannot be altered). Nor does it help that existing research has been inconclusive. Even the most methodologically sophisticated research using identical twin pairs must be interpreted with caution. If the behavior similarities between MZ twins are greater than those between DZ twins, the association may be explained by environmental rather than genetic factors: MZ twins are more likely to look alike and to share physical traits than DZ twins, and they are more likely to be treated similarly, so any correspondence in behavior may be a function of socialization and/or environment and not heredity. 190

It is also possible that what appears to be a genetic connection can be explained by what is referred to as the  contagion effect : kids copy both conventional and antisocial behavior of siblings. 191  Because the relationship between identical twins is extremely close, the contagion effect may be stronger than with other sibling pairs. And because the relationship is enduring, if one twin is antisocial, it legitimizes and supports the criminal behavior of his or her co-twin into adulthood. 192

contagion effect

Delinquency spreads when kids copy the behavior of peers and siblings.

Evolutionary Theory

Some theorists have speculated that the human traits producing violence and aggression have been nurtured and produced through the long process of human evolution. 193  According to this  evolutionary theory , the competition for scarce resources has influenced and shaped the human species. 194  Over the course of human existence, people have been shaped to engage in actions that promote their well-being and ensure the survival and reproduction of their genetic line. Males who are impulsive risk takers may be able to father more children; impulsive behavior is inherited and becomes intergenerational. It is not surprising that human history has been marked by war, violence, and aggression.

evolutionary theory

Explaining the existence of aggression and violent behavior as positive adaptive behaviors in human evolution; these traits allowed their bearers to reproduce disproportionately, which has had an effect on the human gene pool.

Crime rate differences between the genders then are less a matter of socialization than inherent differences in the mating patterns that have developed between the sexes over time. 195  Among young men, reckless, life-threatening “risk-proneness” is especially likely to evolve in societies where choosing not to compete means the inability to find suitable mates and to reproduce. 196  Aggressive males have had the greatest impact on the gene pool. The descendants of these aggressive males now account for the disproportionate amount of male aggression and violence. 197

This evolutionary model suggests that a subpopulation of men has evolved with genes that incline them toward extremely low parental involvement. Sexually aggressive, they use their cunning to gain sexual conquests with as many females as possible. Because females would not willingly choose them as mates, they use stealth to gain sexual access—cheating—including such tactics as mimicking the behavior of more stable males. 198  Psychologist Byron Roth notes that these flamboyant, sexually aggressive males are especially attractive to younger, less intelligent women who begin having children at a very early age. 199  Their fleeting courtship process produces children with low IQs, aggressive personalities, and little chance of proper socialization in father-absent families. Because the criminal justice system treats them leniently, argues Roth, sexually irresponsible men are free to prey upon young girls. Over time, their offspring will yield an ever-expanding supply of offspring who are both antisocial and sexually aggressive.

Concept Summary 3.2  offers a summary of the major biosocial theories of delinquency.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 3.2: Biosocial Theories

Biochemical	Premise	Crime, especially violence, is a function of diet, vitamin intake, hormonal imbalance, and/or food allergies.
	Strengths	Explains irrational violence. Shows how the environment interacts with personal traits to influence behavior.
Neurological	Premise	Criminals and delinquents often suffer brain impairment, as measured by the EEG. Learning disabilities such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and minimum brain dysfunction are related to antisocial behavior.
	Strengths	Helps explain relationship between child abuse and crime, and why there is a relationship between victimization and violence (e.g., people who suffer head trauma may become violent).
Genetic	Premise	Delinquent traits and predispositions are inherited. Criminality of parents can predict the delinquency of children.
	Strengths	Explains why only a small percentage of youths in a high-crime area become chronic offenders.
Evolutionary	Premise	Behavior patterns and reproductive traits, developed over the millennia, control behavior.
	Strengths	Explains male aggressiveness. Helps us understand why violence is so common.

Psychological Theories of Delinquency

Some experts view the cause of delinquency as essentially psychological. 200  After all, most behaviors labeled delinquent—violence, theft, sexual misconduct—seem to be symptomatic of some underlying psychological problem. Psychologists point out that many delinquent youths have poor home lives, destructive relationships with neighbors, friends, and teachers, and conflicts with authority figures in general. These relationships seem to indicate a disturbed personality structure. Furthermore, numerous studies of incarcerated youths indicate that the youths’ personalities are marked by negative, antisocial behavior characteristics. And because delinquent behavior occurs among youths in every racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic group, psychologists view it as a function of emotional and mental disturbance, rather than purely a result of social factors, such as racism, poverty, and class conflict. Although many delinquents do not manifest significant psychological problems, enough do to give clinicians a powerful influence on delinquency theory.

Because psychology is a complex and diversified discipline, more than one psychological perspective on crime exists. Three prominent psychological perspectives on delinquency are the psychodynamic, the behavioral, and the cognitive. 201

Psychodynamic Theory

According to  psychodynamic theory , whose basis is the pioneering work of the Austrian physician Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), law violations are a product of an abnormal personality structure formed early in life and which thereafter controls human behavior choices. 202  In extreme cases, mental torment drives people into violence and aggression. The basis of psychodynamic theory is the assumption that human behavior is controlled by unconscious mental processes developed early in childhood.

psychodynamic theory

Branch of psychology that holds that the human personality is controlled by unconscious mental processes developed early in childhood.

According to Freud, the human personality contains three major components. The id is the unrestrained, primitive, pleasure-seeking component with which each child is born. The ego develops through the reality of living in the world and helps manage and restrain the id’s need for immediate gratification. The superego develops through interactions with parents and other significant people and represents the development of conscience and the moral rules shared by most adults.

Unconscious motivations for behavior come from the id’s action in response to two primal needs—sex and aggression. Human behavior is often marked by symbolic actions that reflect hidden feelings about these needs. For example, stealing a car may reflect a person’s unconscious need for shelter and mobility to escape from hostile enemies (aggression) or perhaps an urge to enter a closed, dark, womblike structure that reflects the earliest memories (sex).

All three segments of the personality operate simultaneously. The id dictates needs and desires, the superego counteracts the id by fostering feelings of morality and righ-teousness, and the ego evaluates the reality of a position between these two extremes. If these components are properly balanced, the individual can lead a normal life. If one aspect of the personality becomes dominant at the expense of the others, the individual exhibits abnormal personality traits (see  Figure 3.2 ).

figure 3.2: Structure of the Id, Ego, and Superego

A number of psychologists and psychiatrists expanded upon Freud’s original model to explain the onset of antisocial behaviors. Erik Erikson speculated that many adolescents experience a life crisis in which they feel emotional, impulsive, and uncertain of their role and purpose. 203  He coined the phrase  identity crisis  to denote this period of inner turmoil and confusion. Erikson’s approach might characterize the behavior of youthful drug abusers as an expression of confusion over their place in society, their inability to direct behavior toward useful outlets, and perhaps their dependency on others to offer them solutions to their problems.

identity crisis

Psychological state, identified by Erikson, in which youth face inner turmoil and uncertainty about life roles.

In his classic work, psychoanalyst August Aichorn found that social stress alone could not produce such an emotional state. He identifies  latent delinquents —youths whose troubled family life leads them to seek immediate gratification without consideration of right and wrong or the feelings of others. 204  In its most extreme form, delinquency may be viewed as a form of psychosis that prevents delinquent youths from appreciating the feelings of their victims or controlling their own impulsive needs for gratification.

latent delinquents

Youths whose troubled family life leads them to seek immediate gratification without consideration of right and wrong or the feelings of others.

For a collection of links to libraries, museums, and biographical materials related to Sigmund Freud and his works, visit these websites:  http://www.nndb.com/people/736/000029649/   http://www.egs.edu/library/sigmund-freud/biography/  Or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Psychodynamics of Delinquency

Applying these concepts, psychodynamic theory holds that youth crime is a result of unresolved mental anguish and internal conflict. Some children, especially those who have been abused or mistreated, may experience unconscious feelings associated with resentment, fear, and hatred. If this conflict cannot be reconciled, the children may regress to a state in which they become id-dominated. This regression may be considered responsible for a great number of mental diseases, and in many cases it may be related to criminal behavior. 205

PROFESSIONAL spotlight: Julie Medlin, Ph.D.

Juvenile Psychologist, Director, Medlin Treatment Center

JULIE MEDLIN is a licensed psychologist who currently serves as director of the Georgia-based Medlin Treatment Center, an outpatient counseling center specializing in the evaluation and treatment of sexual abuse and sexual deviancy. Medlin became interested in working with juvenile sex offenders after she conducted research with inmates in prison. When interviewing the inmates, she noticed that the sex offenders in particular appeared to be normal on the surface. She wondered how someone who appeared so normal could have molested a child or raped a woman. After working in the field for many years, she still finds it fascinating to talk to sex offenders and try to understand their motivations.

Medlin obtained her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Harvard University, and her master’s and doctoral degrees in Clinical Psychology from the University of Florida. She conducted prison research on sex offenders and completed an internship at a federal prison where she worked in their sex offender treatment program. She also received specialized training in interviewing, evaluating, and treating sexual abuse victims.

Medlin finds her job to be very rewarding because she believes that by treating sex offenders, she is helping reduce the number of children who will be sexually abused in the future. She also helps children who have already been sexually abused by seeing them for evaluations and therapy, and sometimes testifying on their behalf in court. She finds it very gratifying to share her expertise with the judge and jury so they can make the best decision in each case. This, she realizes, is a tremendous responsibility, and she considers it an honor to work in a position where she has a direct and powerful impact on peoples’ lives. Medlin finds that treating sex offenders is an emotionally difficult job; the offenders tend to be in denial and often do not want to stop offending. Her job is to help them find the desire to change their abusive patterns and then teach them the tools they can use to prevent relapse. Treating sexual abuse victims is almost as difficult, as the victims often do not want to talk about the sexual abuse in therapy, even though this is what is often needed for their healing.

Delinquents are id-dominated people who suffer from the inability to control impulsive drives. Perhaps because they suffered unhappy experiences in childhood or had families who could not provide proper love and care, delinquents suffer from weak or damaged egos that make them unable to cope with conventional society. 206  Adolescent antisocial behavior is a consequence of feeling unable to cope with feelings of oppression. Criminality actually allows youths to strive by producing positive psychic results: helping them to feel free and independent; giving them the possibility of excitement and the chance to use their skills and imagination; providing the promise of positive gain; allowing them to blame others for their predicament (for example, the police); and giving them a chance to rationalize their own sense of failure (“If I hadn’t gotten into trouble, I could have been a success”). 207

The psychodynamic approach places heavy emphasis on the family’s role. Antisocial youths frequently come from families in which parents are unable to provide the controls that allow children to develop the personal tools they need to cope with the world. 208  If neglectful parents fail to develop a child’s superego adequately, the child’s id may become the predominant personality force; the absence of a strong superego results in an inability to distinguish clearly between right and wrong. Destructive behavior may actually be a call for help. In fact, some psychoanalysts view delinquent behaviors as motivated by an unconscious urge to be punished. These children, who feel unloved, assume the reason must be their own inadequacy; hence, they deserve punishment. Later, the youth may demand immediate gratification, lack compassion and sensitivity for the needs of others, disassociate feelings, act aggressively and impulsively, and demonstrate other psychotic symptoms. Antisocial behavior, then, may be the result of conflict or trauma occurring early in a child’s development and delinquent activity may become an outlet for violent and antisocial feelings. The Professional Spotlight highlights the career of a licensed psychologist specializing in working with juvenile sex offenders.

Attachment Theory

A view most closely associated with psychologist John Bowlby,  attachment theory  is a form of psychodynamic tradition that holds that the ability to form attachments—emotional bonds to another person—has important lasting psychological implications that follow adolescents across the life span. Attachments are formed soon after birth, when infants bond with their mothers. They will become frantic, crying and clinging, to prevent separation or to reestablish contact to a missing parent. Bowlby noted that this behavior is not restricted to humans and occurs in all mammals, indicating that separation anxiety may be instinctual or evolutionary. After all, attachment figures, especially the mother, provide support and care, and without attachment an infant would be helpless and could not survive. 209  Bowlby’s most important finding was that to grow up mentally healthy, “the infant and young child should experience a warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother (or permanent mother substitute) in which both find satisfaction and enjoyment.” 210

attachment theory

A form of psychodynamic tradition that holds that the ability to form attachments—emotional bonds to another person—has important lasting psychological implications that follow adolescents across the life span.

According to this view, failing to develop proper attachment may cause people to fall prey to a number of psychological disorders. Psychologists believe that children with attachment problems lack trust and respect for others. They often display many psychological symptoms, some that resemble attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They may be impulsive and have difficulty concentrating and consequently experience difficulty in school. As adults, they often have difficulty initiating and sustaining relationships with others and find it difficult to sustain romantic relationships. Criminologists have linked people having detachment problems with a variety of antisocial behaviors, including sexual assault and child abuse. 211  It has been suggested that boys disproportionately experience disrupted attachment and that these disruptions are causally related to disproportionate rates of male offending. 212

Mental Disorders and Delinquency

According to the psychodynamic approach, delinquent behavior is a function of unconscious mental instability and turmoil. People who have lost control and are dominated by their id are known as psychotics; their behavior may be marked by hallucinations and inappropriate responses.

Psychosis takes many forms, the most common being schizophrenia, a condition marked by illogical thought processes, distorted perceptions, and abnormal emotional expression. The most serious types of violence and antisocial behavior might be motivated by psychosis. 213

Of a less serious nature are a variety of mood and/or behavior disorders that render people histrionic, depressed, antisocial, or narcissistic. 214  These  mood disorders  are characterized by disturbance in expressed emotions. 215  Some suffer from  alexithymia , a deficit in emotional cognition that prevents people from being aware of their feelings or being able to understand or talk about their thoughts and emotions; they seem robotic and emotionally dead. 216  Others may suffer from eating disorders and are likely to use fasting, vomiting, and drugs to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight. 217

mood disorder

A condition in which the prevailing emotional mood is distorted or inappropriate to the circumstances.

alexithymia

A deficit in emotional cognition that prevents people from being aware of their feelings or being able to understand or talk about their thoughts and emotions; sufferers seem robotic and emotionally dead.

Mental illness dogs offenders across the life course, not surprising considering that many have long histories of trauma and dysfunctional family lives. 218  Delinquent adolescents have higher rates of clinical mental disorders than adolescents in the general population. 219  One recent study of incarcerated youth found that at least 88 percent of males and 92 percent of females had a psychiatric disorder of some kind and that for some disorders, such as anxiety disorder, females (55 percent) were more likely to manifest symptoms than males (26 percent). 220  As adult criminals, people who have been arrested for multiple crimes are more likely to suffer from a psychiatric disorder, particularly a psychotic disorder, than nonchronic offenders. 221  There is evidence that mental disorders seem to be significantly related to involvement in some specific crimes, such as arson and assault. 222

Disruptive Behavior Disorder

Psychologists are now focusing on one mood disorder— disruptive behavior disorder (DBD) —as an important component of delinquency. 223  Most kids act out, especially when they are under stress. Younger children may become difficult when they are tired or hungry. They may defy parents and talk back to teachers. It would be unusual for a child not to go through the “terrible twos” or to be reasonable and mature when they are 3 years old! However, kids who are frequently uncooperative and hostile and who seem to be much more difficult than other children the same age may be suffering from a DBD. This disorder has two components. The more mild condition is referred to as oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). Children suffering from ODD experience an ongoing pattern of uncooperative, defiant, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that seriously interferes with the youngster’s day-to-day functioning. Symptoms of ODD may include frequent loss of temper; constant arguing with adults; defying adults or refusing adult requests or rules; deliberately annoying others; blaming others for mistakes or misbehavior; being angry and resentful; being spiteful or vindictive; or swearing or using obscene language. 224  The person with ODD is moody and easily frustrated, has a low opinion of him- or herself, and may abuse drugs as a form of self-medication.

disruptive behavior disorder (DBD)

A consistent pattern of behaviors that continually breaks normal social rules and is extremely oppositional and defiant of authority.

Kids with ODD act out in multiple settings, but their behavior is more noticeable at home or at school. It is estimated that 5 to 15 percent of all school-age children have ODD. Though the causes of ODD are unknown, both biosocial and psychological sources are suspected.

The more serious DBD is conduct disorder (CD), which comprises a more acute group of behavioral and emotional problems in youngsters. As you may recall, children and adolescents with CD have great difficulty following rules and behaving in a socially acceptable way. They are often viewed by other children, adults, and social agencies as severely antisocial. Research shows that they are frequently involved in such activities as bullying, fighting, and cruelty to animals. Kids suffering from CD are more likely to carry weapons than other kids. Sexual assault and arson are common activities. Children with CD have trouble being truthful and think nothing of lying to cover up their activities. When they defy their parents, their activities are more serious than the ODD child: they cut school, stay out all night, or run away from home.

What causes CD? Numerous biosocial and psychological factors are suspected. There is evidence that interconnections between the frontal lobes and other brain regions may influence CD. Research also shows that levels of serotonin can influence the onset of CD. CD has been shown to aggregate in families, suggesting a genetic basis of the disorder.

It is generally assumed that ODD is more treatable than CD. Treatment might include parent training programs to help manage the child’s behavior, individual psychotherapy, anger management, family psychotherapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy to assist problem solving. 225

Is the Psychodynamic View Valid?

There is a great deal of empirical evidence showing that kids who suffer from these and other psychological deficits are prone to violence and antisocial behavior. 226  Violent youths have been clinically diagnosed as “overtly hostile,” “explosive or volatile,” “anxious,” and “depressed.” 227  Many delinquents exhibit indications of such psychological abnormalities as schizophrenia, paranoia, and obsessive behaviors; female offenders seem to have more serious mental health symptoms and psychological disturbances than male offenders. 228  Antisocial youths frequently come from families in which parents are unable to give love, set consistent limits, and provide the controls that allow children to develop the necessary personal tools to cope with the world in which they live. 229

Although this evidence is persuasive, the association between mental disturbance and delinquency is unresolved. It is possible that any link is caused by some intervening variable or factor:

·  Psychologically troubled youth do poorly in school, and school failure leads to delinquency. 230

·  Psychologically troubled youth have conflict-ridden social relationships that make them prone to commit delinquent acts. 231

·  While good parenting is considered a barrier against delinquency, youth who maintain abnormal psychological characteristics such as low self-control, a hostile view of relationships, and acceptance of deviant norms may neutralize the influence of positive parenting on controlling their conduct. 232

·  Kids who suffer child abuse are more likely to have mental anguish and commit violent acts; child abuse is the actual cause of both problems. 233

·  Living in a stress-filled urban environment may produce symptoms of both mental illness and crime. 234

·  Kids who are delinquent have reduced life chances. They do poorly in school and as adults are relegated to lower-class economic status. Educational failure and status deprivation are related to depression and other psychological deficits. 235

It is also possible that the link is spurious and caused by the treatment of the mentally ill. The police may be more likely to arrest the mentally ill, giving the illusion that they are crime prone. 236  However, some recent research by Paul Hirschfield and his associates gives only mixed support to this view: while some mental health problems increase the risk of arrest, others bring out more cautious or compassionate police responses. 237

Behavioral Theory

Not all psychologists agree that behavior is controlled by unconscious mental processes determined by parental relationships developed early in childhood. Behavioral psychologists argue that a person’s personality is learned throughout life during interaction with others. Based primarily on the works of the American psychologist John B. Watson (1878–1958) and popularized by Harvard professor B. F. Skinner (1904–1990),  behaviorism  concerns itself solely with measurable events and not the unobservable psychic phenomena described by psychoanalysts.

behaviorism

Branch of psychology concerned with the study of observable behavior rather than unconscious processes; focuses on particular stimuli and responses to them.

Behaviorists suggest that individuals learn by observing how people react to their behavior. Behavior is triggered initially by a stimulus or change in the environment. If a particular behavior is reinforced by some positive reaction or event, that behavior will be continued and eventually learned. However, behaviors that are not reinforced or are punished will be extinguished or become extinct. For example, if children are given a reward (ice cream for dessert) for eating their entire dinner, eventually they will learn to eat properly as a matter of habit. Conversely, if children are punished for some misbehavior, they will eventually learn to associate disapproval with that act and avoid it.

FOCUS on delinquency: The Media and Delinquency

One aspect of social learning theory that has received a great deal of attention is the belief that children will model their behavior after characters they observe on TV or see in movies. Not surprising considering that children ages 6 and under spend an average of two hours a day using screen media such as TV and computers, about the same amount of time they spend playing outside, and significantly more than the amount they spend reading or being read to (about 39 minutes per day). Marketing research indicates that adolescents ages 11 to 14 watch violent horror movies at a higher rate than any other age group; kids this age use older peers and siblings and apathetic parents to gain access to R-rated films. Violent video games are also a problem: Americans now spend twice as much money on video games as they spend going to the movies. Eighty percent of the games produced are violent, with realistic graphics that include blood, decapitation, guns, knives, mutilation, and death. Video games may have a greater impact on their audience than TV and movies because they immerse the players visually, auditorily, and physically rather than have them remain passive observers. There is evidence that violent video game exposure decreases helpful behaviors and increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and aggressive behaviors. One reason may be because exposure to violence in the virtual world desensitizes kids to violence in the real world, making it appear less threatening and foreboding. But new research by Matt DeLisi and his associates found that violent video game playing is correlated with aggression, even among the most disturbed delinquent offenders. Based on data from a sample of institutionalized juvenile delinquents, violent video games were associated with antisocial behavior even in a sample whose members are suffering from psychopathy.

TV and Violence

A number of research methods have been used to measure the effect of adolescent TV viewing on violent behavior. One method is to expose groups of subjects to violent TV shows in a laboratory setting and then compare their behavior to that of control groups who viewed nonviolent programming; observations have also been made in playgrounds, athletic fields, and residences. Other experiments require subjects to answer attitude surveys after watching violent TV shows. Still another approach is to use aggregate measures of TV viewing; for example, the number of violent TV shows on the air during a given time period is compared to crime rates during the same period.

Most evaluations of experimental data gathered using these techniques indicate that watching violence on TV is correlated with aggressive behaviors. Subjects who view violent TV shows are likely to commence aggressive behavior almost immediately. Children exposed to violent programming at a young age have a higher tendency for violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed. The weight of the experimental results indicates that violent media have an immediate impact on people with a preexisting tendency toward crime and violence.

There is also evidence that watching violent media may create changes in personality and cognition, which in the long term produces negative behavioral changes. Kids who watch more than an hour of TV each day showed an increase in assaults, fights, robberies, and other acts of aggression later in life. What is it about watching violent media that contributes to violence?

·  Viewing violence can lead to emotional desensitization toward violence in real life.

·  Children exposed to violence are more likely to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior.

·  Viewing violence increases fear of becoming a victim of violence, with a resultant increase in self-protective behaviors and a mistrust of others.

·  Watching violent programming may actually alter brain activity. When Maren Strenziok and her colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to analyze adolescent boys’ brain function as they watched videos, they found that exposure to violent TV shows, movies, and video games desensitizes part of the brain—the lateral orbitofrontal cortex—to violence. Those exposed to the highest levels of video violence at home showed the greatest desensitization.

The association between violent media and violent behavior is still being studied. There are those social scientists who question the claim that TV viewing is related to antisocial behavior, and claim that experimental results are inconclusive and short-lived. Kids may have an immediate reaction to viewing violence on TV, but aggression is quickly extinguished once the viewing ends. Experiments showing that kids act aggressively in a laboratory setting after watching violent TV shows fail to link aggression to actual delinquent behaviors, such as rape or assault. Aggregate data are also inconclusive. Little evidence exists that areas with the highest levels of violent TV viewing also have rates of violent crime that are above the norm. Millions of children watch violence every night yet fail to become violent criminals. And even if a violent behavior–TV link could be established, it would be difficult to show that antisocial people develop aggressive traits merely from watching TV. Aggressive youths may simply enjoy watching TV shows that conform to and support their behavioral orientation. In other words, a personal inclination toward violence may lead to viewing violent media, and not vice versa. Further research is needed to clarify this important issue.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Considering the evidence, should violent TV shows be banned? Or would that have little effect on behavior since kids have access to other media sources of violence such as video games and the Internet?

2.

How can ecological differences in violence rates be explained since everyone has access to media violence no matter where they live? In other words, how would differences in violence rates in cities and rural communities be explained if the media was a cause of violence?

SOURCES: Matt DeLisi, Michael Vaughn, Douglas Gentile, Craig Anderson, and Jeffrey Shook, “Violent Video Games, Delinquency, and Youth Violence: New Evidence,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11:132–142 (2013); Ingrid Möller, Barbara Krahé, Robert Busching, and Christina Krause, “Efficacy of an Intervention to Reduce the Use of Media Violence and Aggression: An Experimental Evaluation with Adolescents in Germany,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41:105–120 (2012); Maren Strenziok, Frank Krueger, Gopikrishna Deshpande, Rhoshel K. Lenroot, Elke van der Meer, and Jordan Grafman, “Fronto-parietal Regulation of Media Violence Exposure in Adolescents: A Multi-method Study,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, October 7, 2010,  http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/10/18/scan .nsq079.full.pdf  (accessed May 2013); Michael Brody, “Playing with Death,” The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter 16:8 (2000); Victoria Rideout, Elizabeth Vandewater, and Ellen Wartella, Zero to Six: Electronic Media in the Lives of Infants, Toddlers and Preschoolers (Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation, 2003); Nicholas Carnagey, Craig Anderson, and Brad Bushman, “The Effect of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489–496 (2007); Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson, “Media Violence and the American Public Revisited,” American Psychologist 56:448–450 (2002).

Social Learning Theory

Not all behaviorists strictly follow the teachings of Watson and Skinner. Some hold that a person’s learning and social experiences, coupled with his or her values and expectations, determine behavior. This is known as the  social learning theory  approach. The most widely read social learning theorists are Albert Bandura, Walter Mischel, and Richard Walters. 238  In general, they hold that children will model their behavior according to the reactions they receive from others, either positive or negative; the behavior of those adults they are in close contact with, especially parents; and the behavior they view on television and in movies (see the Focus on Delinquency feature “The Media and Delinquency”). If children observe aggression and see that the aggressive behavior, such as an adult slapping or punching someone during an argument, is approved or rewarded, they will likely react violently during a similar incident. Eventually, the children will master the techniques of aggression and become more confident that their behavior will bring tangible rewards. 239

social learning theory (psychological)

The view that behavior is modeled through observation, either directly through intimate contact with others or indirectly through media; interactions that are rewarded are copied, whereas those that are punished are avoided.

By implication, social learning suggests that children who grow up in a home where violence is a way of life may learn to believe that such behavior is acceptable and rewarding. Even if parents tell children not to be violent and punish them if they are, the children will still model their behavior on the observed parental violence.

Thus, children are more likely to heed what parents do than what they say. By mid-childhood, some children have already acquired an association between their use of aggression against others and the physical punishment they receive at home. Often their aggressive responses are directed at other family members and siblings. The family may serve as a training ground for violence because the child perceives physical punishment as the norm during conflict situations with others. 240

Adolescent aggression is a result of disrupted dependency relations with parents. This refers to the frustration and anger a child feels when parents provide poor role models and hold back affection and nurturing. Children who lack close dependent ties to their parents may have little opportunity or desire to model themselves after them or to internalize their standards of behavior. In the absence of such internalized controls, the child’s aggression is likely to be expressed in an immediate, direct, and socially unacceptable fashion such as violence and aggression. 241

Cognitive Theory

A third area of psychology that has received increasing recognition in recent years is  cognitive theory . Psychologists with a cognitive perspective focus on mental processes—the way people perceive and mentally represent the world around them, and how they solve problems. The pioneers of this school were Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), Edward Titchener (1867–1927), and William James (1842–1920). The cognitive perspective contains several subgroups. Perhaps the most important for criminological theory is the moral and intellectual development branch, which is concerned with how people morally represent and reason about the world.

cognitive theory

The branch of psychology that studies the perception of reality and the mental processes required to understand the world we live in.

Jean Piaget (1896–1980), the founder of this approach, hypothesized that a child’s reasoning processes develop in an orderly fashion, beginning at birth and continuing until age 12 and older. 242  At first, during the sensorimotor stage, children respond to the environment in a simple manner, seeking interesting objects and developing their reflexes. By the fourth and final stage, the formal operational stage, they have developed into mature adults who can use logic and abstract thought.

Lawrence Kohlberg applied the concept of developmental stages to issues in criminology. 243  He suggested that people travel through stages of moral development, during which the basis for moral and ethical decision making changes. It is possible that serious offenders have a moral orientation that differs from that of law-abiding citizens. Kohlberg’s stages of development are as follows:

· Stage 1. Right is obedience to power and avoidance of punishment.

· Stage 2. Right is taking responsibility for oneself, meeting one’s own needs, and leaving to others the responsibility for themselves.

· Stage 3. Right is being good in the sense of having good motives, having concern for others, and “putting yourself in the other person’s shoes.”

· Stage 4. Right is maintaining the rules of a society and serving the welfare of the group or society.

· Stage 5. Right is based on recognized individual rights within a society with agreed-upon rules—a social contract.

· Stage 6. Right is an assumed obligation to principles applying to all humankind—principles of justice, equality, and respect for human personality.

Kohlberg classified people according to the stage on this continuum at which their moral development had ceased to grow. In studies conducted by Kohlberg and his associates, criminals were found to be significantly lower in their moral judgment development than noncriminals of the same social background. 244  The majority of noncriminals were classified in stages 3 and 4, whereas a majority of criminals were in stages 1 and 2. Moral development theory, then, suggests that people who obey the law simply to avoid punishment or who have outlooks mainly characterized by self-interest are more likely to commit crimes than those who view the law as something that benefits all of society and who honor the rights of others. Subsequent research with delinquent youths has found that a significant number were in the first two moral development categories, whereas nondelinquents were ranked higher. 245  In addition, higher stages of moral reasoning are associated with such behaviors as honesty, generosity, and nonviolence, which are considered incompatible with delinquency. 246

Daniel Petric, after being sentenced by Lorain County Common Pleas Judge James Burge on June 16, 2009, in Elyria, Ohio. Petric was sentenced to 23 years in prison for killing his mother and badly wounding his father who had forbidden him to buy video games with violent themes. Do you believe that playing such games leads to violent behavior?

Information Processing

Cognitive theorists who study information processing try to explain antisocial behavior in terms of perception and analysis of data. When people make decisions, they engage in a sequence of cognitive thought processes. They first encode information so that it can be interpreted. They then search for a proper response and decide upon the most appropriate action; finally, they act on their decision. 247

According to this approach, adolescents who use information properly, who are better conditioned to make reasoned judgments, and who can make quick and reasoned decisions when facing emotion-laden events are the ones best able to avoid antisocial behavior choices. 248  In contrast, delinquency-prone adolescents may have cognitive deficits and use information incorrectly when they make decisions. 249  They have difficulty making the “right decision” while under stress. One reason is that they may be relying on mental “scripts” learned in their early childhood that tell them how to interpret events, what to expect, how they should react, and what the outcome of the interaction should be. 250  Hostile children may have learned improper scripts by observing how others react to events; their own parents’ aggressive and inappropriate behavior would have considerable impact. Some children may have had early and prolonged exposure to violence, such as child abuse, which increases their sensitivity to teasing and maltreatment. They may misperceive behavioral cues because their decision making was shaped by traumatic life events. 251

Oversensitivity to rejection by their peers is a continuation of sensitivity to rejection by parents. 252  Violence becomes a stable behavior because the scripts that emphasize aggressive responses are repeatedly rehearsed as the child matures. They view crime as an appropriate means to satisfy their immediate personal needs, which take precedent over more distant social needs such as obedience to the law. 253

Violence-prone kids see the world around them as filled with aggressive people. They are overly sensitive and tend to overreact to provocation. As these children mature, they use fewer cues than most people to process information. Some use violence in a calculating fashion as a means of getting what they want; others react in an overly volatile fashion to the slightest provocation. When they attack victims, they may believe they are defending themselves, even though they are misreading the situation. 254  Adolescents who use violence as a coping technique with others are also more likely to exhibit other social problems, such as drug and alcohol abuse. 255

There is also evidence that delinquent boys who engage in theft are more likely to exhibit cognitive deficits than nondelinquent youth. For example, they have a poor sense of time, leaving them incapable of dealing with or solving social problems in an effective manner. 256

Personality and Delinquency

Personality can be defined as the reasonably stable patterns of behavior, including thoughts and emotions that distinguish one person from another. 257  An individual’s personality reflects characteristic ways of adapting to life’s demands and problems. The way we behave is a function of how our personality enables us to interpret life events and make appropriate behavioral choices.

Can the cause of delinquency be linked to personality? There has been a great deal of research on this subject and an equal amount of controversy and debate over the findings. 258  In their early work, Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck identified a number of personality traits that characterize delinquents:

· self-assertiveness extroversion defiance ambivalence impulsiveness feeling unappreciated narcissism distrust of authority

· suspicion poor personal skills destructiveness mental instability sadism hostility lack of concern for others resentment 259

The Gluecks’ research is representative of the view that delinquents maintain a distinct personality whose characteristics increase the probability that (a) they will be aggressive and antisocial and (b) their actions will involve them with agents of social control, ranging from teachers to police.

Personality and Antisocial Behaviors

Since the Gluecks’ findings were published, other research efforts have attempted to identify personality traits that would increase the chances for a delinquent career. 260  A common theme is that delinquents are hyperactive, impulsive individuals with short attention spans (attention deficit disorder), who frequently manifest conduct disorders, anxiety disorders, and depression. 261  These traits make them prone to problems ranging from psychopathology to drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and violence. 262  Suspected traits include impulsivity, hostility, and aggressiveness. 263  The psychologist Hans Eysenck identified two important personality traits that he associated with antisocial behavior: extraversion and neuroticism. Eysenck defines  extraverts  as impulsive individuals who lack the ability to examine their own motives and behaviors;  neuroticism  produces anxiety, tension, and emotional instability. 264  Youths who lack self-insight and are impulsive and emotionally unstable are likely to interpret events differently than youths who give reasoned judgments to life events. Though the former may act destructively, for example, by using drugs, the latter will be able to reason that such behavior is ultimately self-defeating and life threatening. Youths who are both neurotic and extraverted often lack insight, are highly impulsive, and more likely than other delinquents to become chronic offenders. 265

extravert

A person who behaves impulsively and doesn’t have the ability to examine motives and behavior.

neuroticism

A personality trait marked by unfounded anxiety, tension, and emotional instability.

The Antisocial Personality

It has also been suggested that chronic delinquency may result from a syndrome commonly referred to as the  antisocial personality  (previously called  psychopathic  or  sociopathic personality ). 266  Though no more than 3 percent of the male offending population may be classified as antisocial, it is possible that a large segment of the persistent chronic offenders share this trait. 267

antisocial (psychopathic, sociopathic) personality

A person lacking in warmth and affection, exhibiting inappropriate behavior responses, and unable to learn from experience.

Antisocial youths typically start out by showing symptoms of ODD and then CD in youth. As they mature they exhibit a low level of guilt and anxiety and persistently violate the rights of others. 268  In their late teens they exhibit superficial charm and above-average intelligence, these often mask a disturbed personality that makes them incapable of forming enduring relationships with others. 269  Frequently involved in such deviant behaviors as truancy, running away, lying, substance abuse, and impulsivity, psychopaths lack the ability to empathize with others. From an early age, their home life is filled with frustrations, bitterness, and quarreling.

Consequently, throughout life, the sociopath is unreliable, unstable, demanding, and egocentric. Hervey Cleckley, a leading authority on this type of offender, uses this definition:

[they are] chronically antisocial individuals who are always in trouble, profiting neither from experience nor punishment, and maintaining no real loyalties to any person, group, or code. They are frequently callous and hedonistic, showing marked emotional immaturity, with lack of responsibility, lack of judgment, and an ability to rationalize their behavior so that it appears warranted, reasonable, and justified. 270

Those considered antisocial are believed to be thrill seekers who engage in violent, destructive behavior. Some become gang members and engage in violent and destructive sexual escapades to compensate for a fear of responsibility and an inability to maintain interpersonal relationships. 271  Delinquents have been described as sensation seekers who desire a hedonistic pursuit of pleasure, an extraverted life-style, partying, drinking, and a variety of sexual partners. They may constantly engage in risky behaviors such as car theft and joy riding. 272

A number of factors have been found to contribute to the development of antisocial personalities. They include having an emotionally disturbed parent, a lack of love, parental rejection during childhood, and inconsistent discipline. Another view is that an antisocial personality has its basis in a measurable physical condition—they suffer from levels of arousal that are lower than those of the general population. Consequently, antisocial youths may need greater-than-average stimulation to bring them up to comfortable levels. 273  Psychologists have attempted to treat patients considered antisocial by giving them adrenaline, which increases their arousal levels. The Youth Stories feature discusses a famous case involving seemingly antisocial youth.

Intelligence and Delinquency

Psychologists have long been concerned with the development of intelligence and its subsequent relationship to behavior. It has been charged that children with low IQs are responsible for a disproportionate share of delinquency.

Early criminologists believed that low intelligence was a major cause of delinquency. They thought that if it could be determined which individuals were less intelligent, it might be possible to identify potential delinquents before they committed socially harmful acts. 274  Because social scientists had a captive group of subjects in training schools and penal institutions, studies began to appear that measured the correlation between IQ and crime by testing adjudicated juvenile delinquents. Delinquent juveniles were believed to be inherently substandard in intelligence and naturally inclined to commit more crimes than more intelligent people. Thus, juvenile delinquents were used as a test group around which numerous theories about intelligence were built.

Dr. Heather Bowlds, who is in charge of the sex offender treatment program, and youth correctional counselor Joseph Bruns (right) listen as 20-year-old Tony (center) talks during a group counseling session at the O.H. Close Youth Correctional facility in Stockton, California. Courts have seen the number of sex offense cases involving juvenile offenders rise dramatically in recent years.

Nature Theory

When the newly developed IQ tests were administered to inmates of prisons and juvenile training schools in the first decades of the twentieth century, a large proportion of the inmates scored low on the tests. Henry Goddard found in his studies in 1920 that many institutionalized people were what he considered “feebleminded” and thus concluded that at least half of all juvenile delinquents were mental defectives. 275

Similarly, in 1926, William Healy and Augusta Bronner tested a group of delinquents in Chicago and Boston and found that 37 percent were subnormal in intelligence. 276  They concluded that delinquents were 5 to 10 times more likely to be mentally deficient than nondelinquent boys.

These and other early studies were embraced as proof that low IQ scores indicated potentially delinquent children and that a correlation existed between innate low intelligence and deviant behavior. IQ tests were believed to measure the inborn genetic makeup of individuals, and many criminologists accepted the predisposition of substandard individuals toward delinquency. This view is referred to as  nature theory  of intelligence.

nature theory

Holds that low intelligence is genetically determined and inherited.

Nurture Theory

Development of culturally sensitive explanations of human behavior in the 1930s led to the  nurture theory  of intelligence. This school of thought holds that intelligence must be viewed as partly biological but primarily sociological. Nurture theory argues that intelligence is not inherited and that low-IQ parents do not necessarily produce low-IQ children. 277  It discredits the notion that people commit crimes because they have low IQ scores. Instead, it holds that environmental stimulation from parents, relatives, schools, peer groups, and innumerable others creates a child’s IQ level and that low IQs result from an environment that also encourages delinquent and criminal behavior. 278  For example, if educational environments could be improved, the result might be both an elevation in IQ scores and a decrease in delinquency. 279  Studies challenging the assumption that people automatically committed delinquent acts because they had below-average IQs began to appear as early as the 1920s. John Slawson’s study of 1,543 delinquent boys in New York institutions found that although 80 percent of the delinquents achieved lower scores in abstract verbal intelligence than the general population, delinquents were about normal in mechanical aptitude and nonverbal intelligence. Slawson found no relationship between the number of arrests, the types of offenses, and IQ. 280  In 1931, Edwin Sutherland also evaluated IQ studies of criminals and delinquents and found evidence disputing the association between intelligence and criminality. 281  These findings did much to discredit the notion that a strong relationship existed between IQ and criminality, and for many years the IQ-delinquency link was ignored.

nurture theory

Holds that intelligence is partly biological but mostly sociological; negative environmental factors encourage delinquent behavior and depress intelligence scores for many youths.

youth stories: The Zantop Killings

On January 27, 2001, two beloved Dartmouth professors, Half and Susanne Zantop, were knifed to death in their New Hampshire home. The killings were especially shocking when it turned out that the Zantops were random victims, chosen by two local teens, Robert Tulloch and James Parker, who had little if any history of trouble or antisocial behavior.

James Parker, 16.

Robert Tulloch, 18.

Tulloch and Parker chose the Zantop residence at random and posed as students doing research for a school survey. They planned to take the occupants by surprise, threaten them into revealing where they kept their ATM card, get their PINs for their bank accounts, kill them, take their money, and leave. After brutally stabbing the couple to death, the boys left with a total of $340, but they forgot to take away their knife sheaths. Using these items and other evidence found at the scene, the police quickly identified Parker and Tulloch. Police found that Tulloch’s boot prints matched those found in the Zantops’ home, and both sets of fingerprints matched those at the crime scene. While the investigation was ongoing, the boys left town; Parker left a note requesting that his parents “Don’t call the cops.” Planning to hitchhike to California, they were picked up by a truck driver who called the police. The boys were arrested at a truck stop in Spiceland, Indiana.

In their statements to prosecutors, the teens disclosed that they killed the Zantops because they had become bored with their lives in quiet Chelsea, Vermont. They wanted to go to Australia, and they began plotting ways to obtain enough money to support their trip. The boys told prosecutors that they held long discussions about the morality of killing people and plotted such crimes as car thefts, bank robberies, and boat hijackings before settling on a crime spree and concluding they would have to kill everyone they robbed to eliminate witnesses. Parker said he and Tulloch were prepared to kill children. “We assumed it would be a couple,” he said in his statement, “and somebody might have to go somewhere else and grab the other person and bring them into the same room, and if there were any kids we would have to do the same thing.” But Parker drew the line when Tulloch suggested harming animals. “He would hit his dog sometimes,” Parker said. “Just because it was a stupid dog. I was totally against that. I thought it was terrible. The thing with killing for me is that I was doing it for money, and that was kind of the reason I thought maybe we do need to get used to this, but we’re not going to practice on animals or anything like that.”

Parker was legally declared an adult and after a plea agreement was sentenced to 25 years, and Tulloch, pleading guilty, was given life without parole. During the hearing, Parker wept and showed remorse during his apology for his part in the killings, but Tulloch showed no emotion and made no statement.

CRITICAL THINKING

The Zantop killers seem like textbook antisocials: remorseless, lacking in empathy, capable of terrible violence, yet bright and calculating. If children exhibit such behavior in school or elsewhere, such as in an after-school program, should they be brought to the attention of authorities and closely monitored? Or is that unfairly labeling someone simply because their personality is different or unusual?

SOURCES: “Youths Dreamed of Adventure, but Settled for Killing a Couple,” New York Times, May 18, 2002,  http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/18/us/youths-dreamed-of-adventure-but-settled-for-killing-a-couple.html  (accessed May 2013); Alex Tresniowski, “Hearts of Darkness: Two High School Pals Finally Confess to the Gruesome Murder of a Couple on Dartmouth’s Faculty,” People, April 22, 2002,  http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,20136817,00.html  (accessed May 2013); Richard Lehr and Mitchell Zuckoff, Judgment Ridge: The True Story Behind the Dartmouth Murders (New York: HarperCollins, 2003).

IQ and Delinquency Today

A study published by Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang revived interest in the association between IQ and delinquency. 282  After conducting a thorough statistical analysis of IQ and delinquency data sets, Hirschi and Hindelang concluded both that IQ tests are a valid predictor of intelligence and that “the weight of evidence is that IQ is more important than race and social class” for predicting delinquent involvement. They argued that a low IQ increases the likelihood of delinquent behavior through its effect on school performance: youths with low IQs do poorly in school, and school failure and academic incompetence are highly related to delinquency.

The Hirschi-Hindelang findings have been supported by a number of research efforts. 283  In their widely read Crime and Human Nature, James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein came to this conclusion:

… there appears to be a clear and consistent link between criminality and low intelligence. That is, taking all offenders as a group, and ignoring differences among kinds of crime, criminals seem, on the average, to be a bit less bright and to have a different set of intellectual strengths and weaknesses than do noncriminals as a group. 284

Contemporary research efforts have continued to uncover an association between low IQ scores and antisocial behavior. Scores on intelligence tests have been used to predict violent behavior and to distinguish between groups of violent and nonviolent offenders. 285  In addition to these micro-level studies, others using macro-level state and county data found that IQ and delinquency rates are associated. A number of research projects have found evidence that states and counties whose residents have higher IQs experience lower crime rates than those with less-intelligent kids. 286

Those experts who believe that IQ may have a direct influence on the onset of delinquent involvement argue that the key linkage between IQ and delinquency is the ability to manipulate abstract concepts. Low intelligence limits adolescents’ ability to “foresee the consequences of their offending and to appreciate the feelings of victims.” 287  Therefore, youths with limited intelligence are more likely to misinterpret events and gestures, act foolishly, take risks, and engage in harmful behavior.

IQ and Delinquency Controversy

The relationship between IQ and delinquency is extremely controversial. It implies there is a condition present at birth that accounts for a child’s delinquent behavior throughout the life cycle and that this condition is not easily changed or improved. By implication, if delinquency is not spread evenly through the social structure, neither is intelligence. The controversy has been fueled by charges that IQ tests are culturally biased and invalid, which makes any existing evidence at best inconclusive. Kids who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods find their verbal ability is stunted and this deficit makes them prone to delinquency. Environment then mediates the association between verbal ability and delinquency. 288

There is also evidence that delinquency is a reflection of poor school performance and educational failure, and that if there is an IQ-delinquency link it’s because kids with low IQ do poorly in the classroom. 289  As Wilson and Herrnstein put it, “A child who chronically loses standing in the competition of the classroom may feel justified in settling the score outside, by violence, theft, and other forms of defiant illegality.” 290  Because the relationship runs from low IQ to poor school performance to frustration to delinquency, school officials need to recognize the problem and plan programs to help underachievers perform better in school. As the hypothesized relationship between IQ and delinquency, even if proved to be valid, is an indirect one, educational enrichment programs can help counteract any influence intellectual impairment has on the predilection of young people to commit crime.

Critiquing Individual-Level Theories

Individual-level studies have been criticized on a number of grounds. One view is that the research methodologies they employ are weak and invalid. Most research efforts use adjudicated or incarcerated offenders. It is often difficult to determine whether findings represent the delinquent population or merely those most likely to be arrested and adjudicated by officials of the justice system. For example, some critics have described the methods used in heredity studies as “poorly designed, ambiguously reported and exceedingly inadequate in addressing the relevant issues.” 291

Some critics also fear that individual-level research can be socially and politically damaging. If an above-average number of indigent youth become delinquent offenders, can it be assumed that the less affluent are impulsive, greedy, have low IQs, or are genetically inferior? To many social scientists, the implications of this conclusion are unacceptable in light of what is known about race, gender, and class bias.

Critics also suggest that individual-level theory is limited as a generalized explanation of delinquent behavior because it fails to account for the known patterns of criminal behavior. Delinquent behavior trends seem to conform to certain patterns linked to social-ecological rather than individual factors—social class, seasonality, population density, and gender roles. Social forces that appear to be influencing the onset and maintenance of delinquent behavior are not accounted for by explanations of delinquency that focus on the individual. If, as is often the case, the delinquent rate is higher in one neighborhood than another, are we to conclude that youths in the high-crime area are more likely to be watching violent TV shows or eating more sugar-coated cereals than those in low-crime neighborhoods? How can individual traits explain the fact that crime rates vary between cities and between regions?

Defending Individual-Level Theory

The legitimization of social-psychological, psychiatric, and biosocial approaches to explaining deviant behavior may prove to be an important and productive paradigm shift in the decades ahead. 292

Theorists who focus on individual behavior contend that critics overlook the fact that their research often gives equal weight to environmental and social as well as mental and physical factors. 293  For example, some people may have particular developmental problems that place them at a disadvantage in society, limit their chances of conventional success, and heighten their feelings of anger, frustration, and rage. Though the incidence of these personal traits may be spread evenly across the social structure, families in one segment of the population have the financial wherewithal to help treat the problem, whereas families in another segment may lack the economic means and the institutional support needed to help their children. Delinquency rate differences may be a result of differential access to opportunities either to commit crime or receive the care and treatment needed to correct and compensate for developmental problems.

In addition, individual-level theorists believe that, like it or not, youths are in fact different and may have differing potentials for antisocial acts. For example, gender differences in the violence rate may be explained by the fact that after centuries of aggressive mating behavior, males have become naturally more violent than females. 294  Male aggression may be more a matter of genetic transfer than socialization or cultural patterns.

Trait Theory and Delinquency Prevention

Because many individual-oriented theorists are also practitioners and clinicians, it is not surprising that a great deal of delinquency prevention efforts are based in psychological and biosocial theory (see the Case Profile entitled “ Eric’s Story ”).

case profile: Eric’s Story

SIXTEEN-YEAR-OLD ERIC PETERSON’S parents divorced when he was very young; there had been a history of domestic violence in his Minnesota family. Eric, an only child, was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at the age of 8, and also was suffering from reading and math deficiencies. Diagnosed with learning disabilities, Eric had challenges at school and was struggling academically.

Eric’s mother became extremely concerned about his behavior, both at home and at school. Eric was acting aggressively at school and had been involved in several fights. Although his teachers were understanding, some were openly concerned about his sudden aggressiveness and believed he posed a threat to the safety of the other children; he was on the verge of expulsion. At home, Eric was defiant, refused to obey his mother’s rules, and was often verbally abusive. He made verbal threats toward his mother and damaged property in their home. Part of Eric’s problem might have been linked to his expanding substance abuse. He had a history of smoking marijuana on a regular basis. Although he had recently completed a drug and alcohol assessment and treatment program, his drug use persisted.

Sensing that a crisis was about to explode, Eric’s mother got in contact with Family and Children’s Services of Minnesota and requested assistance. After completing their initial assessment, Family and Children’s Services provided Eric and his mother with family therapy and individual counseling. The family received treatment to address the issues at home and to try to provide support for them both. His mother was given help on how to establish rules and create consequences for misbehavior. Eric participated in individual counseling to address his anger issues. During these sessions, Eric admitted that in addition to being physically aggressive to his mother and to peers at school, he was also physically abusing his girlfriend. Eric was honest about his behavior and indicated a desire to stop the abuse. He did not blame others for his behavior and took responsibility for his actions, an attitude that bolstered his counselor’s belief that he could be helped by a proper treatment regime.

Eric was referred to the Adolescent Domestic Abuse Program, a unique counseling program for boys ages 13 through 17 who are physically abusive or intimidating to a family member or dating partner. The program involves 10 weeks of group counseling with other young men who have also been involved in this type of violent behavior. The treatment protocol includes a family counseling component to help stop the abuse and help the family heal. Eric made an excellent connection with the group facilitator and worked very hard to address his behavior.

In this instance, the Adolescent Domestic Abuse Program proved to be a successful treatment milieu: Eric was able to stop his abusive behavior and create a better life for himself and his family. He has gone on to help other teens stop the cycle of domestic violence by becoming a regular speaker and volunteer at the Adolescent Domestic Abuse Program and at local schools. Eric has also graduated from high school and has even started college classes. His goal: to work with troubled teens and set them on the path to a better life, just like the one he took himself.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Eric seemed willing to change and entered a treatment program with that goal in mind. Is this unique or do you believe that many or most violent offenders are willing to change? Even those involved in domestic violence?

2.

Note that Eric tried to help others overcome their involvement in domestic violence. Is it possible that employing ex-offenders in counseling roles helps reinforce their own desire to change? How would it be possible to convince others to avoid violence unless the “teacher” was willing to do so himself?

As a group, individual perspectives on delinquency suggest that prevention efforts should be directed at strengthening a youth’s home life and personal relationships. Almost all of these theoretical efforts point to the child’s home life as a key factor in delinquent behavior. If parents cannot supply proper nurturing, love, care, discipline, nutrition, and so on, the child cannot develop properly. Whether one believes that delinquency has a biosocial basis, a psychological basis, or a combination of both, it is evident that delinquency prevention efforts should be oriented to reach children early in their development.

It is therefore not surprising that county welfare agencies and privately funded treatment centers have offered counseling and other mental health services to families referred by schools, welfare agents, and juvenile court authorities. In some instances, intervention focuses on a particular family problem that has the potential for producing delinquent behavior, such as alcohol and drug problems, child abuse, and sexual abuse. In other situations, intervention is more generalized and oriented toward developing the self-image of parents and children or improving discipline in the family.

In addition, individual approaches have been used to prevent court-adjudicated youths from engaging in further criminal activities. It has become almost universal practice for incarcerated and court-adjudicated youths to be given some form of mental and physical evaluation before they begin their term of correctional treatment. Such rehabilitation methods as psychological counseling and psychotropic medication (involving such drugs as Valium or Ritalin) are often prescribed. In some instances, rehabilitation programs are provided through drop-in centers that service youths who are able to remain in their homes, while more intensive programs require residential care and treatment. The creation of such programs illustrates how agents of the juvenile justice system believe that many delinquent youths and status offenders have psychological or physical problems and that their successful treatment can help reduce repeat criminal behavior. Faith in this treatment approach suggests widespread agreement among juvenile justice system professionals that the cause of delinquency can be traced to individual pathology; if not, why bother treating them?

Some questions remain about the effectiveness of individual treatment as a delinquency prevention technique. Little hard evidence exists that clinical treatment alone can prevent delinquency or rehabilitate known delinquents. It is possible that programs designed to help youths may actually stigmatize and label them, hindering their efforts to live conventional lives. 295  Because this issue is so critical, it will be discussed further in  Chapter 5 .

SUMMARY

· 1 Be familiar with and distinguish between the two branches of individual-level theories of delinquency

·  Some delinquency experts, referred to as choice theorists, believe that delinquency is a product of an individual decision-making process.

·  Other experts believe that delinquency is the product of some individual trait such as temperament, personality, or hormones.

·  Choice theory suggests that young offenders choose to engage in antisocial activity because they believe their actions will be beneficial and profitable.

·  Trait theory suggests that youthful misbehavior is driven by biological or psychological abnormalities, such as hyperactivity, low intelligence, biochemical imbalance, or genetic defects.

·  Both focus on mental and behavioral processes at the individual level and on delinquency as an individual problem, not a social problem.

· 2 Know the principles of choice theory

·  Choice theory assumes that people have free will to choose their behavior.

·  Those who violate the law are motivated by personal needs such as greed, revenge, survival, and hedonism.

·  The classical view of crime and delinquency holds that the decision to violate the law is based on a careful weighing of the benefits and costs of criminal behaviors.

·  Punishment should be only severe enough to deter a particular offense.

·  Delinquents are rational decision makers who choose to violate the law.

·  Choice theorists believe that law-violating behavior occurs when a reasoning offender decides to take the chance of violating the law after considering his or her personal situation, values, and situation.

· 3 Discuss the routine activities theory of delinquency

·  Routine activities theory holds that delinquency is a function of the activities of capable guardians, the availability of suitable targets, and the presence of motivated offenders (such as unemployed teenagers).

·  The presence of capable guardians who can protect homes and possessions can reduce the motivation to commit delinquent acts.

·  Routine activities theory suggests that the availability of suitable targets such as easily transportable commodities will increase delinquency rates.

·  As the number and motivation of offenders increase, so too do delinquency rates.

· 4 Know the principles of general deterrence theory

·  The general deterrence concept holds that the choice to commit delinquent acts is structured by the threat of punishment.

·  One of the guiding principles of deterrence theory is that the more severe, certain, and swift the punishment, the greater its deterrent effect will be.

·  Deterrence strategies are based on the idea of a rational, calculating offender; they may not be effective when applied to immature young people.

·  The deterrent threat of punishment may have little influence on the highest-risk group of young offenders—teens living in economically depressed neighborhoods.

· 5 Be familiar with the concept of specific deterrence

·  The concept of specific deterrence holds that if offenders are punished severely, the experience will convince them not to repeat their illegal acts.

·  Some research studies show that arrest and conviction may under some circumstances lower the frequency of reoffending.

·  Punishment, especially in an adult prison, can back-fire by exposing younger offenders to higher-risk, more experienced inmates who can influence their lifestyle and help shape their attitudes.

· 6 Discuss the concept of situational crime prevention

·  According to the concept of situational crime prevention, delinquency can be neutralized if (a) potential targets are carefully guarded, (b) the means to commit crime are controlled, and (c) potential offenders are carefully monitored.

·  Situational crime prevention strategies aim to reduce the opportunities people have to commit particular crimes.

·  Increasing the effort required to commit delinquency can involve target-hardening techniques. Increasing the risks of delinquency might involve such measures as improving surveillance lighting, using closed-circuit TV monitoring, and creating neighborhood watch programs. Reducing the rewards of delinquency include strategies such as making car radios removable so they can be kept at home at night.

· 7 Trace the history and development of trait theory

·  The first attempts to discover why criminal tendencies develop focused on the physical makeup of offenders.

·  The origin of this school of thought is generally credited to the Italian physician Cesare Lombroso.

·  Early views portrayed delinquent behavior as a function of a single biological factor or trait, such as body build or defective intelligence.

·  Trait theorists argue that no two people (with rare exceptions, such as identical twins) are alike, and therefore each will react to environmental stimuli in a distinct way.

· 8 Be familiar with the branches and substance of biological trait theory

·  One view is that body chemistry can govern behavior and personality, including levels of aggression and depression.

·  One area of concern is that overexposure to particular environmental contaminants, including metals and minerals such as iron and manganese, may produce effects that put kids at risk for antisocial behavior.

·  There is also evidence that diet may influence behavior through its impact on body chemistry.

·  Hormonal levels are another area of biochemical research. Antisocial behavior allegedly peaks in the teenage years because hormonal activity is at its highest level during this period.

·  Another focus of biosocial theory is the neurological—or brain and nervous system—structure of offenders.

·  Biosocial theorists also study the genetic makeup of delinquents. Studies of this kind have generally supported the hypothesis that there is a link between genetics and behavior.

· 9 Know the various psychological theories of delinquency

·  According to psychodynamic theory, law violations are a product of an abnormal personality structure formed early in life and which thereafter controls human behavior choices. The basis of psychodynamic theory is the assumption that human behavior is controlled by unconscious mental processes developed early in childhood.

·  Behavioral psychologists argue that a person’s personality is learned throughout life during interaction with others. Behaviorists suggest that individuals learn by observing how people react to their behavior.

·  Cognitive theorists who study information processing try to explain antisocial behavior in terms of perception and analysis of data. When people make decisions, they engage in a sequence of cognitive thought processes. Delinquency-prone adolescents may have cognitive deficits and use information incorrectly when they make decisions.

· 10 Be familiar with the psychological traits that have been linked to delinquency

·  Delinquents are hyperactive, impulsive individuals with short attention spans (attention deficit disorder), who frequently manifest conduct disorders, anxiety disorders, and depression.

·  Antisocial youths exhibit a low level of guilt and anxiety and persistently violate the rights of others.

·  Psychologists have long been concerned with the development of intelligence and its subsequent relationship to behavior. It has been charged that children with low IQs are responsible for a disproportionate share of delinquency.

KEY TERMS

choice theory,  p. 76

trait theory,  p. 76

free will,  p. 76

classical criminology,  p. 76

routine activities theory,  p. 79

predatory crime,  p. 79

general deterrence,  p. 81

specific deterrence,  p. 84

situational crime prevention,  p. 86

target-hardening technique,  p. 86

diffusion of benefits,  p. 86

criminal atavism,  p. 89

vulnerability model,  p. 90

differential susceptibility model,  p. 90

neurological,  p. 93

minimal brain dysfunction (MBD),  p. 93

conduct disorder (CD),  p. 94

learning disability (LD),  p. 95

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),  p. 96

arousal theorists,  p. 98

contagion effect,  p. 101

evolutionary theory,  p. 102

psychodynamic theory,  p. 103

identity crisis,  p. 103

latent delinquents,  p. 104

attachment theory,  p. 105

mood disorder,  p. 106

alexithymia,  p. 106

disruptive behavior disorder (DBD),  p. 106

behaviorism,  p. 107

social learning theory (psychological),  p. 108

cognitive theory,  p. 110

extravert,  p. 112

neuroticism,  p. 112

antisocial (psychopathic, sociopathic) personality,  p. 112

nature theory,  p. 113

nurture theory,  p. 113

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Is there such a thing as the “born criminal”? Are some people programmed at birth to commit crimes?

2.

Is crime psychologically abnormal? Can there be “normal” crimes?

3.

Apply psychodynamic theory to such delinquent acts as shoplifting and breaking and entering a house.

4.

Can delinquent behavior be deterred by the threat of punishment? If not, how can it be controlled?

5.

Should we incarcerate violent juvenile offenders for long periods of time—10 years or more?

6.

Does watching violent TV and films encourage youth to be aggressive and antisocial? Do advertisements for beer featuring attractive, provocatively dressed young men and women encourage drinking and precocious sex? If not, why bother advertising?

7.

Discuss the characteristics of antisocial youths. Do you know anyone who fits the description?

VIEWPOINT

You are a state legislator who is a member of the subcommittee on juvenile justice. Your committee has been asked to redesign the state’s juvenile code because of public outrage over serious juvenile crime. At an open hearing, a professor from the local university testifies that she has devised a surefire test to predict violence-prone delinquents. The procedure involves brain scans, DNA testing, and blood analysis. Used with samples of incarcerated adolescents, her procedure has been able to distinguish with 70 percent accuracy between youths with a history of violence and those who are exclusively property offenders. The professor testifies that if each juvenile offender were tested with her techniques, the violence-prone career offender could easily be identified and given special treatment.

Opponents argue that this type of testing is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and can unjustly label nonviolent offenders. Any attempt to base policy on biosocial makeup seems inherently wrong and unfair.

Those who favor the professor’s approach maintain that it is not uncommon to single out the insane or mentally incompetent for special treatment and that these conditions often have a biological basis. It is better that a few delinquents be unfairly labeled than seriously violent offenders be ignored until it is too late.

·  Is it possible that some kids are born to be delinquents? Or do kids “choose” crime?

·  Is it fair to test kids to see if they have biological traits related to crime, even if they have never committed a single offense?

·  Should special laws be created to deal with the potentially dangerous offender?

·  Should offenders be typed on the basis of their biological characteristics?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

Before you address this issue, you may want to research the law by using the keyword “self-incrimination.” You can also search the web for information on “criminal profiling.” A number of academic institutes are devoted to these topics. You may also want to do some research on criminal profiling. Check out the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/training/bsu ), which contains the most famous group of profilers. For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Susan Donaldson James, “Newtown Shooter Lanza Had Sensory Processing Disorder,” ABC News, February 20, 2013, http://abcnews.go.com/Health/newtown-shooter-adam-lanza-sensory-processing-disorder-controversial/story?id=18532645 (accessed May 2013).

2. Adam Lankford, The Myth of Martyrdom: What Really Drives Suicide Bombers, Rampage Shooters, and Other Self-Destructive Killers (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

3. Alemayehu Bishaw, Poverty: 2010 and 2011, US Census Bureau, 2012,  http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

4. Marvin Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).

5. Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments, 6th ed., Henry Paolucci, trans. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977).

6. See Ernest Van den Haag, Punishing Criminals (New York: Basic Books, 1975).

7. Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments, p. 43.

8. Pierre Tremblay and Carlo Morselli, “Patterns in Criminal Achievement: Wilson and Abrahamsen Revisited,” Criminology 38:633–660 (2000).

9. James A. Densley, “It’s Gang Life, but Not As We Know It: The Evolution of Gang Business,” Crime and Delinquency, first published April 4, 2012.

10. Timothy Brezina, “Delinquent Problem-Solving: An Interpretive Framework for Criminological Theory and Research,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:3–30 (2000).

11. Christopher Uggen and Melissa Thompson, “The Socioeconomic Determinants of Ill-Gotten Gains: Within-Person Changes in Drug Use and Illegal Earnings,” American Journal of Sociology 109:146–185 (2003).

12. Steven Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, “An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang’s Finances,” NBER Working Papers 6592 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., 1998).

13. Bill McCarthy, “New Economics of Sociological Criminology,” Annual Review of Sociology 28:417–442 (2002).

14. D. Wayne Osgood, Janet Wilson, Patrick O’Malley, Jerald Bachman, and Lloyd Johnston, “Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior,” American Sociological Review 61:635–655 (1996).

15. Brenda Sims Blackwell, “Perceived Sanction Threats, Gender, and Crime: A Test and Elaboration of Power-Control Theory,” Criminology 38:439–488 (2000).

16. Dana Haynie, “Contexts of Risk: Explaining the Link between Girls’ Pubertal Development and Their Delinquency Involvement,” Social Forces 82:355–397 (2003).

17. Raymond Paternoster, Shawn Bushway, Robert Brame, and Robert Apel, “The Effect of Teenage Employment on Delinquency and Problem Behaviors,” Social Forces 82:297–336 (2003).

18. Matthew Ploeger, “Youth Employment and Delinquency: Reconsidering a Problematic Relationship,” Criminology 35:659–675 (1997).

19. Robert Apel, Shawn Bushway, Robert Brame, Amelia Haviland, Daniel Nagin, and Ray Paternoster, “Unpacking the Relationship between Adolescent Employment and Antisocial Behavior: A Matched Samples Comparison,” Criminology 45:67–97 (2007).

20. Richard B. Felson, Violence and Gender Reexamined (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2002).

21. Scott Jacques, “The Necessary Conditions for Retaliation: Toward a Theory of Non-Violent and Violent Forms in Drug Markets,” Justice Quarterly 27:186–205 (2010).

22. Benoit Leclerc, Richard Wortley, and Stephen Smallbone, “Getting into the Script of Adult Child Sex Offenders and Mapping out Situational Prevention Measures,”Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48:209–237 (2011).

23. Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach,” American Sociological Review 44:588–608 (1979).

24. Brandon Welsh and David Farrington, “Surveillance for Crime Prevention in Public Space: Results and Policy Choices in Britain and America,” Criminology and Public Policy 3:701–730 (2004).

25. Denise Osborn, Alan Trickett, and Rob Elder, “Area Characteristics and Regional Variates as Determinants of Area Property Crime Levels,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 8:265–282 (1992).

26. Paul Bellair, “Informal Surveillance and Street Crime: A Complex Relationship,” Criminology 38:137–167 (2000).

27. Grace Barnes, Joseph Hoffman, John Welte, Michael Farrell, and Barbara Dintcheff, “Adolescents’ Time Use: Effects on Substance Use, Delinquency and Sexual Activity,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36:697–710 (2007).

28. Richard Timothy Coupe and Laurence Blake, “The Effects of Patrol Workloads and Response Strength on Arrests at Burglary Emergencies,” Journal of Criminal Justice 33:239–255 (2005).

29. William Smith, Sharon Glave Frazee, and Elizabeth Davison, “Furthering the Integration of Routine Activity and Social Disorganization Theories: Small Units of Analysis and the Study of Street Robbery as a Diffusion Process,” Criminology 38:489–521 (2000).

30. James Massey, Marvin Krohn, and Lisa Bonati, “Property Crime and Routine Activities of Individuals,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26:397–429 (1989).

31. Lawrence Cohen, Marcus Felson, and Kenneth Land, “Property Crime Rates in the United States: A Macrodynamic Analysis, 1947–1977, with Ex-Ante Forecasts for the Mid-1980s,” American Journal of Sociology 86:90–118 (1980).

32. Denise Gottfredson and David Soulé, “The Timing of Property Crime, Violent Crime, and Substance Use Among Juveniles,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42:110–120 (2005).

33. Rolf Becker and Guido Mehlkop, “Social Class and Delinquency: An Empirical Utilization of Rational Choice Theory with Cross-Sectional Data of the 1990 and 2000 German General Population Surveys (Allbus),” Rationality and Society 18:193–235 (2006); Daniel Nagin and Greg Pogarsky, “Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extralegal Sanction Threats into a Model of General Deterrence: Theory and Evidence,” Criminology 39:865–892 (2001).

34. Nagin and Pogarsky, “Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extralegal Sanction Threats into a Model of General Deterrence.”

35. Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments.

36. For the classic analysis on the subject, see Johannes Andenaes, Punishment and Deterrence (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1974).

37. Daniel Nagin and Greg Pogarsky, “An Experimental Investigation of Deterrence: Cheating, Self-Serving Bias and Impulsivity,” Criminology 41:167–195 (2003).

38. Tomislav V. Kovandzic and John J. Sloan, “Police Levels and Crime Rates Revisited: A County-Level Analysis from Florida (1980–1998),” Journal of Criminal Justice 30:65–76 (2002).

39. Robert Apel, Greg Pogarsky, and Leigh Bates, “The Sanctions–Perceptions Link in a Model of School-Based Deterrence,”Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25:201–226 (2009).

40. Nagin and Pogarsky, “Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extralegal Sanction Threats into a Model of General Deterrence.”

41. Cheryl L. Maxson, Kristy N. Matsuda, and Karen Hennigan, “Deterrability among Gang and Nongang Juvenile Offenders: Are Gang Members More (or Less) Deterrable than Other Juvenile Offenders?” Crime and Delinquency 57:516–543 (2011).

42. Thomas Loughran, Alex Piquero, Jeffrey Fagan, and Edward Mulvey, “Differential Deterrence: Studying Heterogeneity and Changes in Perceptual Deterrence among Serious Youthful Offenders,” Crime and Delinquency 58:3–27 (2012).

43. Robert Apel, “Sanctions, Perceptions, and Crime: Implications for Criminal Deterrence,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 29:67–101 (2013).

44. James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), p. 396.

45. John Worrall and Tomislav Kovandzic, “Police Levels and Crime Rates: An Instrumental Variables Approach,” Social Science Research 39:506–516 (2010).

46. Coupe and Blake, “The Effects of Patrol Workloads and Response Strength on Arrests at Burglary Emergencies.”

47. Steven Durlauf and Daniel Nagin, “Imprisonment and Crime: Can Both Be Reduced?” Criminology and Public Policy 10:13–54 (2011).

48. Michael White, James Fyfe, Suzanne Campbell, and John Goldkamp, “The Police Role in Preventing Homicide: Considering the Impact of Problem-Oriented Policing on the Prevalence of Murder,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:194–226 (2003).

49. Bruce Jacobs, “Anticipatory Undercover Targeting in High Schools,” Journal of Criminal Justice 22:445–457 (1994).

50. Leona Lee, “Factors Determining Waiver in a Juvenile Court,” Journal of Criminal Justice 22:329–339 (1994).

51. Donald Green, “Past Behavior as a Measure of Actual Future Behavior: An Unresolved Issue in Perceptual Deterrence Research,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 80:781–804, at 803 (1989); Matthew Silberman, “Toward a Theory of Criminal Deterrence,” American Sociological Review 41:442–461 (1976); Linda Anderson, Theodore Chiricos, and Gordon Waldo, “Formal and Informal Sanctions: A Comparison of Deterrent Effects,” Social Problems 25:103–114 (1977). See also Maynard Erickson and Jack Gibbs, “Objective and Perceptual Properties of Legal Punishment and Deterrence Doctrine,” Social Problems 25: 253–264 (1978); and Daniel Nagin and Raymond Paternoster,” Enduring Individual Differences and Rational Choice Theories of Crime,” Law and Society Review 27:467–485 (1993).

52. Robert Svensson, Frank Weerman, Lieven Pauwels, Gerben Bruinsma, and Wim Bernasco, “Moral Emotions and Offending: Do Feelings of Anticipated Shame and Guilt Mediate the Effect of Socialization on Offending?” European Journal of Criminology 10:22–39 (2013).

53. Harry Wallace, Julie Juola Exline, and Roy Baumeister, “Interpersonal Consequences of Forgiveness: Does Forgiveness Deter or Encourage Repeat Offenses?” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44:453–460 (2008).

54. Thomas Peete, Trudie Milner, and Michael Welch, “Levels of Social Integration in Group Contexts and the Effects of Informal Sanction Threat on Deviance,” Criminology 32:85–105 (1994).

55. See Raymond Paternoster, “The Deterrent Effect of Perceived Certainty and Severity of Punishment: A Review of the Evidence and Issues,” Justice Quarterly 42:173–217 (1987); Paternoster, “Absolute and Restrictive Deterrence in a Panel of Youth: Explaining the Onset, Persistence/Desistance, and Frequency of Delinquent Offending,” Social Problems 36:289–307 (1989).

56. James A. Swartz and Arthur J. Lurigio, “Serious Mental Illness and Arrest: The Generalized Mediating Effect of Substance Use,” Crime and Delinquency 53:581–604 (2007).

57. Eric Jensen and Linda Metsger, “A Test of the Deterrent Effect of Legislative Waiver on Violent Juvenile Crime,” Crime and Delinquency 40:96–104 (1994).

58. Nagin and Pogarsky, “Integrating Celerity, Impulsivity, and Extralegal Sanction Threats into a Model of General Deterrence.”

59. Ibid.

60. Greg Pogarsky, Ki Deuk Kim, and Ray Paternoster, “Perceptual Change in the National Youth Survey: Lessons for Deterrence Theory and Offender Decision-Making,” Justice Quarterly 22:1–29 (2005).

61. Bruce Jacobs, “Deterrence and Deterrability,” Criminology 48:417–442 (2010).

62. Maynard Erickson and Jack Gibbs, “Punishment, Deterrence, and Juvenile Justice,” in D. Shichor and D. Kelly, eds., Critical Issues in Juvenile Justice (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980), pp. 183–202.

63. Anthony Braga, “Pulling Levers: Focused Deterrence Strategies and the Prevention of Gun Homicide,” Journal of Criminal Justice 36:332–343 (2008).

64. Shamena Anwar and Thomas Loughran, “Testing a Bayesian Learning Theory of Deterrence Among Serious Juvenile Offenders,” Criminology 49:667–698 (2011).

65. Ibid.; Rudy Haapanen, Lee Britton, and Tim Croisdale, “Persistent Criminality and Career Length,” Crime and Delinquency 53:133–155 (2007).

66. Christina Dejong, “Survival Analysis and Specific Deterrence: Integrating Theoretical and Empirical Models of Recidivism,” Criminology 35:561–576 (1997).

67. Paul Tracy and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, Continuity and Discontinuity in Criminal Careers (New York: Plenum, 1996).

68. Pamela Lattimore, Christy Visher, and Richard Linster, “Predicting Rearrest for Violence among Serious Youthful Offenders,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:54–83 (1995).

69. Peter Wood, “Exploring the Positive Punishment Effect among Incarcerated Adult Offenders,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 31:8–22 (2007).

70. Jacobs, “Deterrence and Deterrability.”

71. E. Ann Carson and William Sabol, Prisoners in 2011 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012),  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p11.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

72. Jose Canela-Cacho, Alfred Blumstein, and Jacqueline Cohen, “Relationship between the Offending Frequency of Imprisoned and Free Offenders,” Criminology 35:133–171 (1997).

73. James Lynch and William Sabol, “Prisoner Reentry in Perspective,” Urban Institute,  http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410213_reentry.PDF  (accessed May 2013).

74. Rudy Haapanen, Lee Britton, and Tim Croisdale, “Persistent Criminality and Career Length,” Crime and Delinquency 53:133–155 (2007).

75. Patricia Brantingham, Paul Brantingham, and Wendy Taylor, “Situational Crime Prevention as a Key Component in Embedded Crime Prevention,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 47:271–292 (2005).

76. Marcus Felson, “Routine Activities and Crime Prevention,” in National Council for Crime Prevention, Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, Annual Review, vol. 1 (Stockholm: Scandinavian University Press, 1992), pp. 30–34.

77. Andrew Fulkerson, “Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as a Technological Response to DWI,” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 29:219–235 (2003).

78. Barry Webb, “Steering Column Locks and Motor Vehicle Theft: Evaluations for Three Countries,” in Ronald Clarke, ed., Crime Prevention Studies (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 1994), pp. 71–89.

79. David Farrington and Brandon Welsh, “Improved Street Lighting and Crime Prevention,” Justice Quarterly 19:313–343 (2002).

80. Brandon Welsh and David Farrington, “Effects of Closed-Circuit Television on Crime,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587:110–136 (2003).

81. Brandon Welsh and David Farrington, “Crime Prevention and Hard Technology: The Case of CCTV and Improved Street Lighting,” in James Byrne and Donald Rebovich, eds., The New Technology of Crime, Law, and Social Control (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 2007).

82. Ronald Clarke and David Weisburd, “Diffusion of Crime Control Benefits: Observations of the Reverse of Displacement,” in Ronald Clarke, ed., Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 2 (New York: Criminal Justice Press, 1994).

83. David Weisburd and Lorraine Green, “Policing Drug Hot Spots: The Jersey City Drug Market Analysis Experiment,” Justice Quarterly 12:711–734 (1995).

84. Anthony A. Braga, Andrew V. Papachristos, and David M. Hureau, “The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” Justice Quarterly, first published online May 16, 2012.

85. Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, “The Economist’s Guide to Crime Busting,” NIJ Journal 270 (2012),  http://nij.gov/nij/journals/270/economists-guide.htm  (accessed May 2013).

86. Massey, Krohn, and Bonati, “Property Crime and the Routine Activities of Individuals.”

87. Katie Moisse, “Jared Loughner’s Alleged Killing Spree: Personal, Political or Psychotic?” ABC News, January 10, 2011,  http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/tragedy-tucson-jared-loughners-shooting-gabrielle-giffords-personal/story?id=12582324  (accessed May 2013).

88. David Shantz, “Conflict, Aggression, and Peer Status: An Observational Study,” Child Development 57:1322–1332 (1986).

89. For an excellent review of Lombroso’s work, as well as that of other well-known theorists, see Randy Martin, Robert Mutchnick, and W. Timothy Austin, Criminological Thought, Pioneers Past and Present (New York: Macmillan, 1990).

90. Marvin Wolfgang, “Cesare Lombroso,” in Herman Mannheim, ed., Pioneers in Criminology (Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1970), pp. 232–271.

91. Gina Lombroso-Ferrero, Criminal Man According to the Classification of Cesare Lombroso (1911), reprint edition (Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1972), p. 7.

92. Rafaele Garofalo, Criminology (1914), reprint edition (Glenridge, NJ: Patterson Smith, 1968).

93. See Thorsten Sellin, “Enrico Ferri,” in Mannheim, ed., Pioneers in Criminology, pp. 361–384.

94. Nicole Hahn Rafter, “Criminal Anthropology in the United States,” Criminology 30:525–547 (1992).

95. John Paul Wright and Francis T. Cullen, “The Future of Biosocial Criminology: Beyond Scholars’ Professional Ideology,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 28:237–253 (2012), at 244.

96. J. C. Barnes and Bruce Jacobs, “Genetic Risk for Violent Behavior and Environmental Exposure to Disadvantage and Violent Crime: The Case for Gene–Environment Interaction,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28:92–120 (2013).

97. Anthony Walsh, “Behavior Genetics and Anomie/Strain Theory,” Criminology 38:1075–1108 (2000).

98. Jay Belsky, “Variation in Susceptibility to Rearing Influences: An Evolutionary Argument,” Psychological Inquiry 8:182–186 (1997).

99. Ronald Simons, Man Kit Lei, Steven Beach, Gene Brody, Robert Philibert, and Frederick Gibbons, “Social Environmental Variation, Plasticity Genes, and Aggression: Evidence for the Differential Susceptibility Hypothesis,” American Sociological Review 76:833–912 (2011).

100. See Adrian Raine, The Psychopathology of Crime (San Diego: Academic Press, 1993).

101. Paul Marshall, “Allergy and Depression: A Neurochemical Threshold Model of the Relation between the Illnesses,” Psychological Bulletin 113:23–43 (1993).

102. “Diet and the Unborn Child: The Omega Point,” The Economist, January 19, 2006.

103. Jonathon Ericson, Francis Crinella, K. Alison Clarke-Stewart, Virginia Allhusen, Tony Chan, and Richard T. Robertson, “Prenatal Manganese Levels Linked to Childhood Behavioral Disinhibition,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 29:181–187 (2007); Joseph Hibbeln, John Davis, Colin Steer, Pauline Emmett, Imogen Rogers, Cathy Williams, and Jean Golding, “Maternal Seafood Consumption in Pregnancy and Neurodevelopmental Outcomes in Childhood (ALSPAC Study): An Observational Cohort Study,” The Lancet 369:578–585 (2007).

104. Lauren Wakschlag, Kate Pickett, Kristen Kasza, and Rolf Loeber, “Is Prenatal Smoking Associated with a Developmental Pattern of Conduct Problems in Young Boys?” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 45:461–467 (2006); “Diet and the Unborn Child: The Omega Point,” The Economist, January 19, 2006.

105. Lisa M. Gatzke-Kopp and Theodore Beauchaine, “Direct and Passive Prenatal Nicotine Exposure and the Development of Externalizing Psychopathology,” Child Psychiatry and Human Development 38:255–269 (2007).

106. F. T. Crews, A. Mdzinarishvili, D. Kim, J. He, and K. Nixon, “Neurogenesis in Adolescent Brain Is Potently Inhibited by Ethanol,” Neuroscience 137:437–445 (2006).

107. K. Murata, P. Weihe, E. Budtz-Jorgensen, P. J. Jorgensen, and P. Grandjean, “Delayed Brainstem Auditory Evoked Potential Latencies in 14-Year-Old Children Exposed to Methylmercury,” Journal of Pediatrics 144:177–183 (2004); Eric Konofal, Samuele Cortese, Michel Lecendreux, Isabelle Arnulf, and Marie Christine Mouren, “Effectiveness of Iron Supplementation in a Young Child with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” Pediatrics 116:732–734 (2005).

108. Eric Konofal, Michel Lecendreux, Isabelle Arnulf, and Marie-Christine Mouren, “Iron Deficiency in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 158:1113–1115 (2004).

109. Gail Wasserman, Xinhua Liu, Faruque Parvez, Habibul Ahsan, Diane Levy, Pam Factor-Litvak, Jennie Kline, Alexander van Geen, Vesna Slavkovich, Nancy J. Lolacono, Zhongqi Cheng, Yan Zheng, and Joseph Graziano, “Water Manganese Exposure and Children’s Intellectual Function in Araihazar, Bangladesh,” Environmental Health Perspectives 114(1):124–129 (2006).

110. Jens Walkowiak, Jörg-A. Wiener, Annemarie Fastabend, Birger Heinzow, Ursula Krämer, Eberhard Schmidt, Hans-J. Steingürber, Sabine Wundram, and Gerhard Winneke, “Environmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Quality of the Home Environment: Effects on Psychodevelopment in Early Childhood,” The Lancet 358: 92–93 (2001).

111. Virginia Rauh, Robin Garfinkel, Frederica Perera, Howard Andrews, Lori Hoepner, Dana B. Barr, Ralph Whitehead, Deliang Tang, and Robin W. Whyatt, “Impact of Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Neurodevelopment in the First 3 Years of Life Among Inner-City Children,” Pediatrics 118:1845–1859 (2006).

112. Stephanie M. Engel, Amir Miodovnik, Richard Canfield, Chenbo Zhu, Manori Silva, Antonia Calafat, and Mary Wolff, “Prenatal Phthalate Exposure Is Associated with Childhood Behavior and Executive Functioning,” Environmental Health Perspectives 118:565–571 (2010).

113. David Bellinger, “Lead,” Pediatrics 113:1016–1022 (2004); Jeff Evans, “Asymptomatic, High Lead Levels Tied to Delinquency,” Pediatric News 37:13 (2003); Herbert Needleman, Christine McFarland, Roberta Ness, Stephen Fienberg, and Michael Tobin, “Bone Lead Levels in Adjudicated Delinquents: A Case Control Study,” Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24:711–717 (2002).

114. Todd Jusko, Charles Henderson Jr., Bruce Lanphear, Deborah Cory-Slechta, Patrick J. Parsons, and Richard Canfield, “Blood Lead Concentrations < 10 μg/dL and Child Intelligence at 6 Years of Age,” Environmental Health Perspectives 116:243–248 (2008); Bruce P. Lanphear, Richard Hornung, Jane Khoury, Kimberly Yolton, Peter Baghurst, David C. Bellinger, Richard L. Canfield, Kim N. Dietrich, Robert Bornschein, Tom Greene, Stephen J. Rothenberg, Herbert L. Needleman, Lourdes Schnaas, Gail Wasserman, Joseph Graziano, and Russell Roberts, “Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children’s Intellectual Function: An International Pooled Analysis,” Environmental Health Perspectives 113:894–899 (2005).

115. Mark Opler, Alan Brown, Joseph Graziano, Manisha Desai, Wei Zheng, Catherine Schaefer, Pamela Factor-Litvak, and Ezra S. Susser, “Prenatal Lead Exposure, [Delta]-Aminolevulinic Acid, and Schizophrenia,” Environmental Health Perspectives 112:548–553 (2004).

116. Aimin Chen, Bo Cai, Kim Dietrich, Jerilynn Radcliffe, and Walter Rogan, “Lead Exposure, IQ, and Behavior in Urban 5- to 7-Year-Olds: Does Lead Affect Behavior Only by Lowering IQ?” Pediatrics 119: 650–658 (2007).

117. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention press release (January 31, 2003), “CDC Releases Most Extensive Assessment Ever of Americans’ Exposure to Environmental Chemicals,”  http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r030131.htm  (accessed May 2013).

118. Emily Oken, Robert O. Wright, Ken P. Kleinman, David Bellinger, Chitra J. Amarasiriwardena, Howard Hu, Janet W. Rich-Edwards, and Matthew W. Gillman, “Maternal Fish Consumption, Hair Mercury, and Infant Cognition in a U.S. Cohort,” Environmental Health Perspectives 113:1376–1380 (2005).

119. Marshall, “Allergy and Depression,” pp. 23–29.

120. Wendy Oddy, Monique Robinson, Gina Ambrosini, Therese O’Sullivan, Nicholas de Klerk, Lawrence Beilin, Sven Silburn, Stephen Zubrick, and Fiona Stanley, “The Association between Dietary Patterns and Mental Health in Early Adolescence,” Preventive Medicine 49:39–44 (2009).

121. A. Maras, M. Laucht, D. Gerdes, C. Wilhelm, S. Lewicka, D. Haack, L. Malisova, and M. H. Schmidt, “Association of Testosterone and Dihydrotestosterone with Externalizing Behavior in Adolescent Boys and Girls,” Psychoneuroendocrinology 28:932–940 (2003).

122. Christy Miller Buchanan, Jacquelynne Eccles, and Jill Becker, “Are Adolescents the Victims of Raging Hormones? Evidence for Activational Effects of Hormones on Moods and Behavior at Adolescence,” Psychological Bulletin 111:62–107 (1992).

123. Alex Piquero and Timothy Brezina, “Testing Moffitt’s Account of Adolescent-Limited Delinquency,” Criminology 39:353–370 (2001).

124. Laurence Tancredi, Hardwired Behavior: What Neuroscience Reveals about Morality (London: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

125. “McLean Researchers Document Brain Damage Linked to Child Abuse and Neglect,” newsletter of McLean’s Hospital, Belmont, MA, December 14, 2000.

126. Brian Perron and Matthew Howard, “Prevalence and Correlates of Traumatic Brain Injury among Delinquent Youths,” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 18:243–255 (2008).

127. Society for Neuroscience News Release, “Studies Identify Brain Areas and Chemicals Involved in Aggression; May Speed Development of Better Treatment,”  http://www.sfn.org/Press-Room/News-Release-Archives/2007/studies-identify-brain  (accessed May 2013).

128.  Physorg.com , “Violent Teenage Girls Fail to Spot Anger or Disgust in Others’ Faces,”  http://www.physorg.com/news192377654.html  (accessed May 2013).

129. James Ogilvie, Anna Stewart, Raymond Chan, and David Shum, “Neuropsychological Measures of Executive Function and Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis,” Criminology 49:1063–1107 (2011).

130. Ogilvie, Stewart, Chan, and Shum, “Neuropsychological Measures of Executive Function and Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analysis”; Yaling Yang, Adrian Raine, Todd Lencz, Susan Bihrle, Lori Lacasse, and Patrick Colletti, “Prefrontal White Matter in Pathological Liars,” British Journal of Psychiatry 187:320–325 (2005).

131. Alice Jones, Kristin Laurens, Catherine Herba, Gareth Barker, and Essi Viding, “Amygdala Hypoactivity to Fearful Faces in Boys with Conduct Problems and Callous-Unemotional Traits,” American Journal of Psychiatry 166:95–102 (2009).

132. Thomas Crowley, Manish S. Dalwani, Susan K. Mikulich-Gilbertson, Yiping P. Du, Carl W. Lejuez, Kristen M. Raymond, and Marie T. Banich, “Risky Decisions and Their Consequences: Neural Processing by Boys with Antisocial Substance Disorder,” PLOS One 5 (2010), published online,  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2943904/  (accessed May 2013).

133. Adrian Raine, Patricia Brennan, Birgitte Mednick, and Sarnoff A. Mednick, “High Rates of Violence, Crime, Academic Problems, and Behavioral Problems in Males with Both Early Neuromotor Deficits and Unstable Family Environments,” Archives of General Psychiatry 53:544–549 (1996).

134. Adrian Raine et al., “Interhemispheric Transfer in Schizophrenics, Depressives and Normals with Schizoid Tendencies,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 98:35–41 (1989).

135. Jean Seguin, Robert Pihl, Philip Harden, Richard Tremblay, and Bernard Boulerice, “Cognitive and Neuropsychological Characteristics of Physically Aggressive Boys,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 104:614–624 (1995).

136. Peer Briken, Niels Habermann, Wolfgang Berner, and Andreas Hill, “The Influence of Brain Abnormalities on Psychosocial Development, Criminal History and Paraphilias in Sexual Murderers,” Journal of Forensic Sciences 50:1–5 (2005).

137. Dorothy Otnow Lewis, Jonathan Pincus, Marilyn Feldman, Lori Jackson, and Barbara Bard, “Psychiatric, Neurological, and Psychoeducational Characteristics of 15 Death Row Inmates in the United States,” American Journal of Psychiatry 143:838–845 (1986).

138. Charlotte Johnson and William Pelham, “Teacher Ratings Predict Peer Ratings of Aggression at 3-Year Follow-Up in Boys with Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 54:571–572 (1987).

139. Cited in Charles Post, “The Link between Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency: Cause, Effect, and ‘Present Solutions,’” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 31:59 (1981).

140. Joel Zimmerman, William Rich, Ingo Keilitz, and Paul Broder, “Some Observations on the Link between Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency,” Journal of Criminal Justice 9:9–17 (1981); J. W. Podboy and W. A. Mallory, “The Diagnosis of Specific Learning Disabilities in a Juvenile Delinquent Population,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 30:11–13 (1978).

141. Charles Murray, The Link between Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency: A Current Theory and Knowledge (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1976).

142. Robert Pasternak and Reid Lyon, “Clinical and Empirical Identification of Learning Disabled Juvenile Delinquents,” Journal of Correctional Education 33:7–13 (1982).

143. Zimmerman et al., “Some Observations on the Link between Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency.”

144. Thomas Brown, Attention Deficit Disorder: The Unfocused Mind in Children and Adults (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005).

145. Leonore Simon, “Does Criminal Offender Treatment Work?” Applied and Preventive Psychology 7:137–159 (1998).

146. Terrie Moffitt and Phil Silva, “Self-Reported Delinquency, Neuropsychological Deficit, and History of Attention Deficit Disorder,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 16:553–569 (1988).

147. Jason Fletcher and Barbara Wolfe, “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood ADHD on Criminal Activities,” Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics 12:119–138 (2009).

148. Patricia Westmoreland, Tracy Gunter, Peggy Loveless, Jeff Allen, Bruce Sieleni, and Donald Black, “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Men and Women Newly Committed to Prison,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 54: 361–377 (2010).

149. Russell Barkley, Mariellen Fischer, Lori Smallish, and Kenneth Fletcher, “Young Adult Follow-Up of Hyperactive Children: Antisocial Activities and Drug Use,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:195–211 (2004); Molina Pelham Jr., “Childhood Predictors of Adolescent Substance Use in a Longitudinal Study of Children with ADHD,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 112:497–507 (2003); Peter Muris and Cor Meesters, “The Validity of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity and Hyperkinetic Disorder Symptom Domains in Nonclinical Dutch Children,” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 32:460–466 (2003).

150. Elizabeth Hart et al., “Criterion Validity of Informants in the Diagnosis of Disruptive Behavior Disorders in Children: A Preliminary Study,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62:410–414 (1994).

151. Karen Harding, Richard Judah, and Charles Gant, “Outcome-Based Comparison of Ritalin[R] versus Food-Supplement Treated Children with AD/HD,” Alternative Medicine Review 8:319–330 (2003).

152. Stephen Hinshaw, Elizabeth Owens, Nilofar Sami, and Samantha Fargeon, “Prospective Follow-Up of Girls with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder into Adolescence: Evidence for Continuing Cross-Domain Impairment,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74:489–499 (2006).

153. Jack Katz, Seductions of Crime (New York: Basic Books, 1988), pp. 12–15.

154. Lee Ellis, “Arousal Theory and the Religiosity-Criminality Relationship,” in Peter Cordella and Larry Siegel, eds., Contemporary Criminological Theory (Boston: Northeastern University, 1996), pp. 65–84.

155. Adrian Raine, Peter Venables, and Sarnoff Mednick, “Low Resting Heart Rate at Age 3 Years Predisposes to Aggression at Age 11 Years: Evidence from the Mauritius Child Health Project,” Journal of the American Academy of Adolescent Psychiatry 36:1457–1464 (1997).

156. David Rowe, The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experiences and Behavior (New York: Guilford Press, 1995), p. 64.

157. For a review, see Lisabeth Fisher DiLalla and Irving Gottesman, “Biological and Genetic Contributors to Violence—Widom’s Untold Tale,” Psychological Bulletin 109:125–129 (1991).

158. Anita Thapar, Kate Langley, Tom Fowler, Frances Rice, Darko Turic, Naureen Whittinger, John Aggleton, Marianne Van den Bree, Michael Owen, and Michael O’Donovan, “Catechol O-methyltransferase Gene Variant and Birth Weight Predict Early-Onset Antisocial Behavior in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” Archives of General Psychiatry 62:1275–1278 (2005).

159. Ronald L. Simons, Man Kit Lei, Eric A. Stewart, Steven R. H. Beach, Gene H. Brody, Robert A. Philibert, and Frederick X. Gibbons, “Social Adversity, Genetic Variation, Street Code, and Aggression: A Genetically Informed Model of Violent Behavior,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10:3–24 (2012).

160. Kevin Beaver, John Paul Wright, and Matt DeLisi, “Delinquent Peer Group Formation: Evidence of a Gene X Environment Correlation,” Journal of Genetic Psychology 169:227–244 (2008).

161. Kevin Beaver, Chris Gibson, Michael Turner, Matt DeLisi, Michael Vaughn, and Ashleigh Holand, “Stability of Delinquent Peer Associations: A Biosocial Test of Warr’s Sticky-Friends Hypothesis,” Crime and Delinquency 57:907–927 (2011).

162. Kevin M. Beaver, “The Effects of Genetics, the Environment, and Low Self-Control on Perceived Maternal and Paternal Socialization: Results from a Longitudinal Sample of Twins,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 27:85–105 (2011).

163. Carol Van Hulle, Brian D’Onfrio, Joseph Rodgers, Irwin Waldman, and Benjamin Lahey, “Sex Differences in the Causes of Self-Reported Adolescent Delinquency,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116:236–248 (2007).

164. K. Dean, P. B. Mortensen, H. Stevens, R. M. Murray, E. Walsh, and E. Agerbo, “Criminal Conviction among Offspring with Parental History of Mental Disorder,” Psychological Medicine 42:571–581 (2012).

165. Ping Qin, “The Relationship of Suicide Risk to Family History of Suicide and Psychiatric Disorders,” Psychiatric Times 20:62–63 (2003).

166. D. J. West and D. P. Farrington, “Who Becomes Delinquent?” in D. J. West and D. P. Farrington, eds., The Delinquent Way of Life (London: Heinemann, 1977), pp. 1–28; D. J. West, Delinquency: Its Roots, Careers, and Prospects (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

167. West, Delinquency, p. 114.

168. David Farrington, “Understanding and Preventing Bullying,” in Michael Tonry, ed., Crime and Justice, vol. 17 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 381–457.

169. Terence Thornberry, Adrienne Freeman-Gallant, Alan Lizotte, Marvin Krohn, and Carolyn Smith, “Linked Lives: The Intergenerational Transmission of Antisocial Behavior,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31:171–185 (2003).

170. David Rowe and David Farrington, “The Familial Transmission of Criminal Convictions,” Criminology 35:177–201 (1997).

171. Abigail Fagan and Jake Najman, “Sibling Influences on Adolescent Delinquent Behaviour: An Australian Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Adolescence 26:547–559 (2003).

172. David Rowe and Bill Gulley, “Sibling Effects on Substance Use and Delinquency,” Criminology 30:217–232 (1992); see also David Rowe, Joseph Rogers, and Sylvia Meseck-Bushey, “Sibling Delinquency and the Family Environment: Shared and Unshared Influences,” Child Development 63:59–67 (1992).

173. Dana Haynie and Suzanne McHugh, “Sibling Deviance: In the Shadows of Mutual and Unique Friendship Effects?” Criminology 41:355–393 (2003).

174. Kevin Beaver, “The Familial Concentration and Transmission of Crime,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 40:139–155 (2013).

175. Louise Arseneault, Terrie Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, Alan Taylor, Fruhling Rijsdijk, Sara Jaffee, Jennifer Ablow, and Jeffrey Measelle, “Strong Genetic Effects on Cross-situational Antisocial Behaviour among 5-year-old Children According to Mothers, Teachers, Examiner-Observers, and Twins’ Self-Reports,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 44:832–848 (2003).

176. Laura Baker, Kristen Jacobson, Adrian Raine, Dora Isabel Lozano, and Serena Bezdjian, “Genetic and Environmental Bases of Childhood Antisocial Behavior: A Multi-Informant Twin Study,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116:219–235 (2007).

177. For a general review, see Nancy Segal, Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us about Human Behavior (New York: Dutton, 2000); David Rowe, “Sibling Interaction and Self-Reported Delinquent Behavior: A Study of 265 Twin Pairs,” Criminology 23:223–240 (1985); Nancy Segal, “Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twins: A Comparative Analysis of Mental Ability Profiles,” Child Development 56:1051–1058 (1985).

178. Qin, “The Relationship of Suicide Risk to Family History of Suicide and Psychiatric Disorders.”

179. Jane Scourfield, Marianne Van den Bree, Neilson Martin, and Peter McGuffin, “Conduct Problems in Children and Adolescents: A Twin Study,” Archives of General Psychiatry 61:489–496 (2004); Jeanette Taylor, Bryan Loney, Leonardo Bobadilla, William Iacono, and Matt McGue, “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Psychopathy Trait Dimensions in a Community Sample of Male Twins,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31:633–645 (2003).

180. Ginette Dionne, Richard Tremblay, Michel Boivin, David Laplante, and Daniel Perusse, “Physical Aggression and Expressive Vocabulary in 19-Month-Old Twins,” Developmental Psychology 39:261–273 (2003).

181. Sara R. Jaffee, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, Kenneth Dodge, Michael Rutter, Alan Taylor, and Lucy Tully, “Nature X Nurture: Genetic Vulnerabilities Interact with Physical Maltreatment to Promote Conduct Problems,” Development and Psychopathology 17:67–84 (2005).

182. Essi Viding, James Blair, Terrie Moffitt, and Robert Plomin, “Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7-Year-Olds,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:592–597 (2005).

183. Thomas Bouchard, “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Intelligence and Special Mental Abilities,” American Journal of Human Biology 70:253–275 (1998); some findings from the Minnesota study can be viewed at  https://mctfr.psych.umn.edu/  (accessed May 2013).

184. Remi Cadoret, Colleen Cain, and Raymond Crowe, “Evidence for a Gene-Environment Interaction in the Development of Adolescent Antisocial Behavior,” Behavior Genetics 13:301–310 (1983).

185. Jody Alberts-Corush, Philip Firestone, and John Goodman, “Attention and Impulsivity Characteristics of the Biological and Adoptive Parents of Hyperactive and Normal Control Children,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:413–423 (1986).

186. For similar findings, see William Gabrielli and Sarnoff Mednick, “Urban Environment, Genetics, and Crime,” Criminology 22:645–653 (1984).

187. Brian Boutwell and Kevin Beaver, “A Biosocial Explanation of Delinquency Abstention,” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 18:59–74 (2008).

188. Gregory Carey and David DiLalla, “Personality and Psychopathology: Genetic Perspectives,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103:32–43 (1994).

189. Kevin M. Beaver, “The Effects of Genetics, the Environment, and Low Self-Control on Perceived Maternal and Paternal Socialization: Results from a Longitudinal Sample of Twins,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, published online July 9, 2010,  http://www.springerlink.com/content/1579675h65435717/  (accessed May 2013).

190. Alice Gregory, Thalia Eley, and Robert Plomin, “Exploring the Association between Anxiety and Conduct Problems in a Large Sample of Twins Aged 2–4,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 32:111–123 (2004).

191. Marshall Jones and Donald Jones, “The Contagious Nature of Antisocial Behavior,” Criminology 38:25–46 (2000).

192. Ibid., p. 31.

193. Lawrence Cohen and Richard Machalek, “A General Theory of Expropriative Crime: An Evolutionary Ecological Approach,” American Journal of Sociology 94:465–501 (1988).

194. For a general review, see Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, “Crime and Conflict: Homicide in Evolutionary Psychological Theory,” in Michael Tonry, ed., Crime and Justice, An Annual Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 51–100.

195. David Rowe, Alexander Vazsonyi, and Aurelio Jose Figuerdo, “Mating-Effort in Adolescence: A Conditional of Alternative Strategy,” Personal Individual Differences 23:105–115 (1997).

196. Ibid.

197. Lee Ellis, “The Evolution of Violent Criminal Behavior and Its Nonlegal Equivalent,” in Harry Hoffman, ed., Crime in Biological, Social, and Moral Contexts (New York: Praeger, 1990), pp. 61–81.

198. Lee Ellis and Anthony Walsh, “Gene-Based Evolutionary Theories of Criminology,” Criminology 35:229–276 (1997).

199. Byron Roth, “Crime and Child Rearing,” Society 34:39–45 (1996).

200. For a thorough review of this issue, see David Brandt and S. Jack Zlotnick, The Psychology and Treatment of the Youthful Offender (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1988).

201. Spencer Rathus, Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1996), pp. 11–21.

202. See Sigmund Freud, An Outline of Psychoanalysis, James Strachey, trans. (New York: Norton, 1963).

203. See Erik Erikson, Identity, Youth, and Crisis (New York: Norton, 1968).

204. August Aichorn, Wayward Youth (New York: Viking Press, 1935).

205. David Abrahamsen, Crime and Human Mind (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 137.

206. See Fritz Redl and Hans Toch, “The Psychoanalytic Perspective,” in Hans Toch, ed., Psychology of Crime and Criminal Justice (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979), pp. 193–195.

207. Seymour Halleck, Psychiatry and the Dilemmas of Crime (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971).

208. Brandt and Zlotnick, The Psychology and Treatment of the YouthfulOffender, pp. 72–73.

209. John Bowlby, “Maternal Care and Mental Health,” World Health Organization Monograph (WHO Monographs Series No. 2) (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1951), p. 53.

210. Ibid., p. 13.

211. Eric Wood and Shelley Riggs, “Predictors of Child Molestation: Adult Attachment, Cognitive Distortions, and Empathy,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 23:259–275 (2008).

212. Karen L. Hayslett-McCall and Thomas J. Bernard, “Attachment, Masculinity, and Self-control: A Theory of Male Crime Rates,” Theoretical Criminology 6:5–33 (2002).

213. Halleck, Psychiatry and the Dilemmas of Crime.

214. Paige Crosby Ouimette, “Psychopathology and Sexual Aggression in Nonincarcerated Men,” Violence and Victimization 12:389–397 (1997).

215. Minna Ritakallio, Riittakerttu Kaltiala-Heino, Janne Kivivuori, Tiina Luukkaala, and Matti Rimpelä, “Delinquency and the Profile of Offences among Depressed and Non-Depressed Adolescents,”Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 16:100–110 (2006); Ellen Kjelsberg, “Gender and Disorder Specific Criminal Career Profiles in Former Adolescent Psychiatric In-Patients,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33:261–270 (2004).

216. Grégoire Zimmermann, “Delinquency in Male Adolescents: The Role of Alexithymia and Family Structure,” Journal of Adolescence 29:321–332 (2006).

217. Ching-hua Ho, J. B. Kingree, and Martie P. Thompson, “Associations between Juvenile Delinquency and Weight-Related Variables: Analyses from a National Sample of High School Students,” International Journal of Eating Disorders 39:477–483 (2006).

218. Patricia Kerig, Karin Vanderzee, Stephen Becker, and Rose Marie Ward, Journal of Child and Adolescent Trauma 5:129–144 (2012).

219. Robert Vermeiren, “Psychopathology and Delinquency in Adolescents: A Descriptive and Developmental Perspective,” Clinical Psychology Review 23:277–318 (2003).

220. Niranjan Karnik, Marie Soller, Allison Redlich, Melissa Silverman, Helena Kraemer, Rudy Haapanen, and Hans Steiner, “Prevalence of and Gender Differences in Psychiatric Disorders among Juvenile Delinquents Incarcerated for Nine Months,” Psychiatric Services 60:838–841 (2009).

221. David Vinkers, Edwin de Beurs, and Marko Barendregt, “Psychiatric Disorders and Repeat Offending,” American Journal of Psychiatry 166:489 (2009).

222. David Vinkers, Edwin Beurs, Marko Barendregt, Thomas Rinne, and Hans Hoek, “The Relationship between Mental Disorders and Different Types of Crime,” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 21:307–320 (2011).

223. Jeffrey Burke, Rolf Loeber, and Boris Birmaher, “Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder: A Review of the Past 10 Years, Part II,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41:1275–1294 (2002).

224. Ellen Kjelsberg, “Gender and Disorder Specific Criminal Career Profiles in Former Adolescent Psychiatric In-Patients,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33:261–270 (2004); Barbara Maughan, Richard Rowe, Julie Messer, Robert Goodman, and Howard Meltzer, “Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder in a National Sample: Developmental Epidemiology,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 45:609–621 (2004).

225. Paul Rohde, Gregory N. Clarke, David E. Mace, Jenel S. Jorgensen, and John R. Seeley, “An Efficacy/Effectiveness Study of Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Adolescents with Comorbid Major Depression and Conduct Disorder,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43:660–669 (2004).

226. Joyce Akse, Bill Hale, Rutger Engels, Quinten Raaijmakers, and Wim Meeus, “Co-occurrence of Depression and Delinquency in Personality Types,” European Journal of Personality 21:235–256 (2007).

227. Jennifer Beyers and Rolf Loeber, “Untangling Developmental Relations between Depressed Mood and Delinquency in Male Adolescents,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31:247–267 (2003).

228. Dorothy Espelage, Elizabeth Cauffman, Lisa Broidy, Alex Piquero, Paul Mazerolle, and Hans Steiner, “A Cluster-Analytic Investigation of MMPI Profiles of Serious Male and Female Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42:770–777 (2003).

229. Brandt and Zlotnick, The Psychology and Treatment of the Youthful Offender, pp. 72–73.

230. Eric Silver, “Mental Disorder and Violent Victimization: The Mediating Role of Involvement in Conflicted Social Relationships,” Criminology 40:191–212 (2002).

231. Ibid.

232. Ronald Simons, Leslie Gordon Simons, Yi-Fu Chen, Gene Brody, Kuei-Hsiu Lin, “Identifying the Psychological Factors that Mediate the Association between Parenting Practices and Delinquency,” Criminology 45:481–517 (2007).

233. Stacy De Coster and Karen Heimer, “The Relationship between Law Violation and Depression: An Interactionist Analysis,” Criminology 39:799–836 (2001).

234. B. Lögdberg, L.-L. Nilsson, M. T. Levander, and S. Levander, “Schizophrenia, Neighbourhood, and Crime,” Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 110:92–97 (2004); Stacy DeCoster and Karen Heimer, “The Relationship between Law Violation and Depression: An Interactionist Analysis,” Criminology 39:799–837 (2001).

235. Sonja Siennick, “The Timing and Mechanisms of the Offending-Depression Link,” Criminology 45:583–615 (2007).

236. Courtenay Sellers, Christopher Sullivan, Bonita Veysey, and Jon Shane, “Responding to Persons with Mental Illnesses: Police Perspectives on Specialized and Traditional Practices,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 23:647–657 (2005).

237. Paul Hirschfield, Tina Maschi, Helene Raskin White, Leah Goldman Traub, and Rolf Loeber, “Mental Health and Juvenile Arrests: Criminality, Criminalization, or Compassion?” Criminology 44:593–630 (2006).

238. See Albert Bandura and Frances Menlove, “Factors Determining Vicarious Extinction of Avoidance Behavior through Symbolic Modeling,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8:99–108 (1965); Albert Bandura and Richard Walters, Social Learning and Personality Development (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963).

239. David Perry, Louise Perry, and Paul Rasmussen, “Cognitive Social Learning Mediators of Aggression,” Child Development 57:700–711 (1986).

240. Bonnie Carlson, “Children’s Beliefs about Punishment,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:308–312 (1986).

241. Albert Bandura and Richard Walters, Adolescent Aggression (New York: Ronald Press, 1959), p. 32.

242. See Jean Piaget, The Moral Judgment of the Child (London: Keagan Paul, 1932).

243. Lawrence Kohlberg, Stages in the Development of Moral Thought and Action (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969).

244. L. Kohlberg, K. Kauffman, P. Scharf, and J. Hickey, The Just Community Approach in Corrections: A Manual (Niantic, CT: Connecticut Department of Corrections, 1973).

245. Scott Henggeler, Delinquency in Adolescence (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989), p. 26.

246. Ibid.

247. K. A. Dodge, “A Social Information Processing Model of Social Competence in Children,” in M. Perlmutter, ed., Minnesota Symposium in Child Psychology, vol. 18 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1986), pp. 77–125.

248. Adrian Raine, Peter Venables, and Mark Williams, “Better Autonomic Conditioning and Faster Electrodermal Half-Recovery Time at Age 15 Years as Possible Protective Factors against Crime at Age 29 Years,” Developmental Psychology 32:624–630 (1996).

249. Jean Marie McGloin and Travis Pratt, “Cognitive Ability and Delinquent Behavior among Inner-City Youth: A Life-Course Analysis of Main, Mediating, and Interaction Effects,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47:253–271 (2003).

250. L. Huesman and L. Eron, “Individual Differences and the Trait of Aggression,” European Journal of Personality 3:95–106 (1989).

251. Judith Baer and Tina Maschi, “Random Acts of Delinquency: Trauma and Self-Destructiveness in Juvenile Offenders,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 20:85–99 (2003).

252. Rolf Loeber and Dale Hay, “Key Issues in the Development of Aggression and Violence from Childhood to Early Adulthood,”Annual Review of Psychology 48:371–410 (1997).

253. Tony Ward and Claire Stewart, “The Relationship Between Human Needs and Criminogenic Needs,” Crime and Law 9:219–225 (2003).

254. J. E. Lochman, “Self and Peer Perceptions and Attributional Biases of Aggressive and Nonaggressive Boys in Dyadic Interactions,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55:404–410 (1987).

255. Kathleen Cirillo et al., “School Violence: Prevalence and Intervention Strategies for At-Risk Adolescents,” Adolescence 33:319–331 (1998).

256. Leilani Greening, “Adolescent Stealers’ and Nonstealers’ Social Problem-Solving Skills,” Adolescence 32:51–56 (1997).

257. See Walter Mischel, Introduction to Personality, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986).

258. D. A. Andrews and J. Stephen Wormith, “Personality and Crime: Knowledge and Construction in Criminology,” Justice Quarterly 6: 289–310 (1989); Donald Gibbons, “Comment—Personality and Crime: Non-Issues, Real Issues, and a Theory and Research Agenda,” Justice Quarterly 6:311–324 (1989).

259. Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950).

260. See Hans Eysenck, Personality and Crime (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977).

261. David Farrington, “Psychobiological Factors in the Explanation and Reduction of Delinquency,” Today’s Delinquent 7:37–51 (1988).

262. Laurie Frost, Terrie Moffitt, and Rob McGee, “Neuropsychological Correlates of Psychopathology in an Unselected Cohort of Young Adolescents,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 98:307–313 (1989).

263. Edelyn Verona and Joyce Carbonell, “Female Violence and Personality,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 27:176–195 (2000).

264. Hans Eysenck and M. W. Eysenck, Personality and Individual Differences (New York: Plenum, 1985).

265. Catrien Bijleveld and Jan Hendriks, “Juvenile Sex Offenders: Differences Between Group and Solo Offenders,” Psychology, Crime and Law 9:237–246 (2003).

266. For a review of this concept, see Ronald Blackburn, “Personality Disorder and Psychopathy: Conceptual and Empirical Integration,” Psychology, Crime and Law 13:7–18 (2007).

267. Linda Mealey, “The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18:523–540 (1995).

268. Gisli Gudjonsson, Emil Einarsson, Ólafur Örn Bragason, and Jon Fridrik Sigurdsson, “Personality Predictors of Self-Reported Offending in Icelandic Students,” Psychology, Crime and Law 12:383–393 (2006).

269. Peter Johansson and Margaret Kerr, “Psychopathy and Intelligence: A Second Look,” Journal of Personality Disorders 19:357–369 (2005).

270. Hervey Cleckley, “Psychopathic States,” in S. Aneti, ed., American Handbook of Psychiatry (New York: Basic Books, 1959), pp. 567–569.

271. Lewis Yablonsky, The Violent Gang (Baltimore: Penguin, 1971), pp. 195–205.

272. Sue Kellett and Harriet Gross, “Addicted to Joyriding? An Exploration of Young Offenders’ Accounts of Their Car Crime,” Psychology, Crime and Law 12:39–59 (2006).

273. A. Raine, T. Lencz, K. Taylor, J. B. Hellige, S. Bihrle, L. Lacasse, M. Lee, S. Ishikawa, and P. Colletti, “Corpus Callosum Abnormalities in Psychopathic Antisocial Individuals,” Archives of General Psychiatry 60:1134–1142 (2003).

274. L. M. Terman, “Research on the Diagnosis of Predelinquent Tendencies,” Journal of Delinquency 9:124–130 (1925); Terman, Measurement of Intelligence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1916). For example, see M. G. Caldwell, “The Intelligence of Delinquent Boys Committed to Wisconsin Industrial School,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 20:421–428 (1929); and C. Murcheson, Criminal Intelligence (Worcester, MA: Clark University, 1926), pp. 41–44.

275. Henry Goddard, Efficiency and Levels of Intelligence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1920).

276. William Healy and Augusta Bronner, Delinquency and Criminals: Their Making and Unmaking (New York: Macmillan, 1926).

277. Joseph Lee Rogers, H. Harrington Cleveland, Edwin van den Oord, and David Rowe, “Resolving the Debate over Birth Order, Family Size, and Intelligence,” American Psychologist 55:599–612 (2000).

278. Kenneth Eels, Intelligence and Cultural Differences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. 181.

279. Sorel Cahahn and Nora Cohen, “Age versus Schooling Effects on Intelligence Development,” Child Development 60:1239–1249 (1989).

280. John Slawson, The Delinquent Boys (Boston: Budget Press, 1926).

281. Edwin Sutherland, “Mental Deficiency and Crime,” in Kimball Young, ed., Social Attitudes (New York: Henry Holt, 1973).

282. Travis Hirschi and Michael Hindelang, “Intelligence and Delinquency: A Revisionist Review,” American Sociological Review 42:471–586 (1977).

283. Terrie Moffitt and Phil Silva, “IQ and Delinquency: A Direct Test of the Differential Detection Hypothesis,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 97:1–4 (1988); E. Kandel et al., “IQ as a Protective Factor for Subjects at a High Risk for Antisocial Behavior,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56:224–226 (1988); Christine Ward and Richard McFall, “Further Validation of the Problem Inventory for Adolescent Girls: Comparing Caucasian and Black Delinquents and Nondelinquents,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 54:732–733 (1986).

284. Wilson and Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature, p. 148.

285. Alex Piquero, “Frequency, Specialization, and Violence in Offending Careers,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:392–418 (2000).

286. Kevin Beaver and John Paul Wright, “The Association Between County-Level IQ and County-Level Crime Rates,” Intelligence 39:22–26 (2011); Jared Bartels, Joseph Ryan, Lynn Urban, and Laura Glass, “Correlations Between Estimates of State IQ and FBI Crime Statistics,” Personality and Individual Differences 48:579–583 (2010).

287. David Farrington, “Juvenile Delinquency,” in John C. Coleman, ed., The School Years (London: Routledge, 1992), p. 137.

288. Thomas McNulty, Paul Bellair, and Stephen Watts, “Neighborhood Disadvantage and Verbal Ability as Explanations of the Black–White Difference in Adolescent Violence: Toward an Integrated Model,” Crime & Delinquency 59:140–160 (2013).

289. Jean McGloin, Travis Pratt, and Jeff Maahs, “Rethinking the IQ-Delinquency Relationship: A Longitudinal Analysis of Multiple Theoretical Models,” Justice Quarterly 21:603–635 (2004).

290. Wilson and Herrnstein, p. 171.

291. Glenn Walters and Thomas White, “Heredity and Crime: Bad Genes or Bad Research,” Justice Quarterly 27:455–485, at 478 (1989).

292. John Cochran, Peter Wood, and Bruce Arneklev, “Is the Religiosity-Delinquency Relationship Spurious? A Test of Arousal and Social Control Theories,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31:92–113 (1994).

293. Lee Ellis, “Genetics and Criminal Behavior,” Criminology 10:43–66, at 58 (1982).

294. Lee Ellis, “The Evolution of the Nonlegal Equivalent of Aggressive Criminal Behavior,” Aggressive Behavior 12:57–71 (1986).

295. Edwin Schur, Radical Nonintervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1973

VV

6: Developmental Theories of Delinquency: Life-Course, Propensity, and Trajectory

Chapter Outline

The Creation of a Developmental View of Delinquency

Life-Course Theory

· Life-Course Concepts

Theories of the Delinquent Life Course

· Sampson and Laub: Age-Graded Theory

Propensity Theories

· Persistence and Desistance

· Propensity and Opportunity

· General Theory of Crime

Trajectory Theory

· Late Bloomers and Nonstarters

· Pathways to Delinquency

· Adolescent-Limited and Life-Course Persistent Offenders

Evaluating Developmental Theories

Public Policy Implications of Developmental Theory

Learning Objectives

· 1 Compare and contrast the three forms of developmental theory

· 2 Trace the history of and influences on developmental theory

· 3 Know the principles of the life-course approach to developmental theory

· 4 Be familiar with the concept of problem behavior syndrome

· 5 Articulate the principles of Sampson and Laub’s age-graded life-course theory

· 6 Be able to define the concept of a latent trait

· 7 Know the principles and assumptions of the General Theory of Crime

· 8 Discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the GTC

· 9 Identify the different trajectories delinquency takes

· 10 Distinguish between adolescent-limited and life-course persistent offenders

chapter features

focus on Delinquency: Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives

Youth stories: Craig Price

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—prevention: Across Ages

HIS FRIENDS DESCRIBED 17-YEAR-OLD T. J. Lane as a very normal, unassuming teenage boy. So it was not surprising that many expressed shock after he was arrested for the February 27, 2012, shooting at Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio, during which three students were killed and three others wounded, two seriously. What caused this seemingly normal boy to kill kids he hardly knew in a school he did not attend? Some said Lane had been teased at school, and afterwards put a wall around himself keeping him removed from other students. He attended the Lake Academy, described as a special school for kids “who need a different type of setting to succeed.” Others claimed that Lane came from a troubled home that may have left him angry and withdrawn.

According to his records, T. J. Lane had a history of minor violence. He was arrested twice in December 2009, once for assaulting his uncle and once for hitting another boy in the face. While these seem like relatively minor scrapes, his father, Thomas M. Lane Jr., had a more serious criminal record. The elder Lane had been arrested on a wide range of offenses, including drug abuse and possession, violation of probation, public intoxication, and disorderly conduct. In 2002, he was incarcerated for one year for attempted murder. According to police reports, he physically and verbally assaulted a woman for nine hours while her three children were present.

Tried as an adult for the Chardon shooting, on March 19, 2013, T. J. Lane was sentenced to three life sentences in prison without parole. At his sentencing hearing, in a gesture that made headlines around the nation, he wore a white T-shirt with the word “Killer” handwritten across the front. He smiled and smirked during the hearing and loudly hurled profanities at the families of the victims who had gathered in the courtroom. 1

What drives someone such as T. J. Lane to kill people he hardly knew? According to developmental theory, delinquency is an ongoing, evolving process that can be traced back to an adolescent’s earliest childhood. Few kids begin their offending career by getting involved in a murder plot. Like Lane, most serious offenders have a long history of problem behaviors, antisocial activities that began early in their childhood, and continuing into adolescence and adulthood.

Because serious juvenile offending is rarely a “one-shot deal,” delinquency experts now recognize that it is important to chart the natural history of a delinquent career. We know that most young offenders do not become adult delinquents. As people mature they are less likely to commit crime, and by the time they are young adults they significantly reduce their participation in crime and the frequency of their antisocial activities. 2

Why is it then that some kids abandon the delinquent way of life as they mature, whereas others persist in antisocial behavior into their adulthood? Why do some offenders escalate their delinquent activities while others decrease or limit their law violations? Why do some specialize in a particular delinquent acts while others become generalists who shoplift, take drugs, engage in violence, steal cars, and so on? Why do some delinquents reduce their criminal activity for a brief period only to resume it later in life? Research now shows that some offenders begin their delinquent careers at a very early age, whereas others begin later. How can early- and late-onset delinquency be explained?

Focusing attention on these questions has produced what is known as the  developmental theory  of delinquency, a view that looks at the onset, continuity, and termination of a delinquent career. In this chapter, we look at these theories that recognize that delinquent and criminal behavior is not an unchanging human characteristic, but one that ebbs and flows over the life course. While antisocial behavior is relatively uncommon during early childhood, even preadolescents may engage in crime if the conditions are right. And while most delinquent offenders reduce their offending behavior by their mid-twenties, a few persist unabated into adulthood. Traditional theories of crime and delinquency neither distinguish among different phases of criminal careers nor explain these differences in offending trajectories. In this chapter, we will review developmental theories of delinquency and the various forms they take.

developmental theory

The view that delinquency is a dynamic process influenced by social experiences as well as individual characteristics.

The Creation of a Developmental View of Delinquency

The foundation of developmental theory can be traced to the pioneering work of Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. While at Harvard University in the 1930s, the Gluecks popularized research on the life cycle of delinquent careers. In a series of longitudinal research studies, they followed the careers of known delinquents to determine the social, biological, and psychological characteristics that predicted persistent offending. 3  The Gluecks made extensive use of interviews and records in their elaborate comparisons of delinquents and nondelinquents. 4

The Gluecks’ research focused on early onset of delinquency as a harbinger of a delinquent career: “The deeper the roots of childhood maladjustment, the smaller the chance of adult adjustment.” 5  They also noted the stability of offending careers: children who are antisocial early in life are the most likely to continue their offending careers into adulthood.

Find information about the life and work of Eleanor Glueck in the “Papers of Eleanor T. and Sheldon Glueck, 1911–1972,” at the Harvard Law School library ( http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/~law00108 ). You can also visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

The Gluecks identified a number of personal and social factors related to persistent offending. The most important of these factors was family relations, considered in terms of quality of discipline and emotional ties with parents. The adolescent raised in a large, single-parent family of limited economic means and educational achievement was the most vulnerable to delinquency.

The Gluecks did not restrict their analysis to social variables. When they measured such biological and psychological traits as body type, intelligence, and personality, they found that physical and mental factors also played a role in determining behavior. Children with low intelligence, a background of mental disease, and a powerful (mesomorph) physique were the most likely to become persistent offenders.

The Philadelphia cohort research by Marvin Wolfgang and his associates was another milestone prompting interest in explaining delinquent career development. 6  As you may recall ( Chapter 2 ), Wolfgang found that while many offenders commit a single delinquent act and desist from crime, a small group of chronic offenders engage in frequent and repeated delinquent activity and continue to do so across their life span. Wolfgang’s research focused attention on delinquent careers. Delinquency experts were now forced to ask this fundamental question: What prompts one adolescent to engage in persistent delinquent activity while another, who on the surface suffers the same life circumstances, finds a way to steer clear of delinquency and travel along a more conventional path?

From these roots a developmental theory of delinquency has developed. Today, there are actually three independent yet interrelated developmental views. The first, referred to as the  life-course theory , suggests that delinquent behavior is a dynamic process, influenced by individual characteristics as well as social experiences, and that the factors that cause antisocial behaviors change dramatically over a person’s life span.

life-course theory

Focuses on changes in criminality over the life course; developmental theory.

The life-course theory is challenged by another group of scholars who suggest that human development is controlled by a hidden master trait that remains stable and unchanging throughout a person’s lifetime. As people travel through their life course this  latent trait  or  propensity  is always there, directing their behavior. Because this underlying characteristic is enduring, an individual’s involvement in antisocial behavior is shaped less by personal change and attributes and more by external forces such as opportunity, need, and circumstance. Delinquency may increase when an adolescent joins a gang, which provides him with more opportunities to commit crime and the support he needs to carry out criminal acts. In other words, the propensity to commit delinquent acts is constant, but the opportunity to commit them is constantly fluctuating.

latent trait

A stable feature, characteristic, property, or condition, such as defective intelligence or impulsive personality, that makes some people delinquency prone over the life course.

propensity

An innate inclination, preference, or tendency to act in a specific way.

A third developmental view suggests there are multiple trajectories in a delinquent career. According to this approach, there are subgroups within a population that follow distinctively different developmental trajectories toward and away from a delinquent career. Some kids may begin early in antisocial activities and demonstrate a propensity for crime, while others begin later and are influenced by life circumstances.  Trajectory theory  suggests that there is no single delinquent pathway and that there are different types and classes of offenders. 7

trajectory theory

The view that there are multiple independent paths to a delinquent career and that there are different types and classes of offenders.

The main points, similarities, and differences of these positions are set out in  Concept Summary 6.1 .

CONCEPT SUMMARY 6.1: Developmental Theories

Propensity Theory

·  People have a master trait: personality, intelligence, genetic makeup.

·  People do not change; delinquent opportunities change; maturity brings fewer opportunities.

·  Early social control and proper parenting can reduce delinquent propensity.

Life-Course Theory

·  People change over the life course.

·  The factors that influence antisocial behavior evolve as a person matures.

·  Evolving informal social controls help at-risk kids avoid criminal careers.

Trajectory Theory

·  There is more than one path to a delinquent career.

·  There are different types of offenders and offending patterns.

·  Some kids start their offending careers while they are quite young, another group begins when they are older, while others are able to avoid any form of antisocial activities.

Similarities within the Three Developmental Views

·  Focus on delinquent careers.

·  Delinquency must be viewed as a path rather than an event.

·  Delinquent careers are the focus.

·  Integration of multiple factors.

Differences among the Three Developmental Views

·  Propensity: An unseen and unchanging latent trait controls antisocial behavior.

·  Life course: People are constantly evolving.

·  Trajectory: There is more than one path to crime.

Life-Course Theory

According to life-course theory, delinquency is constantly evolving and the factors that produce antisocial behaviors at one point in the life cycle may not be relevant at another. While some people show a propensity to offend early in their lives, the nature and frequency of their activities are often affected by the forces that shape their personal development. 8

Even as toddlers, people begin relationships and behaviors that will determine their adult life course. At first they must learn to conform to social rules and function effectively in society. Later they are expected to begin to think about careers, leave their parental homes, find permanent relationships, and eventually marry and begin their own families. 9  These transitions are expected to take place in order—beginning with completing school, then entering the workforce, getting married, and having children.

Some individuals, however, are incapable of maturing in a reasonable and timely fashion because of family, environmental, or personal problems. 10  In some cases, transitions can occur too early—for example, an adolescent girl who engages in precocious sex gets pregnant and is forced to drop out of high school. In other cases, transitions may occur too late—a teenage male falls in with the wrong crowd, goes to prison, and subsequently finds it difficult to break into the job market; he puts off getting married because of his diminished economic circumstances. Sometimes interruption of one transition can harm another. A teenager who has family problems may find that her educational and career development is upset or that she suffers from psychological impairments. 11  Because a transition from one stage of life to another can be a bumpy ride, the propensity to commit crimes is neither stable nor constant: it is a developmental process.

Regardless of the cause of their early externalizing behaviors, as people mature they go through cognitive changes and their thinking patterns change. While some may persist in their illegal conduct, personal maturity may help others reduce the attraction of antisocial activities. Teens who want to drink, take drugs, and get in trouble may go through a positive transformation in their thinking in early adulthood helping them to desist from crime. 12

In contrast, disruptions in life’s major transitions can be destructive and ultimately can promote long-term criminal careers. Those who are already at risk because of socioeconomic problems or family dysfunction are the most susceptible to these awkward transitions. Delinquency, according to this view, cannot be attributed to a single cause nor does it represent a single underlying tendency. 13  People are influenced by different factors as they mature. Consequently, a factor that may have an important influence at one stage of life (such as delinquent peers) may have little influence later on. 14

These negative life events can become cumulative: as people acquire more personal deficits, the chances of acquiring additional ones increase. 15  The cumulative impact of these disruptions sustains antisocial behaviors from childhood into adulthood. 16

Life-course theories also recognize that as people mature, the factors that influence their behavior change. 17  As people make important life transitions—from child to adolescent, from adolescent to adult, from unwed to married—the nature of social interactions changes. 18  At first, family relations may be most influential; it comes as no shock to life-course theorists when research shows that antisocial behavior runs in families and that having criminal relatives is a significant predictor of future misbehaviors. 19  In later adolescence, school and peer relations predominate; in adulthood, vocational achievement and marital relations may be the most critical influences. Some antisocial children who are in trouble throughout their adolescence may manage to find stable work and maintain intact marriages as adults; these life events help them desist from crime. In contrast, less fortunate adolescents who develop arrest records and get involved with the wrong crowd may find themselves at risk for delinquency and later adult criminal careers. 20

Life-Course Concepts

In the following sections, some of the more important concepts associated with this newly emerging developmental perspective of delinquency are discussed in some detail.

Problem Behavior Syndrome

Most delinquency theories portray antisocial behaviors as the outcome of social problems. Learning theorists view a troubled home life and deviant friends as precursors of delinquency; structural theorists maintain that acquiring deviant cultural values leads to delinquency. In contrast, the developmental view is that delinquency may best be understood as one of many social problems faced by at-risk youth, a view called  problem behavior syndrome (PBS) .

problem behavior syndrome (PBS)

A cluster of antisocial behaviors that may include family dysfunction, substance abuse, smoking, precocious sexuality and early pregnancy, educational underachievement, suicide attempts, sensation seeking, and unemployment, as well as delinquency.

According to this view, delinquency is one among a group of interrelated antisocial behaviors that cluster together and typically involve family dysfunction, sexual and physical abuse, substance abuse, smoking, precocious sexuality and early pregnancy, educational underachievement, suicide attempts, sensation seeking, and unemployment. 21  People who suffer from one of these conditions typically exhibit many symptoms of the rest. 22  All varieties of delinquent behavior, including violence, theft, and drug offenses, may be part of a generalized PBS, indicating that all forms of antisocial behavior have similar developmental patterns. 23  Take these patterns for example:

·  Adolescents with a history of gang involvement are more likely to have been expelled from school, be a binge drinker, test positively for marijuana, have been in three or more fights in the past six months, and test positive for sexually transmitted diseases. 24

·  Kids who gamble and take risks at an early age also take drugs and commit crimes. 25

Those who suffer from PBS are prone to more difficulties than the general population. 26  They find themselves with a range of personal dilemmas, from drug abuse to being accident prone, to requiring more health care and hospitalization, to becoming teenage parents, to having mental health problems. 27  PBS has been linked to individual-level personality problems (such as impulsiveness, rebelliousness, and low ego), family problems (such as intrafamily conflict and parental mental disorder), substance abuse, and educational failure. 28  Research shows that social problems such as drug abuse, low income, aggression, single parenthood, residence in isolated urban areas, lack of family support or resources, racism, and prolonged exposure to poverty are all interrelated. 29  According to this view, delinquency is a type of social problem rather than the product of other social problems. 30

Considering the types of problems that cluster together, it is not surprising that kids who are chronic offenders are more likely to die early and have greater than average mortality rates. Delinquent and criminal conduct have been found to increase the chances of premature death due to a number of factors, including accidents, homicide, and suicide. The more serious, frequent, and long-lasting the delinquent career, the more likely the offender will suffer premature death. 31

In sum, problem behavior syndrome portrays crime as a type of social problem rather than the product of other social problems. 32  People involved in crime may fall prey to other social problems, ranging from poverty to premature death. 33

Offense Specialization/Generalization

Life-course theory recognizes that some offenders are specialists, limiting their delinquent activities to a cluster of acts such as theft offenses, including burglary and larceny, or violent offenses such as assault and rape. 34  Others are generalists who engage in a garden variety of delinquent activity ranging from drug abuse, burglary, and/or rape, depending on the opportunity to commit crime and the likelihood of success. 35

There is an ongoing debate over generalization/specialization. Some experts claim they have found evidence that more serious offenders soon begin to specialize in a narrower range of antisocial activities. 36  This means that there is only a single group of delinquents who start out generalizing but soon begin to specialize in a particular type of antisocial behavior.

It is also possible that the choice of crime is dictated by the offenders’ immediate circumstances. Some offenders may wish to specialize but are forced to engage in a wide variety of offenses because of limitations on the type of criminal acts that are their specialty. 37  For example, burglars may also commit robberies and auto theft when new burglar alarms and other security measures limit their access to homes. 38

Age of Onset

Most life-course theories assume that the seeds of a delinquent career are planted early in life and that early onset of deviance strongly predicts later and more serious delinquency. 39  Children who will later become the most serious delinquents begin their deviant careers at a very early (preschool) age, and the earlier the onset of delinquency the more frequent, varied, and sustained the delinquent career. 40  If children are aggressive and antisocial during their public school years, they are much more likely to be troublesome and aggressive in adulthood. 41

Early-onset delinquents seem to be more involved in aggressive acts ranging from cruelty to animals to peer-directed violence. 42  In contrast, late starters are more likely to be involved in nonviolent crimes such as theft. 43  Research by Daniel Nagin and Richard Tremblay shows that late-onset physical aggression is the exception, not the rule, and that the peak frequency of physical aggression occurs during early childhood and generally declines thereafter. 44

What causes some kids to begin offending at an early age? Among the suspected root causes are poor parental discipline and monitoring, inadequate emotional support, distant peer relationships, and psychological issues and problems. 45  Research shows that poor parental discipline and monitoring seem to be keys to the early onset of delinquency and that these influences may follow kids into their adulthood, helping them shift from one form of deviant life style to another. 46

Why is early onset so important? The earlier the onset of crime, the longer its duration. 47  The psychic scars of childhood are hard to erase. 48

Starting early in delinquent behavior creates a downward spiral in a young person’s life. 49  Thereafter, tension may begin to develop with parents and other family members, emotional bonds to conventional peers become weakened and frayed, and opportunities to pursue conventional activities, such as sports, dry up and wither away. Replacing them are closer involvement with more deviant peers and involvement in a delinquent way of life. 50  At an early age, children who are improperly socialized by unskilled parents are the most likely to rebel by wandering the streets with deviant peers. 51  In middle childhood, social rejection by conventional peers and academic failure sustain antisocial behavior; in later adolescence, commitment to a deviant peer group creates a training ground for crime. While others are able to age out of delinquency or desist, the youngest and most serious offenders may persist in their delinquent activity into late adolescence and even adulthood.

Persistence and Desistance

Life-course theorists are particularly interested in why one kid persists in crime while another is able to desist. One of the most important sources of data on this issue comes from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, which has followed the offending careers of 411 London boys born in 1953. 52  This cohort study, directed since 1982 by David Farrington, is one of the most serious attempts to isolate the factors that predict lifelong continuity of delinquent behavior. The study uses self-report data as well as in-depth interviews and psychological testing. The boys were interviewed eight times over 24 years, beginning at age 8 and continuing to age 32.

Farrington has been able to identify factors that predict the discontinuity of delinquent offenses. He found that some kids who have backgrounds that put them at risk of becoming chronic delinquent offenders either remain nonoffenders or begin a delinquent career and then later desist. The factors that protected high-risk youths from beginning delinquent careers include having a somewhat shy personality, having few friends (at age 8), having nondeviant families, and being highly regarded by their mothers. Shy children with few friends avoided damaging relationships with other adolescents (members of a high-risk group) and were therefore able to avoid delinquency.

Farrington suggests that life experiences shape the direction and flow of behavior choices. He finds that while there may be continuity in offending, the factors that predict delinquency at one point in the life course may not be the ones that predict delinquency at another. Although most adult delinquents begin their careers in childhood, life events may help some children forgo delinquency as they mature, for example, by finding a relatively good job. Conversely, unemployment seemed to be related to the escalation of theft offenses; violence and substance abuse were unaffected by unemployment. In a similar vein, getting married also helped diminish delinquent activity. However, finding a spouse who was also involved in delinquent activity and had a delinquent record increased illegal activities and helped them to persist in crime.

Physical relocation also helped some offenders desist because they were forced to sever ties with co-offenders. For this reason, leaving the city for a rural or suburban area was linked to reduced delinquent activity.

Although employment, marriage, and relocation helped potential offenders desist, not all desisters found success. At-risk youths who managed to avoid delinquent convictions were unlikely to avoid other social problems. Rather than becoming prosperous homeowners with flourishing careers, they tended to live in unkempt homes and have large debts and low-paying jobs. They were also more likely to remain single and live alone. Youths who experienced social isolation at age 8 were also found to experience it at age 32.

A key element of developmental theory is that kids begin their offending careers early in life. Here Maribel, age 11, arrives at juvenile court in Fresno, California, under the charge of assault with a deadly weapon for throwing a rock at a boy during a water balloon fight. The girl’s lawyers reached a deal that allowed her to escape jail time.

Theories of the Delinquent Life Course

A number of systematic theories have been formulated that account for onset, continuance, and desistance from crime. They typically interconnect personal factors such as personality and intelligence, social factors such as income and neighborhood, socialization factors such as marriage and military service, cognitive factors such as information processing and attention/perception, and situational factors such as delinquent opportunity, effective guardianship, and apprehension risk. In this sense they are  integrated theories  because they incorporate these social, personal, and developmental factors into complex explanations of human behavior. They do not focus on the relatively simple question—why do people commit crime?—but on more complex issues: Why do some offenders persist in delinquent careers while others desist from or alter their delinquent activity as they mature? 53  Why do some people continually escalate their delinquent involvement while others slow down and turn their lives around? Are all delinquents similar in their offending patterns, or are there different types of offenders and paths to offending? Life-course theorists want to know not only why people enter a delinquent way of life but why, once they do, they alter the trajectory of their delinquent involvement. In  Exhibit 6.1 , two of the more important life-course theories are briefly described, and in the next section, Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory is set out in detail.

integrated theories

Theories that incorporate social, personal, and developmental factors into complex explanations of human behavior.

exhibit 6.1: Principal Life-Course Theories

Social Development Model

Principal Theorists J. David Hawkins, Richard Catalano

Major Premise Community-level risk factors make some people susceptible to antisocial behaviors.

Preexisting risk factors are either reinforced or neutralized by socialization. To control the risk of antisocial behavior, a child must maintain prosocial bonds. Over the life course, involvement in prosocial or antisocial behavior determines the quality of attachments. Commitment and attachment to conventional institutions, activities, and beliefs insulate youths from the criminogenic influences in their environment. The prosocial path inhibits deviance by strengthening bonds to prosocial others and activities. Without the proper level of bonding, adolescents can succumb to the influence of deviant others.

Interactional Theory

Principal Theorists Terence Thornberry and Marvin Krohn, Alan Lizotte, Margaret Farnworth

Major Premise The onset of crime can be traced to a deterioration of the social bond during adolescence, marked by weakened attachment to parents, commitment to school, and belief in conventional values. The cause of delinquency is bidirectional: Weak bonds lead kids to develop friendships with deviant peers and get involved in delinquency. Frequent delinquency involvement further weakens bonds and makes it difficult to reestablish conventional ones. Delinquency-promoting factors tend to reinforce one another and sustain a chronic criminal career. Kids who go through stressful life events such as a family financial crisis are more likely to later get involved in antisocial behaviors and vice versa. Delinquency is a developmental process that takes on different meaning and form as a person matures. During early adolescence, attachment to the family is critical; by mid-adolescence, the influence of the family is replaced by friends, school, and youth culture; by adulthood, a person’s behavioral choices are shaped by his or her place in conventional society and his or her own nuclear family. Although delinquency is influenced by these social forces, it also influences these processes and associations. Therefore, delinquency and social processes are interactional.

SOURCES: Terence Thornberry, “Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency,” Criminology 25:863–891 (1987); Richard Catalano and J. David Hawkins, “The Social Development Model: A Theory of Antisocial Behavior,” in J. David Hawkins, ed., Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 149–197.

Sampson and Laub: Age-Graded Theory

If there are various pathways to delinquency, are there trails back to conformity? In an influential 1993 work, Crime in the Making, Robert Sampson and John Laub formulated what they call the age-graded theory of informal social control ( Figure 6.1 ). In their pioneering research, Laub and Sampson reanalyzed the data originally collected by the Gluecks. Using modern statistical analysis, Laub and Sampson relied on these data to formulate a life-course/developmental view of crime. 54

figure 6.1: Sampson and Laub’s Age-Graded Theory

SOURCE: Adapted from Robert Sampson and John Laub, Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), pp. 244–245.

Some of the principles of age-graded theory are listed below:

·  Individual traits and childhood experiences are important in understanding the onset of delinquent and criminal behavior. But these alone cannot explain the continuity of crime into adulthood.

·  Experiences in young adulthood and beyond can redirect adolescent behavior. In some cases people can be turned in a positive direction, while in others negative life experiences can be harmful and injurious. Those with  social capital —positive relations with individuals and institutions that are life sustaining—have a much better chance of knifing off from crime and turning their lives around.

social capital

Positive relations with individuals and institutions, as in a successful marriage or a successful career, that support conventional behavior and inhibit deviant behavior.

·  Serious problems in adolescence undermine life chances and reduce employability and social relations, increasing the likelihood of continued offending. In contrast, positive life experiences and relationships can be  turning points  that help people become reattached to society and allow them to knife off from a delinquent career path. Some turning points, such as gaining employment, create informal social control mechanisms that limit delinquent behavior opportunities. Adolescents who are at risk for delinquency can live conventional lives if they can achieve successful military careers, or enter a successful marriage. Turning points may be serendipitous and unexpected: success may hinge on a lucky break—someone takes a chance on them, or they win the lottery.

turning points

Positive life experiences, such as gaining employment, getting married, or joining the military, which create informal social control mechanisms that limit delinquent behavior opportunities.

·  Another vital feature that helps people desist from delinquency is “human agency,” or the purposeful execution of choice and free will. Former delinquents may choose to go straight and develop a new sense of self and an identity. They can choose to desist from delinquency and become family men and hard workers. 55  While some kids persist in delinquency simply because they find it lucrative or perhaps because it serves as an outlet for their frustrations, others choose not to participate because as human beings they find other more conventional paths to be more beneficial and rewarding. Human choice cannot be left out of the equation.

Social Capital

Laub and Sampson view the development of social capital as essential for desistance. Social scientists recognize that in the same manner that building financial capital improves the chances for personal success, building social capital supports conventional behavior and inhibits deviant behavior. A successful marriage creates social capital when it improves a person’s stature, creates feelings of self-worth, and encourages people to trust the individual. A successful career inhibits delinquency by creating a stake in conformity; why commit delinquency when you are doing well at school? The relationship is reciprocal. If kids are chosen by teachers as being a top student, they return the favor by doing the best job in class possible; if they are chosen as spouses, they blossom into devoted partners. In contrast, people who fail to accumulate social capital are more prone to commit delinquent acts. 56

The fact that social capital influences the trajectory of a delinquent career underscores the life-course view that events that occur in later adolescence and adulthood do in fact influence behavior choices. Life events that occur in adulthood can help either terminate or sustain deviant careers.

Cumulative Disadvantage

Some kids not only fail to accumulate social capital, but instead experience social problems that weigh down their life chances. Kids who experience one social deficit are more likely to suffer others. Nor do these social problems simply go away; they linger and vex people throughout their lives. Miscues accumulated in childhood hurt people further down the life path—for example, kids who get arrested are less likely to find jobs as adults. People who acquire this  cumulative disadvantage  are more likely to commit delinquent acts and become crime victims. 57  When faced with personal crisis, they lack the social supports that can help them reject deviant solutions to their problems and instead maintain a conventional behavior trajectory.

cumulative disadvantage

The tendency of prior social problems to produce future ones that accumulate and undermine success.

Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory posits that the key influences on behavior change over the life course. At first, families are critical. In adolescence, the peer group is the most important influence on behavior. In adulthood, marriage and work shape people’s lives.

What are examples of cumulative disadvantage discovered by social scientists? Not surprisingly, adolescents whose parents were convicted of crime and suffered incarceration are also more likely to engage in theft offenses. Parental incarceration reduces family income, gives kids the opportunity to gain antisocial peers, and subjects them to negative labels and stigma. 58  Kids whose fathers were incarcerated are more likely to suffer an arrest by age 25 than the offspring of conventional, law-abiding parents. 59  And kids lacking capital may also suffer criminal victimization. Victimologist Joan Reid found that kids who were the victims of sex traffickers had limited social capital that led to them experiencing initial exploitation during young adulthood; those trafficked internationally lost even more capital because of their citizenship status and language or cultural barriers. 60

Testing Age-Graded Theory

Empirical research now shows that, as predicted by Sampson and Laub, people change over the life course and the factors that predict antisocial behavior choices evolve over time. 61  Delinquency appears both to be (a) dynamic and (b) affected by levels of informal social control. For example, as predicted by Laub and Sampson, kids who accumulate deviant peers in adolescence are the ones most likely to maintain a delinquent career; delinquent peers sustain a criminal career. 62  Having deviant peers helps neutralize the informal social control wielded by parents and teachers.

As predicted by Laub and Sampson, as the levels of life problems increase, delinquency-resisting elements of social life are impaired. Adolescents who are convicted of delinquency at an early age are more likely to develop antisocial attitudes later in life. They develop low educational achievement, declining occupational status, and unstable employment records. 63  People who get involved with the justice system as adolescents may find that their career paths are blocked well into adulthood. 64  Evidence is also available that confirms Sampson and Laub’s suspicion that delinquent career trajectories can be reversed if life conditions improve and individuals gain social capital. 65  Kids who have long-term exposure to poverty find that their involvement in delinquency escalates. Those, however, whose life circumstances improve because their parents escape poverty and move to more attractive environments find that they can knife off from delinquent trajectories. 66  Relocating may place them in better educational environments where they can have a positive high school experience, facilitated by occupationally oriented course work, small class size, and positive peer climates; having a positive school experience has been shown to be one of the most important factors that helps at-risk kids knife off from crime. 67  Gaining social capital in later adolescence may help erase some of the damage caused by its absence. 68

A number of research efforts have supported Sampson and Laub’s position that accumulating social capital reduces delinquency rates. Youths who accumulate social capital in childhood by doing well in school or having a tightly knit family are also the most likely to maintain steady work as adults; employment may help insulate them from crime. 69  Delinquents who enter the military, serve overseas, and receive veterans’ benefits enhance their occupational status (social capital) while reducing delinquent involvement. 70  Similarly, high-risk adults who are fortunate enough to obtain high-quality jobs are likely to reduce their delinquent activities even if they have a prior history of offending. 71

Love and Delinquency

Age-graded theory places a lot of emphasis on the stability brought about by romantic relationships. Teens headed toward a life of crime can knife off that path if they meet the right mate, fall in love, and get married. 72  However, things don’t always work out as planned and many relationships end in a breakup, a state of affairs that is associated with increases in delinquent behavior and drug use. 73

What is it about love that prevents delinquency? Bill McCarthy and Teresa Casey examined the associations between love and delinquency among a sample of teens and found that adolescent romantic love can help fill the emotional void that occurs between the time when they break free of parental bonds and their acceptance of adult responsibilities. 74  But only meaningful relationships seem to work: love, not sex, is the key to success. Kids who get involved in sexual activity without the promise of love actually increase their involvement in delinquency and drug abuse; only true love reduces the likelihood of offending. Loveless sexual relations produce feelings of strain, which are correlated with antisocial activity. It is possible that kids who engage in sex without love or romance are willing to partake in other risky and/or self-indulgent behaviors. In contrast, romantic love discourages offending by strengthening the social bond.

FOCUS on delinquency: Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives

Why are some delinquents destined to become persistent criminals as adults? John Laub and Robert Sampson conducted a follow-up to their reanalysis of Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck’s study that matched 500 delinquent boys with 500 nondelinquents. The individuals in the original sample were reinterviewed by the Gluecks at ages 25 and 32. Now Sampson and Laub have located the survivors of the delinquent sample—the oldest 70 years old and the youngest 62—and reinterviewed this cohort.

Persistence and Desistance

Laub and Sampson find that delinquency and other forms of antisocial conduct in childhood are strongly related to adult delinquency and drug and alcohol abuse. Former delinquents also suffer consequences in other areas of social life, such as school, work, and family life. For example, delinquents are far less likely to finish high school than are nondelinquents and subsequently are more likely to be unemployed, receive welfare, and experience separation or divorce as adults.

In their research, Laub and Sampson address one of the key questions posed by life-course theories: Is it possible for former delinquents to turn their lives around as adults? They find that most antisocial children do not remain antisocial as adults. For example, of men in the study cohort who survived to age 50, 24 percent had no arrests for delinquent acts of violence and property after age 17 (6 percent had no arrests for total delinquency); 48 percent had no arrests for predatory delinquency after age 25 (19 percent for total delinquency); 60 percent had no arrests for predatory delinquency after age 31 (33 percent for total delinquency); and 79 percent had no arrests for predatory delinquency after age 40 (57 percent for total delinquency). They conclude that desistance from delinquency is the norm and that most, if not all, serious delinquents desist from delinquency.

Why Do Delinquents Desist?

Laub and Sampson’s earlier research indicated that building social capital through marriage and jobs was a key component of desistance from delinquency. However, in this new round of research, Laub and Sampson were able to find out more about long-term desistance by interviewing 52 men as they approached age 70. The follow-up showed a dramatic drop in criminal activity as the men aged. Between the ages of 17 and 24, 84 percent of the subjects had committed violent crimes; in their 30s and 40s, that number dropped to 14 percent; it fell to just 3 percent as the men reached their 60s and 70s. Property crimes and alcohol- and drug-related crimes showed significant decreases. They found that men who desisted from crime were rooted in structural routines and had strong social ties to family and community. Drawing on the men’s own words, they found that one important element for “going straight” is the “knifing off” of individuals from their immediate environment and offering the men a new script for the future. Joining the military can provide this knifing-off effect, as does marriage or changing one’s residence. One former delinquent (age 69) told them:

I’d say the turning point was, number one, the Army. You get into an outfit, you had a sense of belonging, you made your friends. I think I became a pretty good judge of character. In the Army, you met some good ones, you met some foul balls. Then I met the wife. I’d say probably that would be the turning point. Got married, then naturally, kids come. So now you got to get a better job, you got to make more money. And that’s how I got to the Navy Yard and tried to improve myself.

Former delinquents who “went straight” were able to put structure into their lives. Structure often led the men to disassociate from delinquent peers, reducing the opportunity to get into trouble. Getting married, for example, may limit the number of nights men can “hang with the guys.” As one wife of a former delinquent said, “It is not how many beers you have, it’s who you drink with.” Even multiple offenders who did time in prison were able to desist with the help of a stabilizing marriage.

Former delinquents who can turn their lives around, who have acquired a degree of maturity by taking on family and work responsibilities, and who have forged new commitments are the ones most likely to make a fresh start and find new direction and meaning in life. It seems that men who desisted changed their identity as well, and this, in turn, affected their outlook and sense of maturity and responsibility. The ability to change did not reflect delinquency “specialty”: violent offenders followed the same path as property offenders.

While many former delinquents desisted from delinquency, they still faced the risk of an early and untimely death. Thirteen percent (N = 62) of the delinquent as compared to only 6 percent (N = 28) of the nondelinquent subjects died unnatural deaths, such as violence, cirrhosis of the liver caused by alcoholism, poor self-care, suicide, and so on. By age 65, 29 percent (N = 139) of the delinquent and 21 percent (N = 95) of the nondelinquent subjects had died from natural causes. Frequent delinquent involvement in adolescence and alcohol abuse were the strongest predictors of an early and unnatural death. So while many troubled youths are able to reform, their early excesses may haunt them across their life span.

Policy Implications

Laub and Sampson find that youth problems—delinquency, substance abuse, violence, dropping out, teen pregnancy—often share common risk characteristics. Intervention strategies, therefore, should consider a broad array of antisocial, delinquent, and deviant behaviors and not limit the focus to just one subgroup or delinquency type. Because delinquency and other social problems are linked, early prevention efforts that reduce delinquency will probably also reduce alcohol abuse, drunk driving, drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and family violence. The best way to achieve these goals is through four significant life-changing events: marriage, joining the military, getting a job, and changing one’s environment or neighborhood. What appears to be important about these processes is that they all involve, to varying degrees, the following items: a knifing off of the past from the present; new situations that provide both supervision and monitoring as well as new opportunities of social support and growth; and new situations that provide the opportunity for transforming identity. Prevention of delinquency must be a policy at all times and at all stages of life.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Do you believe that the factors that influenced the men in the original Glueck sample are still relevant for change, for example, a military career?

2.

Would it be possible for men such as these to join the military today?

3.

Do you believe that some sort of universal service program might be beneficial and help people turn their lives around?

SOURCES: John Laub and Robert Sampson, Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); Laub and Sampson, “Understanding Desistance from Delinquency,” in Michael Tonry, ed., Delinquency and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 28 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), pp. 1–71; John Laub and George Vaillant, “Delinquency and Mortality: A 50-Year Follow-Up Study of 1,000 Delinquent and Nondelinquent Boys,” American Journal of Psychiatry 157:96–102 (2000).

The question then remains: what prompts some people to engage in loving relationships, while others are doomed to fall in and out of love without finding lasting happiness? Sociologist Rand Conger and his colleagues have discovered that the seeds of romantic success are planted early in childhood: kids who grow up with warm, nurturing parents are the ones most likely to have positive romantic relationships and later intact marriages. Well-nurtured kids develop into warm and supportive romantic partners who have relationships that are likely to endure. 75  It is the quality of parenting, not the observation of adult romantic relations that socializes a young person to engage in behaviors likely to promote successful and lasting romantic unions as an adult.

Evaluating Age-Graded Theory

While a great deal of research supports age-graded theory, there are still questions left unanswered. To create their vision, Sampson and Laub used the Glueck data that were collected many years ago. Do the same social relations still exist, and do they have the same influence on delinquency? When the Gluecks collected their data, the effects of marriage and military service might have been much different. The divorce rate was much lower and marriages more stable. People had served in World War II and were part of the “Greatest Generation.” Other influential elements of contemporary society had not yet been invented: computers, the Internet, TV, DVDs, and iPods. Though the Glueck boys and men drank alcohol, their drug use was minimal. Recent research by Ryan Schroeder and his colleagues find that drug use has unique effects and prevents people from desisting from crime. Drug use negates the influence of marriage and other elements of social capital, and is certainly an element of contemporary life that must be explored more fully. 76

Another issue is time order. For example, are people who get married fated to give up a criminal way of life, or are people who give up their law-violating behavior good marriage prospects? It remains to be seen whether accumulating social capital helps kids knife off from delinquency or whether kids who are able to shun a delinquent lifestyle are better candidates to accumulate social capital. These are all interesting questions that need to be answered.

To test their theory further, Sampson and Laub have conducted a series of interviews with the survivors of the Glueck survey. Their findings are presented in the Focus on Delinquency feature “Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives.”

Propensity Theories

More than 20 years ago, David Rowe, D. Wayne Osgood, and W. Alan Nicewander proposed the concept of latent traits to explain the flow of delinquency over the life cycle. Their model assumes that a number of people in the population have a personal attribute or characteristic that controls their inclination or propensity to commit crimes. 77  This disposition may be either present at birth or established early in life, and it then remains stable over the life course. Suspected latent traits include defective intelligence, damaged or impulsive personality, genetic abnormalities, the physical-chemical functioning of the brain, and environmental influences on brain function, such as drugs, chemicals, and injuries. 78

Regardless of gender or environment, those who maintain one of these suspect traits may be at risk to delinquency and in danger of becoming career criminals; those who lack the traits have a much lower risk. 79  Thus, the propensity to commit delinquent and criminal acts is always there, a stable but unseen trait guiding behavior across the life course. The Youth Stories feature discusses the career of one persistent offender who may have had a propensity to commit violent acts.

Persistence and Desistance

Because latent traits are stable, people who are antisocial during adolescence are the most likely to persist in crime. The positive association between past and future criminality detected in the cohort studies of career criminals reflects the presence of this underlying stable criminal propensity. That is, if an impulsive personality contributes to delinquency in childhood, it should also cause the same people to offend as adults because personality traits remain stable over the life span. According to the concept of  state dependence , kids who have the propensity to commit crime will find that this latent trait profoundly and permanently disrupts normal socialization. Disruptions in socialization thereafter increase the risk of prolonged antisocial behavior. In this view, early rule breaking increases the probability of future rule breaking because it weakens inhibitions to crime and strengthens criminal motivation. In other words, once kids get a taste of antisocial behavior, they like it and want to continue down a deviant path. 80

state dependence

The propensity to commit crime profoundly and permanently disrupts normal socialization over the life course.

Propensity and Opportunity

Whereas the propensity to commit delinquency is stable, the opportunity to commit delinquency fluctuates over time. People age out of crime: As they mature and develop, there are simply fewer opportunities to commit crimes and greater inducements to remain “straight.” They may marry, have children, and obtain jobs. The former delinquents’ newfound adult responsibilities leave them little time to hang with their friends, abuse substances, and get into scrapes with the law.

To understand this concept better, assume that intelligence as measured by IQ tests is a stable latent trait associated with crime. Intelligence remains stable and unchanging over the life course, but delinquency rates decline with age. How can latent trait theory explain this phenomenon? Teenagers have more opportunity to commit delinquency than adults, so at every level of intelligence, adolescent delinquency rates will be higher. As they mature, however, teens with both high and low IQs will commit less delinquency because their adult responsibilities provide them with fewer delinquent opportunities. They may get married and raise a family, get a job and buy a home. And like most people, as they age they lose strength and vigor, qualities necessary to commit crime. Though their IQ remains stable and their propensity to commit delinquency is unchanged, their living environment and biological condition have undergone radical change. Even if they wanted to engage in antisocial activities, the former delinquents may lack the opportunity and the energy to engage in illegal activities.

youth stories: Craig Price

On September 4, 1989, investigators in Warwick, Rhode Island, went to the home of Joan Heaton, 39, and her two children, Jennifer, 10, and Melissa, 8, who had been found murdered, victims of an apparent burglary attempt gone awry. Suspicion swiftly fell on Craig Price, a neighborhood kid with a long history of offenses, including breaking and entering, theft, peeping into houses, and using drugs. Craig was also known to have a violent temper, and police had been called to his house on more than one occasion to settle disputes. While investigating the case, they discovered quite a bit of similarity with the July 1987 death of Rebecca Spencer, who had been found in her living room, stabbed repeatedly with a packing knife.

Investigators working on the Heaton case decided it was time to question Craig more thoroughly. They went to Craig’s house and asked him to come with his parents to the police station. They later obtained a warrant and while searching his home found evidence incriminating him in the Heaton case. A trash bag full of incriminating evidence was also found in a shed behind the house. Now under arrest, Craig gave a detailed account of the Heaton murders, confessing that he had only planned a burglary and killed the mother and her daughters when they were awakened. He also confessed to killing Rebecca Spencer under similar circumstances when he was just 13 years old.

Originally sentenced as a juvenile to serve a five-year term, Craig refused to submit to psychiatric examinations and therapy while in the juvenile institution. At a court hearing he was found in civil contempt and had a year added to his incarceration, to be served at the Adult Correctional Institution in Cranston, Rhode Island. He continued to have problems while in prison and had additional years added to his sentence, perhaps because authorities were simply afraid to have him released. In October 1998, seven more years were added to Craig’s sentence for assaulting a correctional officer. In February 1999 and again in October 2001, Craig was sentenced to a total of four more years for again verbally and physically assaulting correctional officers. On July 29, 2009, Price was involved in a prison fight with another inmate in which a correctional officer was stabbed in the finger. Consequently, Price was transferred to another prison and his release date pushed up to 2020.

CRITICAL THINKING

Can someone like Craig Price ever be truly rehabilitated? Would you advocate releasing someone who has killed multiple people if you knew they were going to move into your own neighborhood, even when correctional treatment specialists claim they have been “rehabilitated”?

SOURCES: Nancy Krause, “Craig Price Accused in Prison Stabbing,”  WPRI.com  News, July 30, 2009,  http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/local_wpri_cranston_murderer_craig_price_accused_in_stabbing_20090730_nek  (accessed June 2013); Gregg McCrary and Katherine Ramsland, The Unknown Darkness (New York: William Morrow/Harper Collins, 2003).

The most prominent propensity theory today is Gottfredson and Hirschi’s  General Theory of Crime (GTC) , which is discussed in detail next.

General Theory of Crime (GTC)

A developmental theory that modifies social control theory by integrating concepts from biosocial, psychological, routine activities, and rational choice theories.

General Theory of Crime

In their important work A General Theory of Crime, Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi modified and redefined some of the principles articulated in Hirschi’s original social control theory by adding elements of trait and rational choice theories and shifting the focus from social control to self-control, or the tendency to avoid acts whose long-term costs exceed their momentary advantages. 81

According to latent trait theories, delinquent propensity varies among people. Here, Walter Stawarz IV is escorted to the courtroom in Beaver, Pennsylvania. Stawarz, 16, was charged as an adult with attempted homicide, reckless endangerment, and aggravated assault for allegedly beating 15-year-old Jeremy Delon alongside the Ohio River. Police accused Stawarz of beating Delon around the time the teenagers attempted to buy some marijuana. On May 18, 2007, a jury found Stawarz guilty of first-degree murder for the beating death of the Hopewell High School student. Can a lack of self-control explain such violent behaviors?

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi, the propensity to commit antisocial acts is tied directly to a person’s level of self-control. People with limited self-control tend to be impulsive; they are insensitive to other people’s feelings, physical (rather than mental), risk takers, shortsighted, and nonverbal. 82  They have a here-and-now orientation and refuse to work for distant goals; they lack diligence, tenacity, and persistence. People lacking self-control tend to be adventuresome, active, physical, and self-centered. As they mature, they often have unstable marriages, jobs, and friendships. 83  They are less likely to feel shame if they engage in deviant acts and are more likely to find them pleasurable. 84  They are also more likely to engage in dangerous behaviors such as drinking, smoking, and reckless driving; all of these behaviors are associated with delinquency. 85

Because those with low self-control enjoy risky, exciting, or thrilling behaviors with immediate gratification, they are more likely to enjoy delinquent acts, which require stealth, agility, speed, and power, than conventional acts, which demand long-term study and cognitive and verbal skills. As Gottfredson and Hirschi put it, they derive satisfaction from “money without work, sex without courtship, revenge without court delays.” 86

Gottfredson and Hirschi suggest that delinquency is not the only outlet for people with an impulsive personality. Even if they do not engage in antisocial behaviors, impulsive people enjoy other risky behaviors such as smoking, drinking, gambling, and illicit sexuality. 87  Although these acts are not illegal, they provide immediate, short-term gratification. It is not surprising then, considering their risky lifestyle, that impulsive people are more prone to be crime victims themselves than their less impulsive peers. 88

Gottfredson and Hirschi claim that the principles of  self-control theory  can explain all varieties of delinquent behavior and all the social and behavioral correlates of crime. That is, such widely disparate crimes as burglary, robbery, embezzlement, drug dealing, murder, rape, and insider trading all stem from a deficiency of self-control. Likewise, gender, racial, and ecological differences in delinquency rates can be explained by discrepancies in self-control. Unlike other theoretical models that explain only narrow segments of delinquent behavior (such as theories of teenage gang formation), Gottfredson and Hirschi argue that self-control applies equally to all crimes, ranging from murder to corporate theft.

self-control theory

The theory of delinquency that holds that antisocial behavior is caused by a lack of self-control stemming from an impulsive personality.

What Causes Low Self-Control/Impulsivity?

Gottfredson and Hirschi trace the root cause of poor self-control to inadequate childrearing practices that begin soon after birth. Parents who refuse or are unable to monitor a child’s behavior, to recognize deviant behavior when it occurs, and to punish that behavior will produce children who lack self-control. Children who are not attached to their parents, who are poorly supervised, and whose parents are delinquent or deviant themselves are the most likely to develop poor self-control.

The low-self-control children model may be intergenerational. Parents who themselves manifest low self-control are most likely to use damaging and inappropriate supervision and punishment mechanisms, such as corporal punishment; inappropriate discipline modes have been linked to lack of self-control in adolescence. These impulsive kids grow up to become poor parents, who use improper discipline, and produce another generation of impulsive kids. 89  Kids who have low self-control may strain parental attachments and the ability of parents to control children.

While Gottfredson and Hirschi believe that parenting and not heredity shapes self-control, some recent research efforts do show that the impulsive personality may have physical or social roots, or perhaps both. Children who suffer anoxia (oxygen starvation) during the birthing process are most likely to lack self-control later in life, suggesting that impulsivity may have a biological basis. 90  When Kevin Beaver and his associates examined impulsive personality and self-control in twin pairs they discovered evidence that these traits may be inherited rather than developed. That might explain the stability of these latent traits over the life course. 91

Variations in Delinquency

If individual differences are stable over the life course, why do delinquency rates vary? Why do people commit less delinquency as they age? Why are some regions or groups more delinquency prone than others? Does that mean there are differences in self-control between groups? If male delinquency rates are higher than female rates, does that mean men are more impulsive and lacking in self-control? How does the GTC address these issues?

Gottfredson and Hirschi remind us that delinquent propensity and delinquent acts are separate concepts ( Figure 6.2 ). On one hand, delinquent acts, such as robberies or burglaries, are illegal events or deeds that offenders engage in when they perceive them to be advantageous. Burglaries are typically committed by young males looking for cash, liquor, and entertainment; delinquency provides “easy, short-term gratification.” 92  Delinquency is rational and predictable; kids engage in delinquency when it promises rewards with minimal threat of pain; the threat of punishment can deter crime. If targets are well guarded, delinquency rates diminish. Only the truly irrational offender would dare to strike under those circumstances.

figure 6.2: Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime

On the other hand, delinquent offenders may be predisposed to commit crimes, but they are not robots who commit antisocial acts without restraint; their days are also filled with conventional behaviors, such as going to school, parties, concerts, and church. But given the same set of delinquent opportunities, such as having a lot of free time for mischief and living in a neighborhood with unguarded homes containing valuable merchandise, crime-prone people have a much higher probability of violating the law than do nondelinquents. The propensity to commit crimes remains stable throughout a person’s life. Change in the frequency of delinquent activity is purely a function of change in delinquent opportunity.

If we accept this provision of the GTC, then both delinquent propensity and delinquent opportunity must be considered to explain delinquent participation. So if males and females are equally impulsive but their delinquency rates vary, the explanation is that males have more opportunity to commit crime. Young teenage girls may be more closely monitored by their parents and therefore lack the freedom to offend. Girls are also socialized to have more self-control than boys: although females get angry as often as males, many have been taught to blame themselves for such feelings. Females are socialized to fear that anger will harm relationships; males are encouraged to react with “moral outrage,” blaming others for their discomfort. 93

Opportunity can also be used to explain ecological variation in the delinquency rate. How does the GTC explain the fact that delinquency rates are higher in the summer than the winter? The number of impulsive people lacking in self-control is no higher in August than it is in December. Gottfredson and Hirschi would argue that seasonal differences are explained by opportunity: during the summer, kids are out of school and have more opportunity to commit crime. Similarly, if delinquency rates are higher in Los Angeles than Minneapolis, either there are more delinquent opportunities in the western city or the fast-paced life of Los Angeles attracts more impulsive people than the laid-back Midwest.

Support for the GTC

Since the publication of A General Theory of Crime, numerous researchers have attempted to test the validity of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theoretical views, and a great many research efforts using a variety of methodologies and subject groups have found empirical support for the basic assumptions of the GTC. 94  Gottfredson and Hirschi’s view has become a cornerstone of contemporary delinquency theory.

Among the many principles of the General Theory that have been confirmed is linkage of low self-control with poor parenting. Regardless of community structure, kids with ineffective parents are more likely to exhibit low self-control than those who experience parental efficacy. 95

For an analysis of the General Theory of Crime, go to Bradley Wright’s web page ( http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2008/11/gottfredson-and.html ), or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

There has also been research linking low self-control, impulsive personality, and delinquency. 96  As a group, researchers suggest that the lower a person’s self-control, the more likely he is to engage in antisocial behaviors. 97  The lack of self-control may begin early in adolescence and be manifested in aggressive behavior that turns kids into school yard bullies. Aggressive bullies are rejected by other kids, marginalized, and prone to school failure, a path that winds up in a delinquent way of life. 98

Recently, Matt DeLisi and Michael Vaughn examined the association between low self-control and criminal careers. 99  They found that compared to non–career offenders, career criminals had significantly lower levels of self-control and that the lower the level of self-control, the greater the chance of becoming a career criminal. Importantly, Delisi and Vaughn discovered that low self-control was by far the strongest predictor of career criminality, exceeding the impact of age, race, ethnicity, gender, and other important social factors.

Not only has an association between impulsivity and crime been found, but levels of self-control can also help us understand the association between crime and other factors, including values, attitudes, and beliefs. For example, the fact that religious people commit less crime may be explained by the fact that people who attend services and believe in religion are less impulsive and have more self-control than nonbelievers. 100

Analyzing the General Theory of Crime

By integrating the concepts of socialization and delinquency, Gottfredson and Hirschi help explain why some people who lack self-control can escape delinquency, and, conversely, why some people who have self-control might not escape delinquency. People who are at risk because they have impulsive personalities may forgo delinquent careers because there are no delinquent opportunities that satisfy their impulsive needs; instead, they may find other outlets for their impulsive personalities. In contrast, if the opportunity is strong enough, even people with relatively strong self-control may be tempted to violate the law; the incentives to commit delinquency may overwhelm self-control.

Integrating delinquent propensity and delinquent opportunity can explain why some children enter into chronic offending while others living in similar environments are able to resist delinquent activity. It can also help us understand why the honor student with a spotless record gets caught up in academic cheating. Even an honor roll student may find self-control inadequate if the potential for higher grades is present. The driven student, accustomed to both academic and social success, may find that the fear of failure can overwhelm self-control. Even the best, most respected student may be tempted to circumvent the rules to improve his or her grade point average. 101

Although the General Theory seems persuasive, several questions and criticisms remain unanswered. Among the most important are the following:

·  The General Theory is tautological. Some critics argue that the theory is tautological (involves circular reasoning): How do we know when people are impulsive? When they commit crimes! Are all delinquents impulsive? Of course, or else they would not have broken the law! 102

·  One of many personality traits correlated with crime. Lack of self-control may in fact be associated with crime, but so are many other personality traits. 103  Personality traits such as low self-direction (the tendency not to act in one’s long-term benefit) may be better predictors of delinquency than impulsivity. 104

·  Ignores the environment. Critics complain that Gottfredson and Hirschi discount the influence of environmental factors, despite evidence that the environment influences personality. 105  Environments may interact with personality to shape behaviors. 106  Take what criminologist Gregory Zimmerman found when he examined how environment and personality interact. In high-crime neighborhoods, impulsive adolescents were no more delinquent than their nonimpulsive peers. In contrast, in low-crime, safer areas, impulsive kids were much more likely to commit delinquent acts than their less reckless peers. How can this difference be explained? In disadvantaged neighborhoods, nearly everyone commits crime, so that having self-control means relatively little. In contrast, in low-crime areas, most kids conform and it’s only the most impulsive who risk engaging in delinquent acts. In these higher-income neighborhoods, only those totally lacking in self-control are foolish enough to commit crime. 107  So neighborhood character may influence criminal decision making, an observation that contradicts the GTC.

·  Does not explain racial and gender differences. Although distinct gender differences in the delinquency rate exist, there is little evidence that males are more impulsive than females (although females and males differ in many other personality traits). 108  Some research efforts have found gender differences in the association between self-control and crime; the theory predicts no such difference should occur. 109  Impulsivity alone may not be able to explain why males and females persist or desist. 110  Gottfredson and Hirschi explain racial differences in the delinquency rate as a failure of childrearing practices in the African American community. 111  In so doing, they overlook issues of institutional racism, poverty, and relative deprivation, which have been shown to have a significant impact on delinquency rate differentials.

·  Does not account for peer influence. A number of research efforts show that the quality of peer relations either enhances or controls delinquent behavior and that these influences vary over time. 112  As children mature, peer influence continues to grow. Research shows that kids who lack self-control also have trouble maintaining relationships with law-abiding peers. They may choose (or be forced) to seek friends who are similarly limited in their ability to maintain self-control. Similarly, as they mature they may seek romantic relationships with law-violating boyfriends or girlfriends. These entanglements enhance the likelihood that they will get further involved in delinquency (girls seem more deeply influenced by their delinquent boyfriends than boys by their delinquent girlfriends). 113  This finding contradicts the GTC, which suggests the influence of friends is minimal and that a relationship established later in life (for example, making friends) should not influence delinquent propensity.

·  People change. One of the most important questions raised about the GTC concerns its assumption that delinquent propensity does not change. Is it possible that human personality and behavior patterns remain unaltered over the life course? Research shows that changing life circumstances, such as starting and leaving school, abusing substances and then “getting straight,” and starting or ending personal relationships, all influence the frequency of offending. 114  Involvement in organized activities that teach self-discipline and self-regulation, such as karate, has been shown to improve personality traits in at-risk kids, even those diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder. 115  As people mature, they may be better able to control their impulsive behavior and reduce their delinquent activities. 116

·  Many delinquents are rational and calculating, not impulsive. Gottfredson and Hirschi assume that delinquents are impatient or “present-oriented.” They choose to commit delinquency because the rewards can be enjoyed immediately while the costs or punishments come later or not at all. However, Steven Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh found that many young gang boys are willing to wait years to “rise through the ranks” before earning high wages. Their stay in the gang is fueled by the promises of future compensation, a fact that contradicts the GTC. Levitt and Venkatesh conclude that the economic aspects of the decision to join the gang can be viewed as a tournament in which participants vie for large awards that only a small fraction will eventually obtain. Members of the gang accept low wages in the present in the hope that they will advance in the gang and earn well above market wages in the future. 117  Moreover, gang members seem acutely aware that they are making an investment in the future by forgoing present gains. As one noted:

You think I want a be selling drugs on the street my whole life? No way, but I know these n—[above me] are making more money … So you know, I figure I got a chance to move up. But if not, s—, I get me a job doin’ something else. 118

Legal economist Yair Listokin notes that the expectation of future gains contradicts Gottfredson and Hirschi’s vision of an impulsive delinquent who lives for today without worrying about tomorrow. In contrast, the young foot soldiers of the gang are sacrificing present wages for the hope of future gains. Listokin finds that the gang uses the same compensation structure as the one commonly used in law firms, where newly hired attorneys work long hours at low pay with the hope of becoming partners. The “foot soldiers,” he concludes, are filling the role of law associates, a group not known for their impulsiveness. 119

·  Self-control may waver and change. Gottfredson and Hirschi assume that impulsivity is a singular construct—one is either impulsive or not. However, (a) there may be more than one kind of impulsive personality, and (b) it may waver change over time. Some people may be impulsive because they are sensation seekers constantly looking for novel experiences, while others lack deliberation and rarely think through problems. Some may give up easily while others act without thinking. Some people may have the ability to persist in self-control while others “get tired” and eventually succumb to their impulses. Think of it this way: A dieter ogles the cheesecake in the fridge all day but has the self-control not to take a slice. Then he wakes hungry in the middle of the night and makes his way into the kitchen, thinking, “A little piece of cheesecake won’t hurt me.” His self-control slips, and his diet goes out the window. There is also evidence that self-control can be influenced by treatment programs aimed at doing just that: a recent meta-analysis by Alex Piquero, Wesley Jennings, and David Farrington found that a program aimed at improving a child/adolescent’s self-control may actually work and also help reduce delinquency, regardless of the technique used or source (e.g., parents or teachers). 120

Although questions like these remain, the strength of GTC lies in its simplicity and breadth. It attempts to explain all forms of crime and deviance, from lower-class gang delinquency to sexual harassment in the business community, with a single factor—low self-control. In fact, because they believe all forms of antisocial and deviant behavior may originate at the same source, Hirschi and Gottfredson have questioned the utility of the juvenile justice system and the practice of giving more lenient treatment to young delinquent offenders. Why separate youthful and adult offenders legally when the source of their antisocial behaviors (for example, impulsivity) is essentially the same? 121  Since its publication, the GTC remains one of the most important and heavily researched views of the onset and continuity of a delinquent career.

Trajectory Theory

Trajectory theory is a third developmental approach that combines elements of propensity and life-course theory. The basic premise is that there is more than one path to crime and more than one class of offender; there are different trajectories in a delinquent career. All kids are different, and one model cannot hope to describe every person’s journey through life. Some are social and have a large peer group, while others are loners who make decisions on their own. 122  Factors that predict offending in males may have little influence on females. 123  While both sexes maintain different offending trajectories (for example, chronic offender, desister, nonstarter), males are more likely to become persistent offenders and have higher rates of offending within each trajectory. 124  There are also different offending trajectories: delinquents who commit violent crimes may be different from nonviolent property and drug offenders and maintain a unique set of personality traits and problem behaviors. 125  Some kids who begin committing violent crime at an early age later become adult violent offenders, but many do not, and some people begin their violent careers in adulthood, having escaped and/or avoided being violent as juveniles. 126

Because propensity theories disregard social influences during the life span, and life-course theories maintain that social events seem to affect all people equally, they both miss the fact that there are different classes and types of juvenile offenders. Adolescents offend at a different pace, commit different kinds of crimes, and are influenced by different external forces. 127  This view has become quite popular, and a recent meta-analysis by Wesley Jennings and his associates uncovered more than 100 recent research studies aimed at identifying different delinquent trajectories. 128

Late Bloomers and Nonstarters

According to this view, not all persistent offenders begin at an early age. Some are precocious, beginning their delinquent careers early and persisting into adulthood. 129  Others stay out of trouble in adolescence and do not violate the law until their teenage years. Some offenders may peak at an early age and quickly desist, whereas others persist into adulthood. Some are high-rate offenders, whereas others offend at relatively low rates. 130  In sum, there are different paths to crime.

Take for instance the view on early onset. Most developmental theorists maintain that persistent offenders are early starters, beginning their delinquent careers in their adolescence and persisting into adulthood. In contrast, trajectory theories recognize that some kids are late bloomers who stay out of trouble until their adulthood. 131  Researchers Sarah Bacon, Raymond Paternoster, and Robert Brame found that “late bloomers” are actually the people most likely to get involved in serious offending! 132  Because the late bloomer combines psychopathology with risk-taking behavior and poor social skills, his behavior becomes increasingly violent over time. 133  So while these late starters may be late to the party, they eventually “catch up” in their late teens.

There is also a group of abstainers, or nonstarters. Despite the fact that self-report studies tell us most kids engage in a variety of antisocial activities and that teen drug use, theft, and general mischief are normative, there are those kids who never break the law; their conventional behavior makes them deviant in the teenage world where offending is the norm! Why do these nonstarters refrain from delinquency of any sort? This matter is still unsettled. According to social psychologist Terrie Moffitt, abstainers are social introverts as teens, whose unpopularity shields them from group pressure to commit delinquent acts. 134  Other experts, such as Xiaojin Chen and Michele Adam, disagree, suggesting that conformity may be related to close parental monitoring and involvement with prosocial peer groups more than it is to being unpopular. 135  Kids who do not learn delinquent behaviors from role models are the ones most likely to be abstainers. 136  Still another explanation may be biological: abstainers maintain a genetic code that insulates them from criminality-producing factors in the environment. 137  Not surprisingly, abstainers are more likely than other youth to become successful, well-adjusted adults. 138

Pathways to Delinquency

Trajectory theorists recognize that career delinquents may travel more than a single road. Some may specialize in violence and extortion; others are solely involved in theft and fraud; a majority engage in a variety of delinquent acts. 139  Each type of specialist may be unique: kids who commit violent crimes may be different than nonviolent property and drug offenders. 140  But even among these violent offenders, there may be distinct career paths. Some start out as violent kids whose violent behavior declines with age and who eventually desist. Another group are escalators whose severity of violence increases over time. Escalators are more likely to live in racially mixed communities, experience racism, and have less parental involvement than people who avoid or decrease their violent behaviors. 141  A study by Georgia Zara and David Farrington identified still another group of violent kids: late-onset escalators. These youths began their violent careers relatively late in their adolescence after suffering a variety of psychological and social disturbances earlier in childhood, including high anxiety. Zara and Farrington conclude that childhood risk factors may predict this late-onset group of violent young adults. 142

Some of the most important research on delinquent paths or trajectories has been conducted by Rolf Loeber and his associates. Using data from a longitudinal study of Pittsburgh youth, Loeber has identified three distinct paths to a delinquent career ( Figure 6.3 ). 143

figure 6.3: Loeber’s Pathways to Crime

SOURCE: Adapted from “Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders,” Juvenile Justice Bulletin, May 1998.

·  The  authority conflict pathway  begins at an early age with stubborn behavior. This leads to defiance (doing things one’s own way, disobedience) and then to authority avoidance (staying out late, truancy, running away).

authority conflict pathway

Pathway to delinquent deviance that begins at an early age with stubborn behavior and leads to defiance and then to authority avoidance.

·  The  covert pathway  begins with minor, underhanded behavior (lying, shoplifting) that leads to property damage (setting nuisance fires, damaging property). This behavior eventually escalates to more serious forms of delinquency, ranging from joyriding, pocket picking, larceny, and fencing to passing bad checks, using stolen credit cards, stealing cars, dealing drugs, and breaking and entering.

covert pathway

Pathway to a delinquent career that begins with minor underhanded behavior, leads to property damage, and eventually escalates to more serious forms of theft and fraud.

·  The  overt pathway  escalates to aggressive acts beginning with aggression (annoying others, bullying), leading to physical (and gang) fighting, and then to violence (attacking someone, forced theft).

overt pathway

Pathway to a delinquent career that begins with minor aggression, leads to physical fighting, and eventually escalates to violent delinquency.

The Loeber research indicates that each of these paths may lead to a sustained deviant career. Some people enter two and even three paths simultaneously: they are stubborn, lie to teachers and parents, are bullies, and commit petty thefts. These adolescents are the most likely to become persistent offenders as they mature.

Adolescent-Limited and Life-Course Persistent Offenders

According to psychologist Terrie Moffitt, most young offenders follow one of two paths.  Adolescent-limited offenders  may be considered “typical teenagers” who get into minor scrapes and engage in what might be considered rebellious teenage behavior with their friends. 144  As they reach their midteens, adolescent-limited delinquents begin to mimic the antisocial behavior of more troubled teens, only to reduce the frequency of their offending as they mature to around age 18. 145

adolescent-limited offenders

Kids who get into minor scrapes as youths but whose misbehavior ends when they enter adulthood.

The second path is the one taken by a small group of  life-course persisters  who begin their offending career at a very early age and continue to offend well into adulthood. 146  Moffitt finds that life-course persisters combine family dysfunction with severe neurological problems that predispose them to antisocial behavior patterns. These afflictions can be the result of maternal drug abuse, poor nutrition, or exposure to toxic agents such as lead. There may also be a genetic basis to life-course persistence; some recent research links it to neurological deficiencies. 147  Life-course persisters may be aggressive as part of a strategy to increase their reproductive options, a view that jibes with sociobiology. 148

life-course persisters

Delinquents who begin their offending career at a very early age and continue to offend well into adulthood.

It is not surprising then that life-course persisters display social and personal dysfunctions, including lower than average verbal ability, reasoning skills, learning ability, and school achievement, nor that they offend more frequently and engage in a greater variety of antisocial acts and manifest significantly more mental health problems, including psychiatric pathologies, than adolescent-limited offenders. 149  Persisters are more likely to manifest traits such as low verbal ability and hyperactivity; they display a negative or impulsive personality and seem particularly impaired on spatial and memory functions. 150  Individual traits rather than environment seem to have the greatest influence on life-course persistence. 151

To read more about the career of Terrie Moffitt and find a list of her publications, go to:  http://www.genome.duke.edu/directory/faculty/moffitt/  For her research with Avshalom Caspi, go to:  http://www.moffittcaspi.com/  Or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Evaluating Developmental Theories

Although the differences among the views presented in this chapter may seem irreconcilable, they in fact share some common ground. They indicate that a delinquent career must be understood as a passage along which people travel, that it has a beginning and an end, and that events and life circumstances influence the journey. The factors that affect a delinquent career may include structural factors, such as income and status; socialization factors, such as family and peer relations; biological factors, such as size and strength; psychological factors, including intelligence and personality; and opportunity factors, such as free time, inadequate police protection, and a supply of easily stolen merchandise.

Life-course theories emphasize the influence of changing interpersonal and structural factors (that is, people change along with the world they live in). Propensity theories place more emphasis on the fact that behavior is linked less to personal change and more to changes in the surrounding world. Trajectory theories combine both perspectives and suggest that while some people are guided by a master trait, there may be more than one trait that influences delinquent behavior and more than one path that delinquents may take.

These perspectives differ in their view of human development. Do people constantly change, as life-course theories suggest, or are they stable, constant, and changeless, as the propensity view indicates? Are the factors that produce delinquency different for a variety of subsets of delinquent offenders, as the trajectory view suggests? Or does a master trait—for example, self-control—steer the course of human behavior and is it present in all offenders?

It is also possible that these positions are not mutually exclusive, and each may make a notable contribution to understanding the onset and continuity of a delinquent career. While more research is necessary, there is some indication that there may be an interaction between delinquent propensity and life-course changes. Life-impacting events—marriage, military service, jobs, and so on—may have greater or lesser impact on people depending on their level of self-control and impulsivity. 152  Bradley Entner Wright and his associates found evidence that low self-control in childhood predicts disrupted social bonds and delinquent offending later in life, a finding that supports latent trait theory. 153  They also found that maintaining positive social bonds helps reduce delinquency and that maintaining prosocial bonds could even counteract the effect of low self-control. Latent traits are an important influence on crime, but their findings indicate that social relationships that form later in life appear to influence delinquent behavior “above and beyond” individuals’ preexisting characteristics. 154  This finding may reflect the fact that there are two classes of delinquents: a less serious group who are influenced by life events, and a more chronic group whose latent traits insulate them from any positive prosocial relationships, a finding that supports trajectory theory. 155

Public Policy Implications of Developmental Theory

Developmental theory has served as the basis for a number of delinquency control and prevention efforts. These typically feature multisystemic treatment efforts designed to provide at-risk kids with personal, social, educational, and family services. 156

Treatment programs based on developmental models now employ multidimensional strategies and target children in preschool through the early elementary grades in order to alter the direction of their life course. Many of the most successful programs are aimed at strengthening children’s social-emotional competence and positive coping skills and suppressing the development of antisocial, aggressive behavior. 157  Research evaluations indicate that the most promising multicomponent delinquency and substance abuse prevention programs for youths, especially those at high risk, are aimed at improving their developmental skills. They may include a school component, an after-school component, and a parent-involvement component. All of these components have the common goal of increasing protective factors and decreasing risk factors in the areas of the family, the community, the school, and the individual. 158  The Boys and Girls Clubs and School Collaborations’ Substance Abuse Prevention Program includes a school component called SMART (Skills Mastery and Resistance Training), an after-school component called SMART Kids, and a parent-involvement component called SMART Parents. Each component is designed to reduce specific risk factors in the children’s school, family, community, and personal environments. 159

Another successful program, Fast Track, is designed to prevent serious antisocial behavior and related adolescent problems in high-risk children entering first grade. The intervention is guided by a developmental approach that suggests that antisocial behavior is the product of the interaction of multiple social and psychological influences:

·  Residence in low-income, high-delinquency communities places stressors and influences on children and families that increase their risk levels. In these areas, families characterized by marital conflict and instability make consistent and effective parenting difficult to achieve, particularly with children who are impulsive and of difficult temperament.

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Prevention:Across Ages

Across Ages is a drug prevention program for youths ages 9 to 13. The program’s goal is to strengthen the bonds between adults and children to provide opportunities for positive community involvement. It is unique and highly effective in its pairing of older adult mentors (age 55 and above) with young adolescents, mainly those entering middle school.

Designed as a school- and community-based demonstration research project, Across Ages was founded in 1991 by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention and was replicated in Philadelphia and West Springfield, Massachusetts. Today, there are more than 30 replication sites in 17 states. Specifically, the program aims to:

·  Increase knowledge of health and substance abuse and foster healthy attitudes, intentions, and behavior toward drug use among targeted youth.

·  Improve school bonding, academic performance, school attendance, and behavior and attitudes toward school.

·  Strengthen relationships with adults and peers.

·  Enhance problem-solving and decision-making skills.

Target Population

The project was designed for and tested on African American, Hispanic/Latino, white, and Asian American middle school students living in a large urban setting. The goal was to assess many risk factors faced by urban youth, including no opportunity for positive free-time activities, few positive role models, and stresses caused by living in extended families when parents are incarcerated or substance abusers.

How It Works

Program materials are offered in English or Spanish so they can be used cross-culturally. A child is matched with an older adult and participates in the following activities and interventions:

·  Mentoring for a minimum of two hours each week in one-on-one contact

·  Community service for one to two hours per week

·  Social competence training, which involves the “Social Problem-Solving Module,” composed of 26 weekly lessons at 45 minutes each

·  Activities for the youth and family members and mentors

Benefits and Outcomes

Participating youths learn positive coping skills and have an opportunity to be of service to their community. The program aims to increase prosocial interactions and protective factors and decrease negative ones.

Protective Factors to Increase

·  Individual. Relationship with significant adult; engagement in positive free-time activities; problem-solving/conflict resolution skills; bonding to school.

·  Peer. Association with peers engaged in positive behavior and activities.

·  Family. Engagement in positive family activities; improved communication between parents and children.

·  School. Improved school attendance, behavior, and performance.

·  Community. Useful role in the community; positive feedback from community members.

Risk Factors to Decrease

·  Individual. School failure; identified behavior problems in school; lack of adult role models; poor decision-making and problem-solving skills.

·  Peer. Engagement in risky behavior.

·  Family. Substance-abusing parents and siblings; incarcerated family members; little positive interaction between parents and children.

·  School. Lack of bonding to school.

·  Community. Residence in communities lacking opportunities for positive recreational activities and with high incidence of drug-related delinquency.

Applying Across Ages in Maryland

A notable Across Ages program is now being run by Interages, a nonprofit agency whose goal is to address community needs through caring and supportive partnerships between older adults and children and youth. For more than 18 years, Interages has operated the Montgomery County Intergenerational Resource Center, through which it assists professionals and organizations in developing intergenerational programs for their communities. They have run an Across Ages program since 2003 that focuses on helping children develop strong decision-making skills, problem-solving abilities, and community awareness, and on building a strong relationship between mentors and children. Mentoring is the cornerstone of the program. The key concepts taught to the children are reinforced by the relationship they have with their mentors. Mentors act as advocates, challengers, nurturers, role models, and—most of all—friends. Through these relationships, the children begin to develop awareness, self-confidence, and the skills needed to overcome overwhelming obstacles. The following are among the most popular activities:

·  Problem-solving “talk time”

·  Creating problem-solving skits

·  Group community service activities at local nursing homes

·  “Social Problem-Solving Skills” academic lessons

·  Self-esteem and team-building activities

·  Group discussions

·  Family day field trips

·  Tree planting and stream cleanup

·  Yearly donation of snacks and gifts benefiting local homeless children

·  Individual mentor/mentee activities

Over the last 25 years, Interages programs have involved over 30,000 children and older adults in over 100 schools and 50 senior facilities. Interages has worked very hard to develop and implement relevant intergenerational programs that meet community needs. As the years have progressed some programs have run their natural course and concluded and some continue to this day. The Intergenerational Bridges, Project SHARE, and Dialogues Across the Ages programs are still active today. Programs implemented over the last decade that are part of the solid base of Interages intergenerational programs include Grandreaders, Intergenerational Bridges: High School Service Learning Program, Makeover Madness, Mature Mentors, Grandbuddies, Head Start Read-Aloud, LEAP (Leadership and Empowerment Action Program), and Math Club. In 2011, Interages celebrated 25 years of service to Montgomery County residents as the leader in intergenerational programming.

Evaluations of the Across Ages Program

Using a classic experimental design, in which control and experimental groups were chosen, evaluation of the Across Ages approach showed the following:

Outcomes for Youth

·  Significant improvement in knowledge about and reactions to drug use

·  Significant decrease in substance use (e.g., alcohol and tobacco)

·  Significant improvement in school-related behavior as measured by increased school attendance, decreased suspensions from school, and improved grades

·  Significant improvement in attitudes toward school and the future

·  Significant improvement in attitudes toward adults in general and older adults in particular

·  Improvement in well-being

The level of mentor involvement was positively related to improvement on various outcome measures.

Outcomes for Families

·  Increased participation in school-related activities

·  More positive communication with children

·  Engaged in more activities (positive) as a family

·  Gained access to community resources

·  Expanded support networks

Participation in the project leads to increased knowledge about the negative effects of drug abuse and decreased use of alcohol and tobacco. Participants improve school attendance, improve grades, and get fewer suspensions. Another positive outcome from the project is seen in the youths’ attitudes toward older adults. At the same time, the project helps the older volunteers feel more productive, experience a greater sense of purpose, and regain a central role in their communities. Evaluations of similar programs find that participants who were retained in the program were more likely to report higher levels of family supervision, lower family conflict, and fewer family relocations during the past year than those who left the program.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Should such issues as early onset and problem behavior syndrome be considered when choosing participants for prevention programs such as Across Ages?

2.

Could participation in such programs label or stigmatize participants and thereafter lock them into a deviant role?

SOURCES: JCA Heyman Interages Center,  http://www.accessjca.org/article/212/programs/jca-heyman-interages-center/jca-heyman-interages-center-about  (accessed June 2013); Debra Zand, Nicole Renick Thomson, Mary Dugan, James A. Braun, Pat Holterman-Hommes, and Patricia L. Hunter, “Predictors of Retention in an Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention Study,” Evaluation Review 30:209–222 (2006); Across Ages,  http://acrossages.org/evaluations  (accessed June 2013).

Developmental theory suggests that under some circumstances kids can knife off from a delinquent career and pursue conventional behavior. Providing opportunities for them to build social capital can help. Grammy award winner, philanthropist, and Boys and Girls Clubs (BGCA) alumnus Usher and his mother, Jonnetta Patton, unveil a billboard featuring his childhood photo as part of Boys and Girls Clubs of America’s “BE GREAT” campaign. Usher joins the likes of Denzel Washington, Shaquille O’Neal, Jackie Joyner-Kersee, and Muhammad Ali as part of BGCA’s advocacy campaign, featuring successful Boys and Girls Clubs kids and encouraging every American to help young people BE GREAT.

·  Children of high-risk families usually enter the education process poorly prepared for its social, emotional, and cognitive demands. Their parents often are unprepared to relate effectively with school staff, and a poor home-school bond often aggravates the child’s adjustment problems. They may be grouped with other children who are similarly unprepared. This peer group may be negatively influenced by disruptive classroom contexts and punitive teachers.

·  Over time, aggressive and disruptive children are rejected by families and peers and tend to receive less support from teachers. All of these processes increase the risk of antisocial behaviors, in a process that begins in elementary school and lasts throughout adolescence. During this period, peer influences, academic difficulties, and dysfunctional personal identity development can contribute to serious conduct problems and related risky behaviors. 160

Compared with children in the control group, children in the intervention group displayed significantly less aggressive behavior at home, in the classroom, and on the playground. By the end of third grade, 37 percent of the intervention group had become free of conduct problems, compared with 27 percent of the control group. By the end of elementary school, 33 percent of the intervention group had a developmental trajectory of decreasing conduct problems, compared with 27 percent of the control group. Furthermore, placement in special education by the end of elementary school was about one-fourth lower in the intervention group than in the control group.

Group differences continued through adolescence. Court records indicate that by eighth grade, 38 percent of the intervention group boys had been arrested, in contrast with 42 percent of the control group. Finally, psychiatric interviews after ninth grade indicate that the Fast Track intervention reduced serious conduct disorder by over a third, from 27 percent to 17 percent. These effects generalized across gender and ethnic groups and across the wide range of child and family characteristics measured by Fast Track. The Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature (on the previous spread) describes another developmental-based program, Across Ages.

SUMMARY

· 1 Compare and contrast the three forms of developmental theory

·  Developmental theory of delinquency looks at the onset, continuity, and termination of a delinquent career.

·  Life-course theory suggests that delinquent behavior is a dynamic process, influenced by individual characteristics as well as social experiences, and the factors that cause antisocial behaviors change dramatically over a person’s life span.

·  Propensity theory suggests that a stable feature, characteristic, property, or condition, such as defective intelligence or impulsive personality, makes some people delinquency prone over the life course.

·  Trajectory theory suggests that there is more than one path to a delinquent career.

· 2 Trace the history of and influences on developmental theory

·  The Gluecks followed the careers of known delinquents to determine the social, biological, and psychological characteristics that predicted persistent offending.

·  The most important of these factors was family relations, considered in terms of quality of discipline and emotional ties with parents.

·  The Philadelphia cohort research by Marvin Wolfgang and his associates was another milestone in explaining delinquent career development.

· 3 Know the principles of the life-course approach to developmental theory

·  According to the life-course view, even as toddlers people begin relationships and behaviors that will determine their adult life course.

·  Some individuals are incapable of maturing in a reasonable and timely fashion because of family, environmental, or personal problems.

·  A positive life experience may help some kids desist from delinquency for a while, whereas a negative one may cause them to resume their activities.

·  Disruptions in life’s major transitions can be destructive and ultimately can promote delinquency.

·  As people make important life transitions—from child to adolescent, from adolescent to adult, from unwed to married—the nature of social interactions changes.

· 4 Be familiar with the concept of problem behavior syndrome

·  The developmental view is that delinquency may best be understood as one of many social problems faced by at-risk youth, a view called problem behavior syndrome (PBS).

·  According to this view, delinquency is one among a group of interrelated antisocial behaviors that cluster together.

·  PBS typically involves family dysfunction, sexual and physical abuse, substance abuse, smoking, precocious sexuality and early pregnancy, educational underachievement, suicide attempts, sensation seeking, and unemployment.

· 5 Articulate the principles of Sampson and Laub’s age-graded life-course theory

·  Repeat negative experiences create a condition called cumulative disadvantage. Serious problems in adolescence undermine life chances and reduce employability and social relations. People who increase their cumulative disadvantage risk continued offending.

·  Positive life experiences and relationships can help people become reattached to society and allow them to knife off from a delinquent career path. Two critical turning points are marriage and career.

·  Informal social control is a key element that helps at-risk kids avoid a life of crime.

·  Another vital feature that helps people desist from delinquency is “human agency,” or the purposeful execution of choice and free will.

· 6 Be able to define the concept of a latent trait

·  A number of people in the population have a personal attribute, or latent trait, that may be either present at birth or established early in life, and it can remain stable over time.

·  Suspected latent traits include defective intelligence, damaged or impulsive personality, genetic abnormalities, the physical-chemical functioning of the brain, and environmental influences on brain function such as drugs, chemicals, and injuries.

·  Because latent traits are stable, people who are antisocial during adolescence are the most likely to persist in crime.

· 7 Know the principles and assumptions of the General Theory of Crime

·  People with limited self-control tend to be impulsive; they are insensitive to other people’s feelings, physical (rather than mental), risk takers, shortsighted, and nonverbal.

·  Because those with low self-control enjoy risky, exciting, or thrilling behaviors with immediate gratification, they are more likely to enjoy delinquent acts, which require stealth, agility, speed, and power, than conventional acts, which demand long-term study and cognitive and verbal skills.

·  Low self-control develops early in life and remains stable into and through adulthood.

·  Gottfredson and Hirschi trace the root cause of poor self-control to inadequate childrearing practices that begin soon after birth and can influence neural development.

·  Gottfredson and Hirschi claim that the principles of self-control theory can explain all varieties of delinquent behavior and all the social and behavioral correlates of crime.

· 8 Discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the GTC

·  By integrating the concepts of socialization and delinquency, Gottfredson and Hirschi help explain why some people who lack self-control can escape delinquency, and, conversely, why some people who have self-control might not escape delinquency.

·  Some critics argue that the theory is tautological (involves circular reasoning): How do we know when people are impulsive? When they commit crimes! Are all delinquents impulsive? Of course, or else they would not have broken the law!

· 9 Identify the different trajectories delinquency takes

·  Career delinquents may travel more than a single road. Some may specialize in violence and extortion; some may be involved in theft and fraud; others may engage in a variety of delinquent acts.

·  Some offenders may begin their careers early in life, whereas others are late bloomers who begin committing delinquency when most people desist. Some are frequent offenders, while others travel a more moderate path.

·  Some offenders are violent and aggressive, others are stubborn and defiant, while another path begins with being underhanded and sneaky.

· 10 Distinguish between adolescent-limited and life-course persistent offenders

·  According to psychologist Terrie Moffitt, adolescent-limited offenders may be considered “typical teenagers” who get into minor scrapes and engage in what might be considered rebellious teenage behavior with their friends.

·  They reduce the frequency of their offending as they mature to around age 18.

·  In contrast, life-course persisters begin their offending career at a very early age and continue to offend well into adulthood.

·  Moffitt finds that life-course persisters combine family dysfunction with severe neurological problems that predispose them to antisocial behavior patterns.

KEY TERMS

developmental theory,  p. 206

life-course theory,  p. 207

latent trait,  p. 207

propensity,  p. 207

trajectory theory,  p. 207

problem behavior syndrome (PBS),  p. 209

integrated theories,  p. 212

social capital,  p. 213

turning points,  p. 214

cumulative disadvantage,  p. 214

state dependence,  p. 218

General Theory of Crime (GTC),  p. 219

self-control theory,  p. 220

authority conflict pathway,  p. 227

covert pathway,  p. 227

overt pathway,  p. 227

adolescent-limited offenders,  p. 228

life-course persisters,  p. 228

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Do you consider yourself to have social capital? If so, what form does it take?

2.

Someone you know gets a perfect score on the SAT. What personal, family, and social characteristics do you think this individual has? Another person becomes a serial killer. Without knowing this person, what personal, family, and social characteristics do you think this individual has? If “bad behavior” is explained by multiple problems, is “good behavior” explained by multiple strengths?

3.

Do you believe it is a latent trait that makes a kid delinquency prone, or is delinquency a function of environment and socialization?

4.

Do you agree with the multiple pathways model? Do you know people who have traveled down those paths?

5.

Do people really change, or do they stay the same but appear to be different because their life circumstances have changed?

VIEWPOINT

Luis Francisco was the leader of the Latin Kings gang in New York before he was convicted of murder in 2011 and sentenced to life imprisonment plus 45 years. Luis’s life has been filled with displacement, poverty, and chronic predatory delinquency. The son of a prostitute, at the age of 12 he was sent to juvenile reformatory for robbery. He had trouble in school, and teachers described him as having attention problems; he dropped out in the seventh grade. On his 15th birthday, he joined the Latin Kings and soon shot and killed a gang rival. He fled back to Chicago and after being apprehended he was sentenced to nine years for second-degree manslaughter in an Illinois prison. Transferred back to New York to be near his family, Luis started a prison chapter of the Latin Kings. As King Blood, Inka, First Supreme Crown, Francisco ruled 2,000 Latin Kings in and out of prison. Disciplinary troubles erupted when some Kings were found stealing from the organization. Infuriated, King Blood wrote to his street lieutenants and ordered their termination. Federal authorities, who had been monitoring Francisco’s mail, arrested 35 Latin Kings. The other 34 pleaded guilty; only Francisco insisted on a trial, where he was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced to life in prison.

·  Explain Luis’s behavior patterns from a developmental perspective.

·  How would a propensity theorist explain his escalating delinquent activities?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

The Seattle Social Development Project ( http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=64 ) uses the social development model as a cornerstone for their treatment programs. The Life History Studies Program at the University of Pittsburgh ( http://www.wpic.pitt.edu/research/famhist/ ) is a longitudinal study designed to test the principles of life-course theory. You might also want to read some of the highlights of the Rochester Youth Study ( http://www.albany.edu/hindelang/youth_study.html ), another longitudinal study of the delinquent life course. All three websites can be accessed via the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com  by selecting the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Christina Ng, “How Ohio School Killer T. J. Lane Snuck ‘Killer’ T-Shirt Past Authorities,” ABC News, March 20, 2013,  http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-school-killer-tj-lane-snuck-killer-shirt/story?id=18774193  (accessed June 2013); David S. Glasier, “T. J. Lane’s History in Focus: Records Indicate Chardon Shooting Suspect Has Troubled Past,” News Herald, March 11, 2012,  http://news-herald.com/articles/2012/03/11/news/nh5209273.txt  (accessed June 2013).

2. Hanno Petras, Paul Nieuwbeerta, and Alex R. Piquero, “Participation and Frequency During Criminal Careers Across the Life Span,” Criminology 48:607–638 (2010).

3. See, generally, Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, 500 Criminal Careers (New York: Knopf, 1930); Glueck and Glueck, One Thousand Juvenile Delinquents (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934); Glueck and Glueck, Predicting Delinquency and Crime (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 82–83; Glueck and Glueck, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950).

4. Glueck and Glueck, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency.

5. Ibid., p. 48.

6. Marvin Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).

7. Alex Piquero, “Taking Stock of Developmental Trajectories of Criminal Activity over the Life Course,” in Akiva Liberman, ed., The Long View of Crime: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research (New York: Springer, 2008), pp. 23–78.

8. Raymond Paternoster, Charles Dean, Alex Piquero, Paul Mazerolle, and Robert Brame, “Generality, Continuity, and Change in Offending,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 13:231–266 (1997).

9. Marvin Krohn, Alan Lizotte, and Cynthia Perez, “The Interrelationship between Substance Use and Precocious Transitions to Adult Sexuality,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 38:87–103 (1997), at 88.

10. Jennifer M. Beyers and Rolf Loeber, “Untangling Developmental Relations between Depressed Mood and Delinquency in Male Adolescents,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31:247–266 (2003).

11. Stephanie Milan and Ellen Pinderhughes, “Family Instability and Child Maladjustment Trajectories during Elementary School,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34:43–56 (2006).

12. Deirdre Healy, “Betwixt and Between: The Role of Psychosocial Factors in the Early Stages of Desistance,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47:419–443 (2010).

13. Joan McCord, “Family Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, and Adult Criminality,” Criminology 29:397–417 (1991).

14. Paul Mazerolle, “Delinquent Definitions and Participation Age: Assessing the Invariance Hypothesis,” Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 6:151–168 (1997).

15. Peggy Giordano, Stephen Cernkovich, and Jennifer Rudolph, “Gender, Delinquency, and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation?” American Journal of Sociology 107:990–1064 (2002).

16. John Hagan and Holly Foster, “S/He’s a Rebel: Toward a Sequential Stress Theory of Delinquency and Gendered Pathways to Disadvantage in Emerging Adulthood,” Social Forces 82:53–86 (2003).

17. G. R. Patterson, Barbara DeBaryshe, and Elizabeth Ramsey, “A Developmental Perspective on Antisocial Behavior,” American Psychologist 44:329–335 (1989).

18. Robert Sampson and John Laub, “Crime and Deviance in the Life Course,” American Review of Sociology 18:63–84 (1992).

19. David Farrington, Darrick Jolliffe, Rolf Loeber, Madga Stouthamer-Loeber, and Larry Kalb, “The Concentration of Offenders in Families, and Family Criminality in the Prediction of Boys’ Delinquency,” Journal of Adolescence 24:579–596 (2001).

20. Lara DePadilla, Molly Perkins, Kirk Elifson, and Claire Sterk, “Adult Criminal Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Inquiry Into Correlates and Mechanisms Over the Life Course,” Criminal Justice Review 37:110–126 (2012).

21. Magda Stouthamer-Loeber and Evelyn Wei, “The Precursors of Young Fatherhood and Its Effect on Delinquency of Teenage Males,” Journal of Adolescent Health 22:56–65 (1998); Richard Jessor, John Donovan, and Francis Costa, Beyond Adolescence: Problem Behavior and Young Adult Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Xavier Coll, Fergus Law, Aurelio Tobias, Keith Hawton, and Joseph Tomas, “Abuse and Deliberate Self-Poisoning in Women: A Matched Case-Control Study,” Child Abuse and Neglect 25:1291–1293 (2001).

22. Richard Miech, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, Bradley Entner Wright, and Phil Silva, “Low Socioeconomic Status and Mental Disorders: A Longitudinal Study of Selection and Causation during Young Adulthood,” American Journal of Sociology 104:1096–1131 (1999); Krohn, Lizotte, and Perez, “The Interrelationship between Substance Use and Precocious Transitions to Adult Sexuality,” p. 88; Richard Jessor, “Risk Behavior in Adolescence: A Psychosocial Framework for Understanding and Action,” in D. E. Rogers and E. Ginzburg, eds., Adolescents at Risk: Medical and Social Perspectives (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1992).

23. Deborah Capaldi and Gerald Patterson, “Can Violent Offenders Be Distinguished from Frequent Offenders? Prediction from Childhood to Adolescence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33:206–231 (1996).

24. Gina Wingood, Ralph DiClemente, Rick Crosby, Kathy Harrington, Susan Davies, and Edward Hook III, “Gang Involvement and the Health of African American Female Adolescents,” Pediatrics 110:57 (2002).

25. David Husted, Nathan Shapira, and Martin Lazoritz, “Adolescent Gambling, Substance Use, and Other Delinquent Behavior,” Psychiatric Times 20:52–55 (2003).

26. Terence Thornberry, Carolyn Smith, and Gregory Howard, “Risk Factors for Teenage Fatherhood,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 59:505–522 (1997); Todd Miller, Timothy Smith, Charles Turner, Margarita Guijarro, and Amanda Hallet, “A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on Hostility and Physical Health,” Psychological Bulletin 119:322–348 (1996); Marianne Junger, “Accidents and Crime,” in T. Hirschi and M. Gottfredson, eds., The Generality of Deviance (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1993).

27. James Marquart, Victoria Brewer, Patricia Simon, and Edward Morse, “Lifestyle Factors among Female Prisoners with Histories of Psychiatric Treatment,” Journal of Criminal Justice 29:319–328 (2001); Rolf Loeber, David Farrington, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Terrie Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, and Don Lynam, “Male Mental Health Problems, Psychopathy, and Personality Traits: Key Findings from the First 14 Years of the Pittsburgh Youth Study,” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 4:273–297 (2002).

28. Robert Johnson, S. Susan Su, Dean Gerstein, Hee-Choon Shin, and John Hoffman, “Parental Influences on Deviant Behavior in Early Adolescence: A Logistic Response Analysis of Age and Gender-Differentiated Effects,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 11:167–192 (1995); Judith Brooks, Martin Whiteman, and Patricia Cohen, “Stage of Drug Use, Aggression, and Theft/Vandalism,” in Howard Kaplan, ed., Drugs, Crime and Other Deviant Adaptations: Longitudinal Studies (New York: Plenum Press, 1995), pp. 83–96.

29. Helene Raskin White, Peter Tice, Rolf Loeber, and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, “Illegal Acts Committed by Adolescents under the Influence of Alcohol and Drugs,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39: 131–153 (2002).

30. David Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth Ridder, “Show Me the Child at Seven II: Childhood Intelligence and Later Outcomes in Adolescence and Young Adulthood,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 46:850–859 (2005).

31. Paul Nieuwbeerta and Alex Piquero, “Mortality Rates and Causes of Death of Convicted Dutch Criminals 25 Years Later,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45:256–286 (2008).

32. Fergusson, Horwood, and Ridder, “Show Me the Child at Seven II.”

33. Krysia Mossakowski, “Dissecting the Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status on Mental Health in Young Adulthood,” Research on Aging 30:649–671 (2008).

34. Jacqueline Schneider, “The Link Between Shoplifting and Burglary: The Booster Burglar,” British Journal of Criminology 45:395–401 (2005).

35. Glenn Deane, Richard Felson, and David Armstrong, “An Examination of Offense Specialization Using Marginal Logit Models,” Criminology 43:955–988 (2005).

36. Christopher Sullivan, Jean Marie McGloin, Travis Pratt, and Alex Piquero, “Rethinking the ‘Norm’ of Offender Generality: Investigating Specialization in the Short-Term,” Criminology 44:199–233 (2006).

37. Christopher Sullivan, Jean Marie McGloin, James Ray, and Michael Caudy, “Detecting Specialization in Offending: Comparing Analytic Approaches,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25:419–441 (2009).

38. Jean Marie McGloin, Christopher J. Sullivan, and Alex R. Piquero, “Aggregating to Versatility? Transitions among Offender Types in the Short Term,” British Journal of Criminology 49:243–264 (2009).

39. Alex R. Piquero and He Len Chung, “On the Relationships between Gender, Early Onset, and the Seriousness of Offending,” Journal of Criminal Justice 29:189–206 (2001).

40. David Nurco, Timothy Kinlock, and Mitchell Balter, “The Severity of Preaddiction Criminal Behavior among Urban, Male Narcotic Addicts and Two Nonaddicted Control Groups,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:293–316 (1993).

41. Hanno Petras, Nicholas Ialongo, Sharon Lambert, Sandra Barrueco, Cindy Schaeffer, Howard Chilcoat, and Sheppard Kellam, “The Utility of Elementary School TOCA-R Scores in Identifying Later Criminal Court Violence Among Adolescent Females,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 44:790–797 (2005); Hanno Petras, Howard Chilcoat, Philip Leaf, Nicholas Ialongo, and Sheppard Kellam, “Utility of TOCA-R Scores during the Elementary School Years in Identifying Later Violence among Adolescent Males,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43:88–96 (2004).

42. W. Alex Mason, Rick Kosterman, J. David Hawkins, Todd Herrenkohl, Liliana Lengua, and Elizabeth McCauley, “Predicting Depression, Social Phobia, and Violence in Early Adulthood from Childhood Behavior Problems,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 43:307–315 (2004); Rolf Loeber and David Farrington, “Young Children Who Commit Crime: Epidemiology, Developmental Origins, Risk Factors, Early Interventions, and Policy Implications,” Development and Psychopathology 12:737–762 (2000); Patrick Lussier, Jean Proulx, and Marc Leblanc, “Criminal Propensity, Deviant Sexual Interests and Criminal Activity of Sexual Aggressors Against Women: A Comparison of Explanatory Models,” Criminology 43:249–281 (2005).

43. Dawn Jeglum Bartusch, Donald Lynam, Terrie Moffitt, and Phil Silva, “Is Age Important? Testing a General versus a Developmental Theory of Antisocial Behavior,” Criminology 35:13–48 (1997).

44. Daniel Nagin and Richard Tremblay, “What Has Been Learned from Group-Based Trajectory Modeling? Examples from Physical Aggression and Other Problem Behaviors,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602:82–117 (2005).

45. Mary Campa, Catherine Bradshaw, John Eckenrode, and David Zielinski, “Patterns of Problem Behavior in Relation to Thriving and Precocious Behavior in Late Adolescence,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 37:627–640 (2008); Mason, Kosterman, Hawkins, Herrenkohl, Lengua, and McCauley, “Predicting Depression, Social Phobia, and Violence in Early Adulthood from Childhood Behavior Problems”; Loeber and Farrington, “Young Children Who Commit Crime.”

46. Kristin Carbone-Lopez and Jody Miller, “Precocious Role Entry as a Mediating Factor in Women’s Methamphetamine Use: Implications for Life-Course and Pathways Research,” Criminology 50:187–220 (2012).

47. Mason, Kosterman, Hawkins, Herrenkohl, Lengua, and McCauley, “Predicting Depression, Social Phobia, and Violence in Early Adulthood from Childhood Behavior Problems”; Ronald Prinz and Suzanne Kerns, “Early Substance Use by Juvenile Offenders,” Child Psychiatry and Human Development 33:263–268 (2003).

48. David Gadd and Stephen Farrall, “Criminal Careers, Desistance and Subjectivity: Interpreting Men’s Narratives of Change,” Theoretical Criminology 8:123–156 (2004).

49. Mason, Kosterman, Hawkins, Herrenkohl, Lengua, and McCauley, “Predicting Depression, Social Phobia, and Violence in Early Adulthood from Childhood Behavior Problems”; Prinz and Kerns, “Early Substance Use by Juvenile Offenders.”

50. Sarah Bacon, Raymond Paternoster, and Robert Brame, “Understanding the Relationship between Onset Age and Subsequent Offending during Adolescence,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38:301–311 (2009).

51. G. R. Patterson, L. Crosby, and S. Vuchinich, “Predicting Risk for Early Police Arrest,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 8:335–355 (1992).

52. David Farrington, “Key Results from the First Forty Years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development,” in Terence Thornberry and Marvin Krohn, eds., Taking Stock of Delinquency: An Overview of Findings from Contemporary Longitudinal Studies (New York: Kluwer, 2002), pp. 137–185; David Farrington, “The Development of Offending and Anti-Social Behavior from Childhood: Key Findings from the Cambridge Study of Delinquent Development,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36:2–36 (1995); David Farrington, Understanding and Preventing Youth Crime (London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1996).

53. Stephen Farrall and Benjamin Bowling, “Structuration, Human Development, and Desistance from Crime,” British Journal of Criminology 39:253–268 (1999).

54. Robert Sampson and John Laub, Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).

55. Robert Sampson and John Laub, “A Life-Course View of the Development of Crime,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 602:12–45 (2005).

56. Daniel Nagin and Raymond Paternoster, “Personal Capital and Social Control: The Deterrence Implications of a Theory of Criminal Offending,” Criminology 32:581–606 (1994).

57. Daniel Nagin and Raymond Paternoster, “Personal Capital and Social Control: The Deterrence Implications of a Theory of Criminal Offending,” Criminology 32:581–606 (1994).

58. Joseph Murray, Rolf Loeber, and Dustin Pardini, “Parental Involvement in the Criminal Justice System and the Development of Youth Theft, Marijuana Use, Depression, and Poor Academic Performance,” Criminology 50:255–302 (2012).

59. Michael Roettger, and Raymond Swisher, “Associations of Fathers’ History of Incarceration with Sons’ Criminality and Arrest among Black, White, and Hispanic Males in the United States,” Criminology 49:1109–1148 (2011).

60. Joan Reid, “Exploratory Review of Route-Specific, Gendered, and Age-Graded Dynamics of Exploitation: Applying Life Course Theory to Victimization in Sex Trafficking in North America,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17:257–271 (2012).

61. Leonore M. J. Simon, “Social Bond and Criminal Record History of Acquaintance and Stranger Violent Offenders,” Journal of Crime and Justice 22:131–146 (1999).

62. Raymond Paternoster and Robert Brame, “Multiple Routes to Delinquency? A Test of Developmental and General Theories of Crime,” Criminology 35:49–84 (1997).

63. Spencer De Li, “Legal Sanctions and Youths’ Status Achievement: A Longitudinal Study,” Justice Quarterly 16:377–401 (1999).

64. Shawn Bushway, “The Impact of an Arrest on the Job Stability of Young White American Men,” Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 35:454–479 (1999).

65. Robert Hoge, D. A. Andrews, and Alan Leschied, “An Investigation of Risk and Protective Factors in a Sample of Youthful Offenders,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 37:419–424 (1996).

66. David S. Kirk, “Residential Change as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Crime: Desistance or Temporary Cessation?” Criminology 50:329–358 (2012).

67. Richard Arum and Irenee Beattie, “High School Experience and the Risk of Adult Incarceration,” Criminology 37:515–540 (1999).

68. Ross Macmillan, Barbara J. McMorris, and Candace Kruttschnitt, “Linked Lives: Stability and Change in Maternal Circumstances and Trajectories of Antisocial Behavior in Children,” Child Development 75:205–220 (2004).

69. Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, Bradley Entner Wright, and Phil Silva, “Early Failure in the Labor Market: Childhood and Adolescent Predictors of Unemployment in the Transition to Adulthood,” American Sociological Review 63:424–451 (1998).

70. Robert Sampson and John Laub, “Socioeconomic Achievement in the Life Course of Disadvantaged Men: Military Service as a Turning Point, circa 1940–1965,” American Sociological Review 61:347–367 (1996).

71. Christopher Uggen, “Ex-Offenders and the Conformist Alternative: A Job Quality Model of Work and Crime,” Social Problems 46:127–151 (1999).

72. Ronald L. Simons and Ashley B. Barr, “Shifting Perspectives: Cognitive Changes Mediate the Impact of Romantic Relationships on Desistance from Crime” Justice Quarterly, first published online July 20, 2012.

73. Matthew Larson and Gary Sweeten, “Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Romantic Dissolution, Offending, and Substance Use During the Transition to Adulthood,” Criminology 50:605–636 (2012).

74. Bill McCarthy and Teresa Casey, “Love, Sex, and Crime: Adolescent Romantic Relationships and Offending,” American Sociological Review 73:944–969 (2008).

75. Rand Conger, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, 2013,  http://www.isbr.iastate.edu/staff/Personals/rdconger/  (accessed June 2013).

76. Ryan Schroeder, Peggy Giordano, and Stephen Cernkovich, “Drug Use and Desistance Processes,” Criminology 45:191–222 (2007).

77. David Rowe, D. Wayne Osgood, and W. Alan Nicewander, “A Latent Trait Approach to Unifying Criminal Careers,” Criminology 28:237–270 (1990).

78. Lee Ellis, “Neurohormonal Bases of Varying Tendencies to Learn Delinquent and Criminal Behavior,” in E. Morris and C. Braukmann, eds., Behavioral Approaches to Crime and Delinquency (New York: Plenum, 1988), pp. 499–518.

79. David Rowe, Alexander Vazsonyi, and Daniel Flannery, “Sex Differences in Crime: Do Means and Within-Sex Variation Have Similar Causes?” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:84–100 (1995).

80. Bacon, Paternoster, and Brame, “Understanding the Relationship between Onset Age and Subsequent Offending during Adolescence.”

81. Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, eds., The Generality of Deviance (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1994), p. 3; Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990).

82. Gottfredson and Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, p. 90.

83. Ibid., p. 89.

84. Alex Piquero and Stephen Tibbetts, “Specifying the Direct and Indirect Effects of Low Self-Control and Situational Factors in Offenders’ Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of Rational Offending,” Justice Quarterly 13:481–508 (1996).

85. David Forde and Leslie Kennedy, “Risky Lifestyles, Routine Activities, and the General Theory of Crime,” Justice Quarterly 14:265–294 (1997).

86. Gottfredson and Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, p. 112.

87. Ibid.

88. Christopher Schreck, Eric Stewart, and Bonnie Fisher, “Self-Control, Victimization, and Their Influence on Risky Lifestyles: A Longitudinal Analysis Using Panel Data,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 22: 319–340 (2006).

89. Ryan Meldrum, Jacob Young, Carter Hay, and Jamie Flexon, “Does Self-Control Influence Maternal Attachment? A Reciprocal Effects Analysis from Early Childhood Through Middle Adolescence,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, first published online March 24, 2012; Stacey Nofziger, “The ‘Cause’ of Low Self-Control: The Influence of Maternal Self-Control,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45:191–224 (2008).

90. Kevin M. Beaver and John Paul Wright, “Evaluating the Effects of Birth Complications on Low Self-Control in a Sample of Twins,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49:450–472 (2005).

91. Kevin M. Beaver, J. Eagle Shutt, Brian Boutwell, Marie Ratchford, Kathleen Roberts, and J. C. Barnes, “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Levels of Self-Control and Delinquent Peer Affiliation: Results from a Longitudinal Sample of Adolescent Twins,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 36:41–60 (2009).

92. Gottfredson and Hirschi, A General Theory of Delinquency, p. 27.

93. For a review of this issue, see Anne Campbell, Men, Women, and Aggression (New York: Basic Books, 1993).

94. David Brownfield and Ann Marie Sorenson, “Self-Control and Juvenile Delinquency: Theoretical Issues and an Empirical Assessment of Selected Elements of a General Theory of Crime,” Deviant Behavior 14:243–264 (1993); Harold Grasmick, Charles Tittle, Robert Bursik, and Bruce Arneklev, “Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:5–29 (1993); John Cochran, Peter Wood, and Bruce Arneklev, “Is the Religiosity–Delinquency Relationship Spurious? A Test of Arousal and Social Control Theories,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31:92–123 (1994); Marc LeBlanc, Marc Ouimet, and Richard Tremblay, “An Integrative Control Theory of Delinquent Behavior: A Validation 1976–1985,” Psychiatry 51:164–176 (1988).

95. Chris Gibson, Christopher Sullivan, Shayne Jones, and Alex Piquero, “Does It Take a Village? Assessing Neighborhood Influences on Children’s Self-Control,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47:31–62 (2010).

96. Brownfield and Sorenson, “Self-Control and Juvenile Delinquency”; Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev, “Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime”; Cochran, Wood, and Arneklev, “Is the Religiosity–Delinquency Relationship Spurious?”; LeBlanc, Ouimet, and Tremblay, “An Integrative Control Theory of Delinquent Behavior.”

97. Sullivan, McGloin, Pratt, and Piquero, “Rethinking the ‘Norm’ of Offender Generality”; Daniel Nagin and Greg Pogarsky, “Time and Punishment: Delayed Consequences and Criminal Behavior,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 20:295–317 (2004).

98. Norman White and Rolf Loeber, “Bullying and Special Education as Predictors of Serious Delinquency,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45:380–397 (2008).

99. Matt Delisi and Michael Vaughn, “The Gottfredson-Hirschi Critiques Revisited: Reconciling Self-Control Theory, Criminal Careers, and Career Criminals,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 52:520–537 (2008).

100. Michael Reisig, Scott Wolfe, and Travis Pratt, “Low Self-Control and the Religiosity-Crime Relationship,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 39:1172–1191 (2012); Michael Reisig, Scott Wolfe, and Kristy Holtfreter, “Legal Cynicism, Legitimacy, and Criminal Offending: The Non-Confounding Effect of Low Self-Control,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 38:1170–1184 (2011); Daniel Nagin and Greg Pogarsky, “Time and Punishment: Delayed Consequences and Criminal Behavior,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 20:295–317 (2004).

101. Michael Benson and Elizabeth Moore, “Are White-Collar and Common Offenders the Same? An Empirical and Theoretical Critique of a Recently Proposed General Theory of Crime,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:251–272 (1992).

102. Ronald Akers, “Self-Control as a General Theory of Crime,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 7:201–211 (1991).

103. Jean-Louis Van Gelder and Reinout E. De Vries, “Traits and States: Integrating Personality and Affect into a Model of Criminal Decision Making,” Criminology 50:637–371 (2012).

104. Richard Wiebe, “Reconciling Psychopathy and Low Self-Control,” Justice Quarterly 20:297–336 (2003).

105. Alex Piquero, John MacDonald, Adam Dobrin, Leah Daigle, and Francis Cullen, “Self-Control, Violent Offending, and Homicide Victimization: Assessing the General Theory of Crime,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 21:55–71 (2005).

106. Chris Gibson, “An Investigation of Neighborhood Disadvantage, Low Self-Control, and Violent Victimization Among Youth,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10:41–63 (2012).

107. Gregory Zimmerman, “Impulsivity, Offending, and the Neighborhood: Investigating the Person–Context Nexus,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26:301–332 (2010).

108. Alan Feingold, “Gender Differences in Personality: A Meta Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 116:429–456 (1994).

109. Charles Tittle, David Ward, and Harold Grasmick, “Gender, Age, and Crime/Deviance: A Challenge to Self-Control Theory,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:426–453 (2003).

110. Brent Benda, “Gender Differences in Life-Course Theory of Recidivism: A Survival Analysis,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 49:325–342 (2005).

111. Gottfredson and Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime, p. 153.

112. Delbert Elliott and Scott Menard, “Delinquent Friends and Delinquent Behavior: Temporal and Developmental Patterns,” in J. David Hawkins, ed., Crime and Delinquency: Current Theories (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

113. Dana Haynie, Peggy Giordano, Wendy Manning, and Monica Longmore, “Adolescent Romantic Relationships and Delinquency Involvement,” Criminology 43:177–210 (2005).

114. Julie Horney, D. Wayne Osgood, and Ineke Haen Marshall, “Criminal Careers in the Short-Term: Intra-Individual Variability in Crime and Its Relations to Local Life Circumstances,” American Sociological Review 60:655–673 (1995); Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, “Killing the Competition,” Human Nature 1:83–109 (1990).

115. Mark Palermo, Massimo Di Luigi, Gloria Dal Forno, Cinzia Dominici, David Vicomandi, Augusto Sambucioni, Luca Proietti, and Patrizio Pasqualetti, “Externalizing and Oppositional Behaviors and Karate-do: The Way of Crime Prevention,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 50:654–660 (2006).

116. Charles R. Tittle and Harold G. Grasmick, “Criminal Behavior and Age: A Test of Three Provocative Hypotheses,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88:309–342 (1997).

117. Steven Levitt and Sudhir Alladi Venkatesh, “An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang’s Finances,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 13(4): 755–789 (2000).

118. Ibid., p. 773.

119. Yair Listokin, “Future-Oriented Gang Members? Gang Finances and the Theory of Present-Oriented Criminals,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 64:1073–1083 (2005).

120. Alex Piquero, Wesley Jennings, and David Farrington, “On the Malleability of Self-Control: Theoretical and Policy Implications Regarding a General Theory of Crime,” Justice Quarterly 27:803–834 (2010).

121. Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, “Rethinking the Juvenile Justice System,” Crime and Delinquency 39:262–271 (1993).

122. George E. Higgins, Melissa L. Ricketts, Catherine D. Marcum, and Margaret Mahoney, “Primary Socialization Theory: An Exploratory Study of Delinquent Trajectories,” Criminal Justice Studies 23:133–146 (2010).

123. Nicole Leeper Piquero and Terrie E. Moffitt, “Can Childhood Factors Predict Workplace Deviance?” Justice Quarterly, published online February 21, 2012.

124. Yao Zheng and Harrington Cleveland, “Identifying Gender-Specific Developmental Trajectories of Nonviolent and Violent Delinquency from Adolescence to Young Adulthood,” Journal of Adolescence 36:371–381 (2013).

125. Donald Lynam, Alex Piquero, and Terrie Moffitt, “Specialization and the Propensity to Violence: Support from Self-Reports but Not Official Records,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 20:215–228 (2004).

126. Stacy Tzoumakis, Patrick Lussier, Marc Le Blanc, and Garth Davies, “Onset, Offending Trajectories, and Crime Specialization in Violence,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11:143–164 (2013).

127. Alex Piquero, Robert Brame, Paul Mazerolle, and Rudy Haapanen, “Crime in Emerging Adulthood,” Criminology 40:137–170 (2002).

128. Wesley Jennings and Jennifer Reingle, “On the Number and Shape of Developmental/Life-Course Violence, Aggression, and Delinquency Trajectories: A State-of-the-Art Review,” Journal of Criminal Justice 40:472–489 (2012).

129. Ick-Joong Chung, Karl G. Hill, J. David Hawkins, Lewayne Gilchrist, and Daniel Nagin, “Childhood Predictors of Offense Trajectories,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 39:60–91 (2002).

130. Amy D’Unger, Kenneth Land, Patricia McCall, and Daniel Nagin, “How Many Latent Classes of Delinquent/Criminal Careers? Results from Mixed Poisson Regression Analyses,” American Journal of Sociology 103:1593–1630 (1998).

131. Chung, Hill, Hawkins, Gilchrist, and Nagin, “Childhood Predictors of Offense Trajectories.”

132. Bacon, Paternoster, and Brame, “Understanding the Relationship between Onset Age and Subsequent Offending during Adolescence.”

133. Victor van der Geest, Arjan Blokland, and Catrien Bijleveld, “Delinquent Development in a Sample of High-Risk Youth: Shape, Content, and Predictors of Delinquent Trajectories from Age 12 to 32,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 46:111–143 (2009).

134. Terrie Moffitt, “A Review of Research on the Taxonomy of Life-Course Persistent versus Adolescence-Limited Antisocial Behavior,” in F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, and K. R. Blevins, eds., Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory, vol. 15 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications, 2006), pp. 277–311.

135. Xiaojin Chen and Michele Adam, “Are Teen Delinquency Abstainers Social Introverts? A Test of Moffitt’s Theory,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 47:439–468 (2010).

136. Matthew Johnson and Scott Menard, “A Longitudinal Study of Delinquency Abstention: Differences between Life-Course Abstainers and Offenders from Adolescence into Adulthood,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10:278–291 (2012).

137. J. C. Barnes, Kevin Beaver, and Brian Boutwell, “Examining the Genetic Underpinnings to Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy: A Behavioral Genetic Analysis,” Criminology 49:923–954 (2011).

138. Jennifer Gatewood Owens and Lee Ann Slocum, “Abstainers in Adolescence and Adulthood: Exploring the Correlates of Abstention Using Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy,” Crime and Delinquency, published online February 7, 2012.

139. Margit Wiesner and Ranier Silbereisen, “Trajectories of Delinquent Behaviour in Adolescence and Their Covariates: Relations with Initial and Time-Averaged Factors,” Journal of Adolescence 26:753–771 (2003).

140. Donald Lynam, Alex Piquero, and Terrie Moffitt, “Specialization and the Propensity to Violence: Support from Self-Reports but Not Official Records,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 20:215–228 (2004).

141. Jennifer Reingle, Wesley Jennings, and Mildred Maldonado-Molina, “Risk and Protective Factors for Trajectories of Violent Criminality among a Nationally Representative Sample of Early Adolescents,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, published online February 16, 2012.

142. Georgia Zara and David Farrington, “Childhood and Adolescent Predictors of Late Onset Criminal Careers,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38:287–300 (2009).

143. Rolf Loeber, Phen Wung, Kate Keenan, Bruce Giroux, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Wemoet Van Kammen, and Barbara Maughan, “Developmental Pathways in Disruptive Behavior,” Development and Psychopathology 23:12–48 (1993).

144. Alex Piquero and Timothy Brezina, “Testing Moffitt’s Account of Adolescent-Limited Delinquency,” Criminology 39:353–370 (2001).

145. Terrie Moffitt, “Adolescence-Limited and Life-Course Persistent Antisocial Behavior: A Developmental Taxonomy,” Psychological Review 100:674–701 (1993).

146. Terrie Moffitt, “Natural Histories of Delinquency,” in Elmar Weitekamp and Hans-Jurgen Kerner, eds., Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal Behavior (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, 1994), pp. 3–65.

147. Barnes, Beaver, and Boutwell, “Examining the Genetic Underpinnings to Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy.”

148. Brian Boutwell, J. C. Barnes, Raelynn Deaton, and Kevin Beaver, “On the Evolutionary Origins of Life-Course Persistent Offending: A Theoretical Scaffold for Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 322:72–80 (2013).

149. Robert Vermeiren, “Psychopathology and Criminality in Adolescents: A Descriptive and Developmental Perspective,” Clinical Psychology Review 23:277–318 (2003); Paul Mazerolle, Robert Brame, Ray Paternoster, Alex Piquero, and Charles Dean, “Onset Age, Persistence, and Offending Versatility: Comparisons across Sex,” Criminology 38:1143–1172 (2000).

150. Adrian Raine, Rolf Loeber, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Terrie Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, and Don Lynam, “Neurocognitive Impairments in Boys on the Life-Course Persistent Antisocial Path,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 114:38–49 (2005).

151. Per-Olof Wikstrom and Rolf Loeber, “Do Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Cause Well-Adjusted Children to Become Adolescent Delinquents? A Study of Male Juvenile Serious Offending, Individual Risk and Protective Factors, and Neighborhood Context,” Criminology 38: 1109–1142 (2000).

152. Graham Ousey and Pamela Wilcox, “The Interaction of Antisocial Propensity and Life-Course Varying Predictors of Delinquent Behavior: Differences by Method of Estimation and Implications for Theory,” Criminology 45:313–354 (2007).

153. Bradley Entner Wright, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, and Phil Silva, “Low Self-Control, Social Bonds, and Crime: Social Causation, Social Selection, or Both?” Criminology 37:479–514 (1999).

154. Ibid., p. 504.

155. Stephen Cernkovich and Peggy Giordano, “Stability and Change in Antisocial Behavior: The Transition from Adolescence to Early Adulthood,” Criminology 39:371–410 (2001).

156. Heather Lonczk, Robert Abbott, J. David Hawkins, Rick Kosterman, and Richard Catalano, “Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on Sexual Behavior, Pregnancy, Birth, and Sexually Transmitted Disease Outcomes by Age 21 Years,” Archive of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 156:438–447 (2002).

157. Kathleen Bodisch Lynch, Susan Rose Geller, and Melinda G. Schmidt, “Multi-Year Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Resilience-Based Prevention Program for Young Children,” Journal of Primary Prevention 24:335–353 (2004).

158. This section leans on Thomas Tatchell, Phillip Waite, Renny Tatchell, Lynne Durrant, and Dale Bond,” Substance Abuse Prevention in Sixth Grade: The Effect of a Prevention Program on Adolescents’ Risk and Protective Factors,” American Journal of Health Studies 19:54–61 (2004).

159. Nancy Tobler and Howard Stratton, “Effectiveness of School-Based Drug Prevention Programs: A Meta-Analysis of the Research,” Journal of Primary Prevention 18:71–128 (1997).

160. Fast Track Project, Data Center,  http://fasttrackproject.org/datacenter.php  (accessed June 2013).

7: Gender and Delinquency

Chapter Outline

Gender Differences in Development

· Socialization Differences

· Cognitive Differences

· Personality Differences

· Emotional Differences

· What Causes Gender Differences—Biology or Socialization?

Gender Differences and Delinquency

· Gender Patterns in Delinquency

Trait Theory and Female Delinquency

· Early Biological Explanations

· Early Psychological Explanations

· Contemporary Trait Views

· Contemporary Psychological Views

Socialization Views

· Socialization and Delinquency

· Contemporary Socialization Views

Liberal Feminist Views

· Support for Liberal Feminism

Critical Feminist Views

· Patriarchy and Delinquency

· Gender Conflict

· Exploitation and Delinquency

· Power-Control Theory

Gender and the Juvenile Justice System

Learning Objectives

· 1 Be able to discuss the development of interest in female delinquency

· 2 Be familiar with the gender differences in development

· 3 Discuss the basis of gender differences

· 4 Know the trends in gender differences in the delinquency rate

· 5 Be familiar with early biological explanations of female delinquency

· 6 Discuss contemporary trait views of female delinquency

· 7 Discuss the association between socialization and female delinquency

· 8 Know the feminist view of female delinquency

· 9 Be able to discuss Hagan’s power-control theory

· 10 Discuss the treatment of girls in the juvenile justice system

chapter features

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—prevention: Friendly PEERsuasion

Case profile: Rain’s Story

focus on Delinquency: Resilient Girls Can Avoid a Life of Crime

focus on Delinquency: Human Trafficking and the Sexual Exploitation of Children

Youth stories: Rehtaeh Parsons

IN 2012, Amber Wright, 16, was convicted of first-degree murder for her role in the killing of 15-year-old Seath Jackson in Summerfield, Florida; Amber was sentenced to life in prison for the crime. The incident occurred on April 17, 2011, when Amber and her brother Kyle Hooper, 17, and friends Michael Bargo Jr., 20, Justin Soto, 21, and Charlie Kay Ely, 19, decided they were going to kill Jackson. The reason: Bargo was jealous that Seath had been Amber’s boyfriend and had abused her when they dated. But that’s not all. After Seath and Amber broke up, he got involved with another girl and this time Hooper became jealous since he had a crush on Seath’s latest girlfriend. Jealousy and rejection led Amber and friends to plot Seath Jackson’s murder. Amber lured Seath to the murder scene. She sent him text messages and coaxed him to meet her at Ely’s house. When he arrived, Seath was set upon by Amber and her friends, beaten and shot, and his body burnt in a fire. Seath’s charred remains were scooped into five-gallon paint buckets and tossed by the conspirators into a quarry near Ocala, Florida.

After the verdict was read, Amber held her head in her hands and cried. Assistant State Attorney Amy Bernt said in closing arguments that “Amber Wright had the most important role in the murder of Seath Jackson. She was their bait.” Sonia Jackson, Seath’s mother, took the witness stand and read a note, saying, “Amber, we hope that guilt eats you inside and out knowing that you caused all this. Seath would have never been at that house without your manipulation.” 1

Amber Wright’s participation in the Seath Jackson murder case illustrates the involvement of young women in very serious crimes. This is a relatively new phenomenon. In the past, experts considered female delinquency as an aberration, a function of emotional or family-related problems, and as such not an important subject of study. In fact, the few “true” female delinquents were oddities whose criminal activity was a function of having masculine traits and characteristics, a concept referred to today as the  masculinity hypothesis . 2

masculinity hypothesis

View that women who commit crimes have biological and psychological traits similar to those of men.

Contemporary interest in female delinquency has surged, fueled by observations of the struggles young women now face and the fact that they are committing more frequent and serious delinquent acts. Although females still commit fewer delinquent acts than males, the types of delinquent acts that young women engage in today are quite similar to those of young men. Larceny and aggravated assault, the crimes for which most young men are arrested, are also the most common offenses for which females are arrested; there is also evidence that girls are getting more heavily involved in gangs and gang violence. 3

This chapter provides an overview of gender factors in delinquency. We first discuss some of the gender differences in development and how they may relate to offending rates. Then we turn to some theoretical explanations of the causes of female delinquency: (1) the trait view, (2) the socialization view, (3) the liberal feminist view, and (4) the critical feminist view.

The website of the Commonwealth Fund ( http://www.commonwealthfund.org/ ) provides information on the state of adolescent girls and the risks they face. You can also access their site by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Gender Differences in Development

Do gender differences in development, including socialization, cognition, and personality, pave the way for future differences in misbehaving? 4  It is possible that the gender-based traits that produce delinquency may exist as early as infancy, when infant girls show greater control over their emotions, whereas boys are more easily angered and depend more on input from their mothers. 5

Socialization Differences

Psychologists believe that differences in the way females and males are socialized affect their development. Girls may be closer to their parents, especially their mothers, which shields them from antisocial behavior. Since parental attachment is linked to levels of self-control and children who are closer to their parents develop stronger levels of self-control, girls may benefit from both conditions more than boys. 6

Parents may treat boys and girls differently, encouraging what they consider to be appropriate male and female behavior, respectively. It is not surprising that fathers are more likely to teach their sons about using and maintaining weapons while not sharing this knowledge with their daughters: self-report studies show that boys are three times more likely than girls to report hunting or shooting with a family member. 7

Males learn to value independence, whereas females are taught that their self-worth depends on their ability to sustain relationships. Girls, therefore, run the risk of losing themselves in their relationships with others and, because so many relationships go sour, also run the risk of feeling alienated, because of the failure to achieve relational success. 8  It is not surprising that research shows, given a similar set of provocations such as lack of social support from families and peers, that girls react by getting depressed while boys are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors. 9

Socialization also influences aggressive behaviors. Although there are few gender differences in aggression during the first few years of life, girls are socialized to be less aggressive than boys and are supervised more closely. 10  Boys are exposed to more risk factors in their development and are given fewer protections. The combination of greater risk and less protection may manifest itself in levels of antisocial behaviors and aggression. 11  Differences in aggression become noticeable between ages 3 and 6, when children are socialized into organized groups, such as the daycare center. Males are more likely to display physical aggression, whereas females display relational aggression—for example, by excluding disliked peers from play groups. 12

As they mature, girls learn to respond to provocation by feeling anxious, unlike boys, who are encouraged to retaliate. 13  Although females get angry as often as males, many have been taught to blame themselves for such feelings. Females are, therefore, much more likely than males to respond to anger with feelings of depression, anxiety, and shame. Females are socialized to fear that anger will harm relationships; males are encouraged to react with “moral outrage,” blaming others for their discomfort. 14  Michael Rutter, Henri Giller, and Ann Hagell have argued that depression and delinquency represent equivalent outcomes for females and males, respectively. Males and females are taught to cope with stress in different ways, with females being socialized to display higher rates of internalizing responses (depression) and males showing higher rates of externalizing responses (delinquency). 15  So while girls will react to a family crisis by becoming depressed, boys are more likely to externalize their pain with aggressive and violent behaviors. 16

Cognitive Differences

There are also cognitive differences between males and females, starting in childhood. The more replicated findings about gender difference in cognitive performance suggest female superiority on visual-motor speed and language ability and male superiority on mechanical and visual-spatial tasks. 17  Put another way, males excel in tasks that assess the ability to manipulate visual images in working memory, whereas females do better in tasks that require retrieval from long-term memory and the acquisition and use of verbal information. 18  Gender group strengths found in the early school years become more established at adolescence and remain stable through adulthood. 19

Girls learn to speak earlier and faster, and with better pronunciation, most likely because parents talk more to their infant daughters than to their infant sons. A girl’s verbal proficiency enables her to develop a skill that may later help her deal with conflict without resorting to violence. 20  When faced with conflict, women might be more likely to attempt to negotiate, rather than to respond passively or resist physically, especially when they perceive increased threat of harm or death. 21

When girls are aggressive, they are more likely than boys to hide their behavior from adults; girls who bully others are less likely than boys to admit their behavior. 22  Girls are shielded by their moral sense, which directs them to avoid harming others. Their moral sensitivity may counterbalance the effects of family problems. 23  Females display more self-control than males, a factor that has been related to criminality. 24

In most cases cognitive differences are small, narrowing, and usually attributed to cultural expectations. When given training, girls can increase their visual-spatial skills. However, differences still exert a penalty on young girls. For example, performance on the mathematics portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) still favors males: twice as many boys as girls attain scores over 500, and 13 times as many boys as girls attain scores over 700. 25

Personality Differences

Adolescent females use different knowledge than males and have different ways of interpreting their interactions with others. For example, girls score higher on scales measuring agreeableness, while boys are more open to experience. 26

These gender differences may have an impact on self-esteem and self-concept. Research shows that as adolescents develop, male self-esteem and self-concept rise, whereas female self-confidence is lowered. 27  One reason is that girls are more likely to worry about their weight and be more dissatisfied with the size and shape of their bodies. 28  Young girls are regularly confronted with unrealistically high standards of slimness that make them extremely unhappy with their own bodies; it is not surprising that the incidence of eating disorders, such as anorexia and bulimia, has increased markedly in recent years. Psychologist Carol Gilligan uncovered an alternative explanation for this decline in female self-esteem: as girls move into adolescence, they become aware of the conflict between the positive way they see themselves and the negative way society views females. Many girls respond by “losing their voices”—that is, submerging their own feelings and accepting the negative view of women conveyed by adult authorities. 29

Emotional Differences

Girls are often stereotyped as being more emotional than boys, but research shows that in many situations gender difference in emotionality is narrow. 30  Nonetheless, research shows that females are more willing to reveal their feelings and more likely to express concern for others. They are more concerned about finding the “meaning of life” and less interested in competing for material success. 31  A recent review of the literature on emotional development found that girls are more willing to display more positive emotions and internalizing emotions—sadness, anxiety, and sympathy—than boys; in contrast, males display more externalizing emotions—such as anger—than girls. The gender gap in emotion increases with age: girls exhibit more positive emotions as they reach maturity while boys lag behind. 32

Adolescence can be a trying time for young women, and because of the stresses of socialization, many become the victim of psychological problems and disorders. Shown here at Denver’s Children’s Hospital for eating disorder patients, two 15-year-old girls work on their art therapy books during a session at the Ponzio Creative Arts Therapy Program. The program offers art, dance/movement, music, and yoga therapies that help children identify, explore, and transform emotional and psychological difficulties.

This change in emotional maturity may help explain gender differences in teen delinquency rates. Males may have higher levels of delinquency than females because they cannot handle the strain of the teenage years as well as females. 33  Males are more likely to cope with strain through crime, due to their inability to develop the self-control needed to manage their emotions. 34

Concept Summary 7.1  discusses these various gender differences.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 7.1: Gender Differences

	Females	Males
Socialization	Sustain relationships Are less aggressive Blame self	Are independent Are aggressive Externalize anger
Cognitive	Have superior verbal ability Speak earlier Have better pronunciation Read better	Have superior visual-spatial ability Are better at math
Personality	Have lower self-esteem Are self-aware Have better attention span	Have higher self-esteem Are materialistic Have lower attention span
Emotional	Internalize emotions Express sadness, anxiety	Externalize emotions Express anger

What Causes Gender Differences—Biology or Socialization?

Why do these gender differences occur? Some experts suggest that gender differences may have a biological origin: males and females are essentially different. They have somewhat different brain organizations; females are more left brain–oriented and males more right brain–oriented. (The left brain is believed to control language; the right, spatial relations.) 35  Others point to the hormonal differences between the sexes as the key to understanding their behavior.

A second view is that gender differences are developed over the life course and reflect different treatment of males and females. In her book The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together, psychologist Eleanor Maccoby argues that gender differences are not a matter of individual personality or biological difference but the way kids socialize and how their relationships are structured. 36  Despite the best efforts of parents who want to break down gender boundaries, kids still segregate themselves by gender in their playgroups. Thus a “boy culture” and a “girl culture” develop side by side. Kids also take on different roles depending on whom they are with and who is being exposed to the behavior. A boy will be all macho bravado when he is with his peers but may be a tender, loving big brother when asked to baby-sit his little sister.

Little girls aren’t “passive” as a result of some ingrained quality; they have learned to be passive only when boys are present. According to Maccoby, gender separation has partly biological and partly social causes. Though biological and cognitive differences do impact behavior, Maccoby claims that gender distinctions arise mainly in social interactions and that peer groups are highly influential in greatly enhancing gender. Take for instance the macho male jock culture, which encourages its members to become risk takers and engage in status-type offenses such as drinking. 37  Nonetheless, biological and social factors are so intertwined that it is erroneous to think of gender differences as having an independent social or physical origin.

Another view is that gender differences are a result of the interaction of socialization, learning, and enculturation. Boys and girls may behave differently because they have been exposed to different styles of socialization, learned different values, and had different cultural experiences. 38  According to psychologist Sandra Bem’s  gender-schema theory , our culture polarizes males and females by forcing them to obey mutually exclusive gender roles, or “scripts.” Girls are expected to be “feminine,” exhibiting sympathetic and gentle traits. In contrast, boys are expected to be “masculine,” exhibiting assertiveness and dominance.

gender-schema theory

A theory of development that holds that children internalize gender scripts reflecting the gender-related social practices of the culture. Once internalized, these gender scripts predispose the kids to construct a self-identity that is consistent with the scripts.

Children internalize these scripts and accept gender polarization as normal. Children’s self-esteem becomes wrapped up in how closely their behavior conforms to the proper sex role stereotype. When children begin to perceive themselves as either boys or girls (which occurs at about age 3), they search for information to help them define their role; they begin to learn what behavior is appropriate for their sex. 39  Girls are expected to behave according to the appropriate script and to seek approval of their behavior: Are they acting as girls should at that age? Masculine behavior is to be avoided. In contrast, males look for cues from their peers to define their masculinity; aggressive behavior may be rewarded with peer approval, whereas sensitivity is viewed as unmasculine. 40

Not So Different After All

Not every social scientist agrees that there are significant differences between the genders. In an important meta-analysis of studies examining gender differences in such traits as personality, cognition, communication skills, and leadership ability, psychologist Janet Shibley Hyde found that men and women are basically more alike than different on these critical psychological variables; she refers to her finding as the  gender similarities hypothesis . Hyde found that gender differences had either no effect or a very small effect on most of the psychological variables examined, with only a few exceptions: compared with women, men were more physically aggressive, and they approved of sex without commitment. Hyde also found that gender differences fluctuate with age, growing smaller or larger at different times in the life span, indicating that differences are not stable and change over the life course. One significant myth she claims to have debunked: boys do better at math. According to her findings, boys and girls perform equally well in math until high school, at which point boys do become more proficient. It is possible that girls avoid advanced classes believing erroneously that they are doomed to failure, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. 41

gender similarities hypothesis

The belief that gender differences in personality, cognition, intelligence, etc., are much smaller than previously believed.

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Prevention: Friendly PEERsuasion

Girls deserve healthful environments, but they face many pressures that thwart their ability to make smart choices concerning the use of legal and illicit substances. Girls often are induced to use alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs to become or stay slim, manage stress, appear mature, be popular with peers of both sexes, or escape overwhelming problems. Because many of these pressures are more prevalent for girls than boys, standard prevention programs may not be effective with girls.

Girls use substances differently and for different reasons than boys. Girls are more likely to accept a substance from someone else and to engage in sexual behavior under the influence of a substance than boys. The desire to be accepted by peers can further impact girls’ use of substances. Moreover, girls are more likely than boys to perceive themselves as being obese as well as have greater social pressures than boys to be thin. Thus, girls may use diet pills and cigarettes for weight control, self-esteem, and popularity.

About the Program: Friendly PEERsuasion®

Girls Inc. Friendly PEERsuasion develops girls’ skills to resist pressure to use harmful substances, such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and household chemicals. After learning healthy ways to manage stress and to deflect peer, media, and other pressures that contribute to substance use, girls become peer educators (PEERsuaders) for younger girls.

Friendly PEERsuasion, for girls ages 11 to 14, targets the years during which girls begin to more fully experience and respond to influence and pressure from their peers. Friendly PEERsuasion builds participants’ knowledge and skills for resisting negative peer pressure by empowering them to use a process of identifying specifically what they are being pressured to do and the consequences. Participants then determine healthy alternatives and invite peers to join them in acting on their smarter choice. This process is fortified by enhancing girls’ communication skills and ability to recognize stress and by providing them with practice in responding to stress in healthy ways. Additionally, participants learn about various legal and illicit substances, adopt guidelines for responsible use of readily available prescription and over-the-counter medications and supplements, and analyze media messages that glamorize substance use.

Participants also build leadership skills that help them plan and implement substance use prevention activities with groups of younger children ages 6 to 10 (referred to as PEERsuade-Mes). By serving as peer educators and mentors, the older participants are able to reinforce their commitment to avoiding substance use.

Friendly PEERsuasion has received awards and has been recognized as an effective, evidence-based program by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US Department of Health and Human Services) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (US Department of Justice).

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

What other problems, unique to girls, must be addressed by treatment/prevention programs? What would be the best method to deal with these problems?

2.

Considering the unique problems faced by young women, can a co-ed treatment program be successful?

SOURCE: Girls Inc.,  http://www.girlsinc.org/about/programs/friendly-peersuasion.html  (accessed June 2013).

Hyde’s work is not without its critics. 42  Yet, she may be addressing an important contemporary phenomenon: even if gender differences existed before, they may now be eroding. If so, this phenomenon may be impacting gender differences in delinquency. In the Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature, a prevention program geared specifically to young girls is set out in detail.

Gender Differences and Delinquency

Research conducted in the United States and abroad has found that the factors that direct the trajectories of male delinquency are quite different from those that influence female delinquency. Males are more aggressive and less likely to form attachments to others, factors that might help them maintain their crime rates over their life span. Males view aggression as an appropriate means to gain status. Boys are also more likely than girls to socialize with deviant peers, and when they do, they display personality traits that make them more susceptible to delinquency. They are more often exposed to delinquency-producing strains in the environment, such as crime victimization, and are more likely to react to conflict with aggressive responses rather than empathy and understanding. 43

This pattern fits within the two cultures view, which suggests that girls and boys differ in their social behavior largely because their sex-segregated peer groups demand behaviors, such as aggression, that may not be characteristic of them in other social situations. 44  What is typically assumed to be an inherent difference in antisocial behavior tendencies may actually be a function of peer socialization differences. The fact that young boys perceive their roles as being more dominant than young girls may be a function of peer pressure. Male perceptions of power, their ability to have freedom and hang with their friends, help explain gender differences in personality. 45  It follows, then, that if members of both sexes were equally exposed to the factors that produce delinquency, their delinquency rates would be equivalent. While socialization may be a strong force, inherent gender differences in cognition, personality, and biology still seem to play a role in shaping interpersonal interactions, including aggression, and cannot be totally discounted. 46  Cognitive and personality differences are magnified when children internalize gender-specific behaviors. Boys who aren’t tough may appear weak, cowardly, and effeminate. Girls, in contrast, are expected to form closer bonds with their friends and to share feelings.

The mission of the National Council for Research on Women ( http://www.ncrw.org/ ) is to enhance the connections among research, policy analysis, advocacy, and innovative programming on behalf of women and girls. For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Gender Patterns in Delinquency

Within all social and economic strata, males still commit more delinquency than females. 47  However, the gender gap in crime and delinquency arrests has been closing. In 1995, the male:female delinquency arrest ratio for serious crimes was 3 : 1; today it’s closer to 2 : 1 (the violent crime arrest ratio is still more than 5 : 1 male).

Similarly, self-report studies indicate that the rank-ordering of male and female delinquent behaviors is more similar than ever. That is, the illegal acts most common for boys—petty larceny, using a false ID, and smoking marijuana—are also the ones most frequently committed by girls. 48  In addition, the factors that explain the onset of male delinquency, such as the influence of delinquent peers, are similar to the ones that explain female delinquency. In other words, the pathways of offending appear to be similar across genders. 49

How can this decade-long narrowing in the delinquency gender gap be explained? Several policy shifts may have escalated girls’ arrest-proneness:

·  The definition of violent crime may have expanded so that minor incidents that girls, in relative terms, are more likely to commit are now included in the arrest data.

·  Police are more likely to make arrests in private settings (e.g., home and school) where girls’ violence is more widespread.

·  Family and societal attitudes toward juvenile females are less tolerant now. These developments reflect both a growing intolerance of violence in the law and among the citizenry and an expanded application of preventive punishment and risk management strategies that emphasize early identification and enhanced formal control of problem individuals or groups, particularly problem youth. 50

While the gender gap has narrowed, gender differences are still significant for the most serious violent crime. Arrest for murder is typically 10 : 1 in favor of males; only 57 girls ages 18 and under were arrested on murder charges in 2011 compared to 594 boys.

One reason for the gender disparity in lethal violence is that males and females display differences in the victims they target and the weapons they use. The typical male juvenile kills a friend or acquaintance with a handgun during an argument. In contrast, the typical female is as likely to kill a family member as an acquaintance and is more likely to use a knife. Both males and females tend to kill males—generally their brothers, fathers, or friends.

Police and the Gender Gap

How can the narrowing of the gender gap in delinquency be explained? One possibility is that police are changing the manner in which they handle cases involving adolescent females, showing them less favoritism, resulting in a greater likelihood of girls getting arrested. Research using self-report data shows that there has been little actual increase in girls’ violence or drug use over the past decade. 51  Therefore, any gender convergence in the delinquency arrest rate may be due to changing police procedures and not actual change in delinquent activity. The Girls Study Group, experts sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), carefully evaluated existing data and concluded that increases in female violent crime arrests are more likely to have been caused by police arrest procedures and policies than any radical change in female behavior.

The study group found that heightened sensitivity to domestic violence has led many state and local police agencies to implement mandatory arrest policies in response to domestic disturbances, including those between parents and children. Behaviors once considered “ungovernable” (a status offense) may, in a domestic situation, result instead in an arrest for simple assault. Policies of mandatory arrest for domestic violence, initially adopted to protect victims from further attacks, also provide parents with a method for attempting to control their “unruly” daughters. Girls fight with family members or siblings more frequently than boys, who more often fight with friends or strangers. This dynamic makes girls more vulnerable to arrest under changing domestic violence laws and therefore increases their presence in the arrest statistics. 52

While girls are still less violent than boys, they are getting arrested for similar types of delinquent acts. This security camera photo captures the notorious “Bus Tunnel Robbery,” in which four youths, including a teenage girl, followed a 15-year-old girl and robbed and beat her while security guards looked on and did nothing to help. The victim, Aiesha Steward-Baker, went into the tunnel in Seattle, Washington, on the evening of January 28, 2010, only to be stomped and kicked in the head, chest, and neck. The four youths can be seen on a surveillance video grabbing Steward-Baker’s phone and purse. The girl involved, 15 years old at the time, was convicted of second-degree assault and sentenced to 15 to 36 weeks at the Department of Juvenile Rehabilitation. Ironically, in August 2010, Steward-Baker, the bus tunnel victim, was herself convicted of robbery!

A number of institutes at major universities are devoted to the study of women’s issues. You can visit the website of the one at the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) at  http://www.csw.ucla.edu/ , or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Female Violence

While the Girls Study Group rejects the notion of a female “crime wave,” it acknowledges that some girls are violent and that female violence has taken on distinct patterns and trends:

·  Peer violence. The majority of girls’ violence is directed at same-sex peers. Girls fight with peers to gain status, to defend their sexual reputation, and in self-defense against sexual harassment.

·  Family violence. Girls fight more frequently at home with parents than do boys, who engage more frequently in violence outside the household. Some incidents represent striking back against what they view as an overly controlling structure. Other girls attack family members as a defense against or an expression of anger stemming from being sexually and or physically abused by members of the household.

·  Violence within schools. When girls fight in schools, they may do so as a result of teacher labeling, in self-defense, or out of a general sense of hopelessness.

·  Violence within disadvantaged neighborhoods. Girls in disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to perpetrate violence against others because of the increased risk of victimization and parental inability to protect them from community predators, and lack of opportunities for success.

·  Girls in gangs. Girls associated with primarily male gangs exhibit more violence than those in all-female gangs. Girls in gangs are more violent than other girls but less violent than boys in gangs. 53

In the sections below, we will explore the theoretical basis of female delinquency.

Trait Theory and Female Delinquency

There is a long tradition of tracing gender differences in delinquency to traits that are uniquely male or female. The argument that biological and psychological differences between males and females can explain differences in crime rates is not a new one. The earliest criminologists focused on physical characteristics believed to be precursors of crime.

Early Biological Explanations

With the publication in 1895 of The Female Offender, Cesare Lombroso (with William Ferrero) extended his work on criminality to females. 54  Lombroso maintained that women were lower on the evolutionary scale than men, more childlike and less intelligent. 55  Women who committed crimes could be distinguished from “normal” women by physical characteristics—excessive body hair, wrinkles, and an abnormal cranium, for example. 56  In appearance, delinquent females appeared closer to men than to other women. The masculinity hypothesis suggested that delinquent girls had excessive male characteristics. 57

Lombrosian thought had a significant influence for much of the twentieth century. Delinquency rate differentials were explained in terms of gender-based differences. In 1925, Cyril Burt linked female delinquency to menstruation. 58  Similarly, William Healy and Augusta Bronner suggested that males’ physical superiority enhanced their criminality. Their research showed that about 70 percent of the delinquent girls they studied had abnormal weight and size, a finding that supported the masculinity hypothesis. 59

So-called experts suggested that female delinquency goes unrecorded because the female is the instigator rather than the perpetrator. 60  Females first use their sexual charms to instigate crime and then beguile males in the justice system to obtain deferential treatment. This observation, referred to as the  chivalry hypothesis , holds that gender differences in the delinquency rate can be explained by the fact that female criminality is overlooked or forgiven by male agents of the justice system. Those who believe in the chivalry hypothesis point to data showing that even though women make up about 20 percent of arrestees, they account for less than 5 percent of inmates. Police and other justice system personnel may be less willing to penalize female offenders than male offenders. 61

chivalry hypothesis (also known as paternalism hypothesis)

The view that low female crime and delinquency rates are a reflection of the leniency with which police treat female offenders.

Early Psychological Explanations

Psychologists also viewed the physical differences between males and females as a basis for their behavior differentials. Sigmund Freud maintained that girls interpret their lack of a penis as a sign that they have been punished. Boys fear that they can be punished by having their penises cut off, and thus learn to fear women. From this conflict comes penis envy, which often produces an inferiority complex in girls, forcing them to make an effort to compensate for their “defect.” One way to compensate is to identify with their mothers and accept a maternal role. Also, girls may attempt to compensate for their lack of a penis by dressing well and beautifying themselves. 62  Freud also claimed that “if a little girl persists in her first wish—to grow into a boy—in extreme cases she will end as a manifest homosexual, and otherwise she will exhibit markedly masculine traits in the conduct of her later life, will choose a masculine vocation, and so on.” 63

In the mid-twentieth century, psychodynamic theorists suggested that girls are socialized to be passive, which helps explain their low crime rate. However, this condition also makes some females susceptible to being manipulated by men; hence, their participation in sex-related crimes, such as prostitution. A girl’s wayward behavior, psychoanalysts suggested, was restricted to neurotic theft (kleptomania) and overt sexual acts, which were symptoms of personality maladaption. 64

According to these early versions of the psychoanalytic approach, gender differences in the delinquency rate can be traced to differences in psychological orientation. Male delinquency reflects aggressive traits, whereas female delinquency is a function of repressed sexuality, gender conflict, and abnormal socialization.

Contemporary Trait Views

Contemporary biosocial and psychological theorists have continued the tradition of attributing gender differences in delinquency to physical and emotional traits. These theorists recognize that it is the interaction of biological and psychological traits with the social environment that produces delinquency.

Early Puberty/Precocious Sexuality

Early theorists linked female delinquency to early puberty and  precocious sexuality . According to this view, girls who experience an early onset of physical maturity are most likely to engage in antisocial behavior. 65  Female delinquents were believed to be promiscuous and more sophisticated than male delinquents. 66  Linking female delinquency to sexuality was responsible, in part, for the view that female delinquency is symptomatic of maladjustment. 67

precocious sexuality

Sexual experimentation in early adolescence.

Equating female delinquency purely with sexual activity is no longer taken seriously, but early sexual maturity has been linked to other problems, such as a higher risk of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. 68  Empirical evidence suggests that girls who reach puberty at an early age are at the highest risk for delinquency. 69  One reason is that “early bloomers” may be more attractive to older adolescent boys, and increased contact with this high-risk group places the girls in jeopardy for antisocial behavior. Research shows that young girls who date boys three or more years older are more likely to engage in precocious sex, feel pressured into having sex, and engage in sex while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol than girls who date more age-appropriate boys. 70  Early puberty is most likely to encourage delinquent activities that occur in the context of socializing with peers and having romantic relationships with boys. 71  Girls who are romantically attached to older boys who encourage antisocial behavior are more likely to engage in delinquency than those who lack such “encouraging” partners. 72  The delinquency gap between early and late bloomers narrows when the latter group reaches sexual maturity and increases in girls’ exposure to boys. 73

Girls who are more sexually developed relative to their peers are more likely to socialize at an early age and to get involved in deviant behaviors, especially “party deviance,” such as drinking, smoking, and substance abuse. 74  Such behavior can have long-term consequences. Sociologist Sampson Lee Blair recently examined the long-term consequences of adolescent delinquency and substance use on the marital choices of young adults. Using a nationally representative sample of more than 10,000 people, his analyses found that both substance use and delinquent behavior in the adolescent years significantly affect the likelihood of marriage and the age at first marriage of young adults. Delinquent behaviors appear to increase the likelihood of marriage and lower the age at first marriage for both sexes, while higher levels of substance use (alcohol and marijuana) substantially lower females’ likelihood of marriage. The results suggest that a gender difference exists in how risk-taking behaviors in adolescence impact marital outcomes in adulthood. 75

Early Puberty and Victimization

If reaching puberty at an early age increases the likelihood of delinquent behavior, does it also increase victimization risk? Research by Dana Haynie and Alex Piquero found that both boys and girls who reached puberty at an early age increase their chances of victimization. The association was gendered: boys were less likely to become victims if their friendship network contained girls; in contrast, girls’ victimization was not moderated by the sexual makeup of their peer group. 76

Why does peer group makeup influence boys’ victimization more than girls’? It is possible that females are much less likely to be involved in serious, violent delinquency, and therefore having a higher concentration of them in a male’s peer network reduces his exposure to more violent boys. In contrast, boys who associate mostly with male peers may feel compelled to engage in risky behaviors—in order to keep up with their friends they have to drink, drive fast, and get involved in brawls. Girls may feel less peer pressure to engage in risky behavior; their male friends may protect them rather than put them in danger.

In sum, although early puberty and sexual development may put girls at risk for juvenile delinquency and substance abuse, they may also help shield them from victimization risk.

Why Do Girls Mature Early?

Why do some girls mature early and place themselves at risk for delinquency? Psychologist Jay Belsky proposed an explanation for the finding that girls whose fathers abandon them tend to reach puberty early and to exhibit increased promiscuity. Belsky suggested that some girls exposed to high levels of stress, particularly due to paternal absence in early childhood, may often respond by becoming depressed and insecure, gaining weight and then experiencing accelerated puberty as a result of hormonal changes precipitated by the weight gain, and becoming sexually active with multiple partners and unstable relationships, often resulting in early childbearing. 77

New research, however, suggests a different explanation for the link between paternal absence and both early puberty and promiscuity in girls. David Comings and colleagues tested male and female subjects and found a particular gene pattern with a short AR allele was associated with assaultive behavior, impulsiveness, sexual compulsiveness and increased number of sexual partners, and feelings of reduced internal control in the male subjects. In females, the presence of the short AR pattern was associated with parental divorce, paternal absence during childhood, and early puberty. Their conclusion: the link between paternal abandonment and early puberty in girls is genetic. Fathers who have the suspect gene pattern engage in marital conflict and abandonment. Their daughters, who inherit the gene, are more likely to reach puberty at an early age and engage in risky behaviors such as precocious sexual activity, childbearing, and disruptive personal relationships. The cause of these mutually dysfunctional behaviors is not stress or learning, but shared genes passed from the fathers to their daughters. Their findings also explain why girls whose fathers die do not experience the same changes in behavior and timing of puberty onset as girls whose fathers abandon them. Fathers who die early would be no more likely to carry the short AR gene than are fathers in the general population. 78

Hormonal Effects

As you may recall from  Chapter 3 , some biosocial theorists link antisocial behavior to hormonal influences. 79  One view is that hormonal imbalance may influence aggressive behavior in young girls. For example, cortisol, responsible for controlling inflammation and suppressing the immune response, is the primary hormone released during long periods of stress or physical trauma. It has also been linked to aggressive behavior in young women. When Kathleen Pajer and her colleagues studied 47 adolescent girls with conduct disorder (CD) and 37 control girls, taking three separate measurements of cortisol, they found that girls with conduct disorder had significantly lower cortisol levels than girls in the normal control group at all three sampling times. They conclude that antisocial girls may suffer from “dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis,” which regulates cortisol levels. 80

Another view is that excessive amounts of male hormones (androgens) are related to delinquency. The androgen most often related to antisocial behavior is testosterone. 81  In general, females who test higher for testosterone are more likely to engage in stereotypical male behaviors. 82  Females who have low androgen levels are less aggressive than males, whereas those who have elevated levels will take on characteristically male traits, including aggression. 83

Some females who are overexposed to male hormones in utero may become “constitutionally masculinized.” They may develop abnormal hair growth, large musculature, low voice, irregular menstrual cycle, and hyperaggressive behavior. Females exposed to male hormones in utero are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior later in life. 84

Premenstrual Syndrome

Early biotheorists suspected that premenstrual syndrome (PMS) was a direct cause of the relatively rare instances of female violence: “For several days prior to and during menstruation, the stereotype has been that ‘raging hormones’ doom women to irritability and poor judgment—two facets of premenstrual syndrome.” 85  The link between PMS and delinquency was popularized by Katharina Dalton, whose studies of Englishwomen led her to conclude that females are more likely to commit suicide and be aggressive and otherwise antisocial before or during menstruation. 86

Today there is conflicting evidence on the relationship between PMS and female delinquency. Research shows that a significant number of incarcerated females committed their crimes during the premenstrual phase, and also that a small percentage of women appear vulnerable to cyclical hormonal changes that make them more prone to anxiety and hostility. 87  Although this evidence is persuasive, the true relationship between crime and the female menstrual cycle still remains unknown. There is a causal dilemma: while it is possible that the stress associated with menstruation produces crime, it is also possible that the stress of antisocial behavior produces early menstruation. 88

Aggression

According to some biosocial theorists, gender differences in the delinquency rate can be explained by inborn differences in aggression. 89  Some psychologists believe that males are inherently more aggressive, a condition that appears very early in life, before socialization can influence behavior.

Gender-based differences in aggression have been developing for millions of years and reflect the dissimilarities in the male and female reproductive systems. Males are more aggressive because they wish to possess as many sex partners as possible to increase their chances of producing offspring. Females have learned to control their aggressive impulses because having multiple mates does not increase their chances of conception. Instead, females concentrate on acquiring things that will help them rear their offspring, such as a reliable mate who will supply material resources. 90

Contemporary Psychological Views

Because girls are socialized to be less aggressive than boys, it is possible that the young women who get involved in antisocial and violent behavior suffer from some form of mental anguish or abnormality. Girls are also more likely than boys to be involved in status offenses such as running away and truancy, behaviors that suggest underlying psychological distress.

Research indicates that antisocial adolescent girls do suffer a wide variety of psychiatric problems, including PTSD, and have dysfunctional and violent relationships at home and with their romantic partners. 91  Incarcerated adolescent female offenders have more acute mental health symptoms and psychological disturbances than male offenders. 92  Female delinquents score high on psychological tests measuring such traits as psychopathic deviation, schizophrenia, paranoia, and psychasthenia (a psychological disorder characterized by phobias, obsessions, compulsions, or excessive anxiety). 93  Clinical interviews indicate that female delinquents are significantly more likely than males to suffer from mood disorders, including any disruptive disorder, major depressive disorder, and separation anxiety disorder. 94  For example, serious female delinquents have been found to have a relatively high incidence of callous-unemotional (CU) traits, an affective disorder described by a lack of remorse or shame, poor judgment, failure to learn by experience, and chronic lying. 95

Females seem to be more susceptible to the psychological damage produced from living in a dysfunctional household than males. 96  One study of female arsonists found that they were often from profoundly unstable homes, experienced difficulty with school attendance and behavior, had little or no contact with at least one parent, and were in a crisis at the time of the arson offence. In addition to an unstable home life, solo female juveniles often felt upset, angry, and expressed suicidal thoughts. 97

In sum, there are some experts who believe that female delinquents suffer from psychological deficits ranging from lack of self-control to serious impairments. 98

Socialization Views

Socialization views are based on the idea that a child’s social development may be the key to understanding delinquent behavior. If a child experiences impairment, family disruption, and so on, the child will be more susceptible to delinquent associations and criminality.

Linking crime rate variations to gender differences in socialization is not a recent phenomenon. In a 1928 work, The Unadjusted Girl, W. I. Thomas suggested that some girls who have not been socialized under middle-class family controls can become impulsive thrill seekers. According to Thomas, female delinquency is linked to the “wish” for luxury and excitement. 99  Inequities in social class condemn poor girls from demoralized families to using sex as a means to gain amusement, pretty clothes, and other luxuries. Precocious sexuality makes these girls vulnerable to older men, who lead them down the path to decadence. 100

Socialization and Delinquency

According to early socialization views, a child’s social development may be the key to understanding delinquent behavior. Children will be more susceptible to delinquent associations if they experience impairment or family disruption. Improper socialization is likely to have an even more damaging effect on females than on males because girls are less likely than boys to have close-knit peer associations and are therefore in need of close parental relationships to retain emotional stability. In fact, girls may become sexually involved with boys to receive support from them, a practice that tends to magnify their problems.

Scholars concerned with gender differences in crime are interested in the distinction between the lifestyles of males and females. Girls are supervised more closely than boys, and if they behave in a socially disapproved fashion, their parents may be more likely to notice. Adults may be more tolerant of deviant behavior in boys and expect boys to act tough and take risks. Closer supervision restricts the opportunity for crime and the time available to mingle with delinquent peers. Girls who are supervised closely may be less likely to engage in deviant behavior in adolescence and later go on to live more conventional adult lifestyles (i.e., marry and raise a family). 101  It follows, then, that the adolescent girl who is growing up in a troubled home and lacks supervision may be more prone to delinquency. 102

Focus on Socialization

In the 1950s, a number of researchers began to focus on gender-specific socialization patterns. They made three assumptions about gender differences in socialization:

·  Families exert a more powerful influence on girls than on boys.

·  Parents are stricter with girls because they perceive them as needing control.

·  Girls rarely form close relationships with female peers, because they view them as rivals for males who would make eligible marriage partners. 103

Because of these associations, in some families adolescent girls rebel against strict parental controls, turning to the streets for companionship. Those girls who lack reasonable parental guidance are at risk for entering into affairs with older men who exploit them, involve them in sexual deviance (i.e., pimp them on the street), and father their illegitimate children. 104  The result is prostitution, drug abuse, and marginal lives. Their daughters, also lacking in supportive family relationships, are doomed to repeat this pattern in a never-ending cycle of exploitation.

Broken Homes/Fallen Women

A number of experts share emphasis on the family as a primary influence on delinquent behavior. Male delinquents were portrayed as rebels who esteemed toughness, excitement, and other lower-class values. Males succumbed to the lure of delinquency when they perceived few legitimate opportunities. In contrast, female delinquents were portrayed as troubled adolescents who suffered inadequate home lives and, more often than not, were victims of sexual and physical abuse. Ruth Morris described delinquent girls as unattractive youths who reside in homes marked by family tensions. 105  In The Delinquent Girl (published in 1970), Clyde Vedder and Dora Somerville suggest that female delinquency is usually a problem of adjustment to family pressure; an estimated 75 percent of institutionalized girls have family problems. 106  They also suggest that girls have serious problems in a male-dominated culture with rigid and sometimes unfair social practices.

Other early efforts linked rebellious behavior to sexual conflicts in the home. 107  Broken or disrupted homes were found to predict female delinquency. 108  Females petitioned to juvenile court were more likely than males to be charged with ungovernable behavior and sex offenses. They also were more likely to reside in single-parent homes. 109  Studies of incarcerated juveniles found that most of the male delinquents were incarcerated for burglary and other theft-related offenses, but female delinquents tended to be involved in incorrigibility and sex offenses. The conclusion: boys became delinquent to demonstrate their masculinity; girls were delinquent as a result of hostility toward parents and a consequent need to obtain attention from others. 110

Contemporary Socialization Views

Contemporary socialization views still hold that family interaction is the key to understanding female delinquency. If a girl grows up in an atmosphere of family tension, where hostility exists between her parents, or where her parents are absent or law violators themselves, she is likely to turn to a delinquent way of life Girls whose parents are convicted of crimes and incarcerated are themselves significantly likely to get involved in drug abuse and delinquency. 111  In contrast, a strong parental bond can help insulate girls from social forces that produce delinquency. 112  In fact, girls may have a stronger bond to their families, helping to explain in part gender differences in the delinquency rate. 113

Girls are expected to follow narrowly defined behavioral patterns. In contrast, it is not unusual for boys to stay out late, drive around with friends, or get involved in other unstructured behaviors linked to delinquency. If in reaction to loneliness and parental hostility, girls engage in the same “routine activities” as boys (staying out late, partying, and riding around with friends), they run the risk of engaging in similar types of delinquent behavior. 114  The more unsupervised activities girls participate in, the more likely they are to engage in deviant activities such as substance abuse. 115

case profile: Rain’s Story

RAIN is a 15-year-old female attending her sophomore year of high school. Rain attends school on a regular basis and is a member of the school band. Her mother has recently split from her long-term partner and has a new girlfriend. Rain is an only child and has sporadic contact with her biological father, who lives out of state. Recently, Rain has reported feeling depressed and somewhat isolated. She has also begun talking with her school social worker on a regular basis to address a decline in her grades and troubles at school. Rain was recently caught purchasing prescription drugs in a school bathroom. She was referred to a first offenders program and ordered to attend counseling.

Before services could be set up for Rain, the police and rescue workers were called to the family home. Rain had overdosed on a pain medication that her mother had in the medicine cabinet. She was rushed to a local hospital where she received medical care and spent the night. Rain reported to the hospital psychiatrist that she was not currently suicidal, and hospital social workers assisted in creating a community plan for her to be discharged home.

Upon her arrival home, the school social worker and a therapist in the community met with Rain and her mother. They arranged for Rain to meet with the school social worker on a daily basis to check in and for Rain to attend therapy two or three times per week. The therapist specialized in working with adolescents and had a small office at the local community center that was a block from Rain’s home. This proximity allowed for frequent contact with providers as well as the ongoing support she needed. It also reduced issues related to a lack of transportation and barriers that often impact compliance. The social worker and therapist initially suspected that Rain was having significant issues with her mother’s sexuality. What they learned rather quickly was that Rain had no concerns regarding this issue. Rain reported feeling her mother was a healthy and happy person and that she supported her mother. The main challenges for Rain were the loss of the relationship with her mother’s long-term partner and the fact that her mother was spending large portions of time with her new girlfriend. Rain reported feeling lonely, sad, and depressed. She wanted to visit with her mother’s ex-partner and also to have more time alone with her mother. Rain longed for the days when she and her mother went bike riding and did other family activities together.

With the assistance of the therapist and school social worker, Rain was able to better understand her deep feelings of sadness and her suicide attempt. They also began to participate in family therapy, which allowed Rain to talk with her mother about her need to spend time with her mother’s ex-partner, as well as with her mother. The family was able to arrange for these visits, and Rain and her mother began doing more planned activities together. Rain continued receiving the support at school and within the community center from the therapist and others. She successfully completed the requirements for the first offenders program and did not receive any additional delinquency referrals.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Rain was disturbed by the loss of her mother’s long-term partner and the fact that her mother was spending a lot of time with her new girlfriend. Did Rain’s home life and socialization lead to her problems? Do you believe a more traditional home produces more traditional offspring?

2.

Rain and her counselor visited with each other often, and they seem to have had a supportive interaction. Do you believe that therapists can have a significant influence on patient development?

The socialization approach holds that a poor home life is likely to have an even more damaging effect on females than on males. 116  Because girls are less likely than boys to have close-knit peer associations, they are more likely to need close parental relationships to retain emotional stability. In fact, girls may become sexually involved with boys to receive support from them, a practice that tends to magnify their problems if their boyfriends encourage them to engage in antisocial behaviors. 117  The Case Profile “Rain’s Story” illustrates the problems faced by a young woman whose home life could not provide the support she so desperately needed.

Delinquency and Abuse

One focus of socialization theory is the effects of abuse on behavior. Girls seem to be more deeply affected than boys by child abuse, and the link between abuse and female delinquency seems stronger than it is for male delinquency. 118

These experiences take a toll on their behavior choices. Research shows that girls who are the victims of child sexual abuse and physical abuse are the ones most likely to engage in violent and nonviolent criminal behavior. 119  Those with exposure to significant levels of violence are also the ones most likely to become crime victims and the target of relationship violence. 120

Their predicament has long-term consequences. Some are placed outside the home early in childhood, because of family breakdown and their own conduct problems. Institutionalization does little to help matters. Those sent away are much more likely to develop criminal records as adults than similarly troubled girls who manage to stay with their families throughout their childhood. 121

Girls may be forced into a life of sexual promiscuity, because their sexual desirability makes them a valuable commodity for families living on the edge. There are cases of youths being “lent out” to drug dealers so their parents or partners can get high. Girls on the streets are encouraged to sell their bodies because they have little else of value to trade. 122  Meda Chesney-Lind, a prominent feminist scholar, has described this association: “Young women on the run from homes characterized by sexual abuse and parental neglect are forced, by the very statutes designed to protect them, into the life of an escaped convict.” 123  Many of these girls may find themselves pregnant at a very young age. Physical and sexual abuse and the toll it takes on young girls is not unique to any one culture.

Chesney-Lind’s warning is substantiated by recent research conducted by Pernilla Johansson and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard. Using data from a large sample of 10,000 youths petitioned to juvenile court, the researchers found that for girls with at least one prior runaway, the risk of chronic offending (as compared to occasional offending) was five times higher than the risk for females without a prior runaway; the effect of running away was greater on girls than boys. Girls in the sample were also much more likely than boys to have been subject to abuse. Nearly 25 percent of females but only 7 percent of males had been subject to suspected abuse or maltreatment, including sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and Child Protective Services involvement. Not surprisingly, 30 percent of the females and 15 percent of the males had some form of mental health problems. 124  This research highlights the association between socialization and delinquency and shows that many young girls bear a heavy load of emotional problems that lead them to a delinquent way of life. For example when compared to males, female juvenile homicide offenders have higher rates of reported childhood abuse, more serious substance abuse, and mental health problems, findings which suggest that the home life of females has an extremely strong impact on their mental health and law-violating behaviors. 125

Trauma, Victimization, and Delinquent Paths

The prevailing research shows that young girls are more likely to be the target of victimization and abuse than any other group. Recently, Kristin Carbone-Lopez and Jody Miller found that early victimization—including sexual abuse—may help produce a precocious maturity that facilitates a young woman’s path into drug use and offending. 126  Their research, involving in-depth interviews with methamphetamine users, also found that the onset of deviance is likely to occur when young women are prematurely thrust into adult roles and responsibilities. The women described their troubled childhoods: more than one-third reported childhood sexual abuse; three-quarters described other family dysfunction, including domestic violence, substance abuse, neglect, and mental illness; and one in six came from homes deeply embedded in methamphetamine markets. All of them described precocious movements into adult roles and responsibilities, whether early independent living, differential association with older, deviant peers and romantic partners, responsibilities for sibling care, early motherhood, or—most often—some combination of these early transitions.

FOCUS on delinquency: Resilient Girls Can Avoid a Life of Crime

Why is it some at-risk girls avoid involvement with a delinquent way of life while others fall victim to drugs and antisocial behaviors? A recent study by Stephanie Hawkins, Phillip Graham, Jason Williams, and Margaret Zahn hoped to shed light on this important issue by analyzing data from a very large sample of approximately 19,000 students in grades 7 through 12 at 132 schools across the United States. The goal: to find out why some girls are resilient and can avoid a delinquent way of life no matter how difficult their personal circumstances.

The study focused on the effects of support from four sources: the presence of a caring adult, school connectedness, school success, and religiosity. Although adolescent girls are exposed to myriad experiences that have the potential to increase their risk for delinquent behaviors, this present research focused on risks from personal victimization (physical abuse, sexual assault, and neglect) and structural barriers (neighborhood disadvantage).

Hawkins and her colleagues found that the most consistent protective effect was the extent to which a girl felt she had caring adults in her life. The presence of caring adults reduced the likelihood that girls would engage in several forms of delinquent behaviors. However, there were limitations on this protective effect: physically assaulted girls were protected when they believed they had a caring adult in their lives during mid-adolescence but not in young adulthood; they reported engaging in more aggravated assault than nonassaulted girls as they moved into young adulthood. These findings are contrary to previous findings and to the general expectation that caring adults provide a form of protection. How can the present result be explained? It is possible that girls who were physically assaulted and have moved into early adulthood may have decided that the adults in their lives have failed them. They may have found support from other adults who were not good role models for prosocial behavior, and being connected to an antisocial adult serves to get them in trouble.

What helped physically assaulted girls to avoid engaging in delinquent behaviors? When physically assaulted girls felt connected to their schools, they were less likely to report committing aggressive or antisocial acts. School may provide a refuge from an unsafe home environment. Because the majority of a youth’s day is spent at school, becoming connected with this institution and the resources available there seems to serve as a protection against delinquency for physically assaulted girls.

School success also helped several groups of at-risk girls. During early adolescence, having a higher GPA made it less likely that girls would engage in delinquency (status offenses, property crimes, gang membership, simple assault, and aggravated assault). However, the effects of school success were limited and eroded over time. During early adulthood, a high GPA no longer protected against engaging in property crimes and, in fact, was associated with an increased likelihood of engaging in theft. Also, young girls growing up in poor neighborhoods may encounter situations that make violence a more useful coping behavior in the short term than focusing on school success, whose benefit is not immediate. These girls are most likely attending disadvantaged schools, and success may not lead to the same beneficial outcomes as those experienced by girls in more advantaged schools and neighborhoods.

Religiosity also helped protect girls at high risk for delinquency from violent behavior. Girls from disadvantaged neighborhoods and those who had been sexually abused were less likely to engage in violent forms of delinquency when they were religious. However, girls who had been neglected or physically assaulted were more likely to engage in aggravated assault when they were religious. It is possible that when girls are neglected and experience repeated physical assaults early in life, their belief systems become skewed to support the idea that violence is an acceptable and normal behavior. Additionally, if girls who are physically abused live in homes where religious beliefs are promoted, religion could function as a belief system that supports violence.

In sum, Hawkins and her colleagues find that among high-risk girls, the presence of a caring adult, school success, school connectedness, and religiosity may protect against some forms of delinquent behavior for some girls, but this protective effect is subject to complex interactions with risk factors and age.

CRITICAL THINKING

Understanding the role protective factors play in the lives of girls has important implications for creating programs to prevent delinquency. Evidence points to considering the life histories and stressors that are present when developing interventions for girls at high risk. Considering the factors that produce resiliency, what kinds of interventions do you think might help at-risk girls the most?

SOURCE: Stephanie R. Hawkins, Phillip W. Graham, Jason Williams, and Margaret A. Zahn, Resilient Girls—Factors that Protect Against Delinquency (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2009),  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/220124.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

This research illustrates the path from early adversity to precocious adult role taking and to adult criminality. Girls who are raised in troubled homes, who may be the victim of sexual and physical abuse, are the ones who grow up too fast, accumulate social deficits, and find themselves enmeshed in a delinquent way of life. In contrast, girls who are raised with supportive families and with positive school and community influences may avoid this fate, as described in the accompanying Focus on Delinquency feature.

Socialization and Gangs

Males are more likely to join gangs than females, but those girls who do engage with a delinquent peer group are more likely to pursue antisocial behavior, a finding that is not unexpected. Girls who join gangs begin by associating with delinquent peers, a pursuit that strains their relationships with parents and teachers. 127  Joan Moore’s analysis of gang girls in East Los Angeles found that many came from troubled homes. Sixty-eight percent of the girls she interviewed were afraid of their fathers, and 55 percent reported fear of their mothers. 128  Many of the girls reported that their parents were overly strict and controlling, despite the fact that they engaged in criminality themselves. Moore also details accounts of sexual abuse; about 30 percent of the girls reported that family members had made sexual advances. 129  Emily Gaarder and Joanne Belknap’s interviews with young women sent to adult prisons indicated that most had endured prolonged sexual abuse and violence. One of their subjects, Lisa, a young European American woman, was serving time for attempted murder. Lisa had used drugs and alcohol, and joined gangs to escape the pain and troubles of her home life. Her mother was an alcoholic and her father a convicted rapist. She had been sexually and physically abused by her stepfather from the ages of 9 to 11. Soon after, Lisa began skipping school, started using alcohol, and took acid. She joined a gang when she was 12. “They were like a family to me,” she told Gaarder and Belknap. “But I became involved in a lot of stuff…. I got high a lot, I robbed people, burglarized homes, stabbed people, and was involved in drive-bys.” At age 15, she stabbed a woman in a fight. She is serving 7 to 15 years for the crime. Lisa made this statement:

I had just gotten out of this group home. The lady I stabbed had been messing with my sister’s fiancé. This woman [had] a bunch of my sister’s stuff, like her stereo and VCR, so me, my sister, her fiancé, and my boyfriend went over to pick up the stuff. We were all getting high beforehand. When we got to the house, my sister and I went in…. They [her sister and the victim] started fighting over him, and I started stabbing her with a knife. I always carried a knife with me because I was in a gang. 130

Liberal Feminist Views

The feminist movement has, from its origins, fought to help women break away from their traditional roles and gain economic, educational, and social advancement. There is little question that the women’s movement has revised the way women perceive their roles in society, and it has altered the relationships of women to many social institutions.

Liberal feminism  has influenced thinking about delinquency. According to liberal feminists, females are less delinquent than males because their social roles provide fewer opportunities to commit crime. As the roles of women become more similar to those of men, so will their crime patterns. Female criminality is motivated by the same influences as male criminality. According to Freda Adler’s Sisters in Crime (published in 1975), by striving for independence, women have begun to alter the institutions that had protected males in their traditional positions of power. 131  Adler argued that female delinquency would be affected by the changing role of women. As females entered new occupations and participated in sports, politics, and other traditionally male endeavors, they would also become involved in crimes that had heretofore been male-oriented; delinquency rates would then converge. She noted that girls were becoming increasingly involved in traditionally masculine crimes such as gang activity and fighting. 132

liberal feminism

Asserts that females are less delinquent than males because their social roles provide them with fewer opportunities to commit crimes; as the roles of girls and women become more similar to those of boys and men, so too will their crime patterns.

A former gang member boxes with her trainer, Robyn, in Los Angeles. She is a member of the Homegirl Cafe program that helps female former gang members get out of crime and pursue a more conventional lifestyle through a program of counseling and retraining.

Support for Liberal Feminism

A number of studies support the feminist view of gender differences in delinquency. 133  More than 30 years ago, Rita James Simon explained how the increase in female criminality is a function of the changing role of women. She claimed that as women were empowered economically and socially, they would be less likely to feel dependent and oppressed. Consequently, they would be less likely to attack their traditional targets: their husbands, their lovers, or even their own children. 134  Instead, their new role as breadwinner might encourage women to engage in traditional male crimes, such as larceny and car theft.

Simon’s view has been supported in part by research showing a significant correlation between the women’s rights movement and the female crime rate. 135  If 1966 is used as a jumping-off point (because the National Organization for Women was founded in that year), there are indications that patterns of serious female crime (robbery and auto theft) correlate with indicators of female emancipation (the divorce rate and participation in the labor force). Although this research does not prove that female crime is related to social change, it identifies behavior patterns that support that hypothesis.

In addition to these efforts, self-report studies support the liberal feminist view by showing that gender differences in delinquency are fading—that is, the delinquent acts committed most and least often by girls are nearly identical to those reported most and least often by boys. 136  The pattern of female delinquency, if not the extent, is now similar to that of male delinquency, and with few exceptions the factors that seem to motivate both male and female criminality seem similar. 137

As the sex roles of males and females have become less distinct, their offending patterns have become more similar. Girls may be committing crimes to gain economic advancement and not because they lack parental support. Both of these patterns were predicted by liberal feminists.

FOCUS on delinquency: Human Trafficking and the Sexual Exploitation of Children

Human trafficking includes all forms of transportation of women and girls (as well as men and boys) through the use of force, abduction, fraud, and coercion for the purpose of sexual and/or commercial exploitation. Trafficking activities include recruiting individuals, transporting and transferring them from their home country or region to other transshipment points and to destination countries, receiving such trafficked persons, and keeping them in custody or housing them.

Many forms of trafficking exist. Young girls and women are common targets of commercial sexual exploitation. They may be forced into prostitution and other sexual activities such as the production of pornography. There are accounts of women being forced to service 30 men a day and of children trapped in pornography rings. Others become human containers in the transportation of drugs through forced ingestion of condoms or other containers of illegal substances. Labor servitude can be found in nearly every area of industry. Young girls have been forced to work in sweatshops, factories, agricultural fields, and fisheries. Victims may work long hours in unpleasant, unsanitary, or dangerous conditions for low wages, sometimes unable to take breaks or leave the facility. In some instances debts may be passed on to other family members or even entire villages from generation to generation, creating a constant supply of indentured servants for traffickers.

How common is the practice? While data are unreliable, estimates of the number of people trafficked internationally each year range from 600,000 men, women, and children to 1.2 million children alone. The United States is not immune: an estimated 45,000 to 50,000 individuals are trafficked into the United States annually. While these numbers are vast, relatively few cases are known to legal authorities and far fewer are prosecuted and convicted. However, by all indications the numbers of trafficked child victims has been increasing. For example, the number of child victims of human trafficking helped by the International Organization of Migration (IOM) increased to 2,040 in 2011, up 27 percent from 1,565 in 2008. While the number of female victims remained stable, the number of male victims rose 27 percent, reflecting growing public recognition of the trafficking of men and boys. While the IOM numbers only reflect a small part of the problem, they indicate an ongoing increase in the number of victims.

Victim Stories

Mexico

Maria Elena was 13 years old when a family acquaintance told her she could make ten times as much money waiting tables in the United States than she could in her small village. She and several other girls were driven across the border and then continued the rest of the way on foot. They traveled four days and nights through the desert, making their way into Texas, then crossing east toward Florida. Finally, Maria Elena and the other girls arrived at their destination, a rundown trailer where they were forced into prostitution. Maria Elena was gang-raped and locked in the trailer until she agreed to do what she was told. She lived under 24-hour watch and was forced to have sex with up to 30 men a day. When she got pregnant, she was forced to have an abortion and sent back to work the next day. Maria Elena finally made her escape only to be arrested along with her traffickers.

Accusations of sexual misconduct have reached the highest levels of government, including involvement in sex trafficking and prostitution. Here, on January 19, 2011, Moroccan teenager Karima El Mahroug, who is also known under her stage name Ruby, cries during the recording of the Italian talk show Kalisper. She had been linked to Italian Prime Minister Silivio Berlusconi, who was later convicted of having sex with an underage prostitute and of abusing the powers of his office. In 2013, he was sentenced to seven years in prison, and banned from public office for life. The decision is now being appealed.

Nepal/India

At a carpet factory in Nepal, Nayantara met a labor broker who promised her a good job as a domestic worker in Lebanon. The broker convinced her to take the job opportunity, assuring her that she did not have to pay anything. He instead took Nayantara to India, confiscated her passport, and sold her to a brothel where she was forced to have sex with at least 35 men each day with only five hours of sleep. When she tried to refuse, the brothel owner would beat Nayantara with an iron pole until she gave in. She was not allowed to contact her family or anyone else outside of the brothel, and her freedom of movement was constantly controlled. After six months, the police raided the brothel and imprisoned all the women and girls. The owner was arrested with them, but was released five months earlier than her victims because she bribed the police. When Nayantara was released from jail after 17 months, she was returned to the brothel and sold to another owner within a month. Coming to the realization that she would never be able to pay off her debts, she ran away and eventually found her way back to Nepal. She has found refuge in a shelter.

United States

When Ashley was 12 years old, she got into a fight with her mother and ran away from home. She ended up staying with her friend’s older brother at his house and intended to go home the next day, but when she tried to leave he told her that he was a pimp and she was now his property. He locked her in a room, beat her daily, and advertised her for sex on websites. Once, she looked out a window and saw her mother on the street, crying and posting flyers with Ashley’s photo. When Ashley tried to shout her mother’s name from the window her pimp grabbed her by the hair and yanked her back, threatening, “If you shout, I’ll kill you.” Ashley eventually escaped her confinement and is now at a treatment center for girls who have been sexually trafficked in New York.

Why Global Trafficking?

Human trafficking is facilitated by the global economy and relaxation of corporate boundaries. The young female victims are often poor and aspire to a better life. They may be forced, coerced, deceived, and psychologically manipulated into industrial or agricultural work, marriage, domestic servitude, organ donation, or sexual exploitation. Although victims often come from poorer countries, the market for labor and sex is found in wealthier countries or in countries that, while economically poor, cater to the needs of citizens from wealthy countries, of corporations, or of tourists.

While some individuals are trafficked directly for purposes of prostitution or commercial sexual exploitation, other trafficked persons and even those trafficked for legitimate work may become victims of interpersonal violence. Women trafficked for domestic work in wealthy countries or laborers trafficked for construction, logging, factory, or farm work are vulnerable to exploitation by their employers. Individuals trafficked for labor purposes are usually unfamiliar with their new location and the language spoken there. They often lack formal education and do not know about the human and legal resources that could help them.

Afghanistan is typical of a third-world country where trafficking is a significant social problem. It is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to trafficking in persons, specifically, forced labor and forced prostitution. Afghan boys and girls are trafficked within the country for forced prostitution and forced labor in brick kilns, carpet-making factories, and domestic service. Afghan women and girls are subjected to forced prostitution, forced marriages—including marriages in which husbands force their wives into prostitution—and involuntary domestic servitude in Pakistan and Iran, and possibly India. Some families knowingly sell their children for forced prostitution, including for bacha baazi—in which wealthy men use harems of young boys for social and sexual entertainment. Other families send their children with brokers to gain employment. Many of these children end up in forced labor, particularly in Pakistani carpet factories. Families sometimes make cost-benefit analyses regarding how much debt they can incur based on their tradable family members. Women and girls from Iran, Tajikistan, and possibly Uganda and China are forced into prostitution in Afghanistan. Some international security contractors may have been involved in the sex trafficking of these women. Brothels and prostitution rings are sometimes run by foreigners, sometimes with links to larger criminal networks. Tajik women are also believed to be trafficked through Afghanistan to other countries for prostitution. Trafficked Iranian women transit Afghanistan en route to Pakistan.

Sex Tourism

Sex tourism is a booming business, and many men from wealthy nations engage in sexual activities with trafficked individuals by traveling to destinations where women and children are prostituted. One area of particular concern is child prostitution that flourishes along the German-Czech border. From the report “Children in Street Prostitution”:

Girls and boys hang out near petrol stations, bus stops, and restaurants on the connecting roads between the two nations. Within towns, they are found in parks, in front of supermarkets and the entrances of gambling halls and houses, and at the railway station. In some areas, the children wait for tourists in cars or by windows. Small babies and children up to 6 years of age are usually offered to tourists by women. Children older than 7 years are usually accompanied by a male adolescent or an adult. Small children can be seen addressing German men, asking if they want sex or begging for money or food. Many of the children get inside the cars of German tourists and drive away with them. Older children from 8 years on negotiate prices and sexual services. The men usually drive with their victim to a place they are familiar with and where they will not be observed. These places may be on the outskirts of a town, in nearby forests, near parks, in isolated garages or empty side streets, or the abusers go with their victims—sometimes accompanied by a pimp—to a nearby flat.

Many of the children were raped or sexually abused before they became involved in commercial sexual exploitation. Poverty, sexual abuse, and family obligation are the main reasons given by children for entering into prostitution. The children usually receive between 5 and 25 euros in payment. Sometimes they just receive sweets. Some sex tourists take the children for a meal or give financial support to their families.

Can Sex Trafficking Be Controlled?

Controlling human trafficking and sex tourism has proven to be difficult. Some countries have recently written laws to prevent their citizens from engaging in sexual activities with minors while traveling outside their own country. These laws try to deter sex tourism, making travelers reconsider their actions in light of the consequences. However, enforcement of these laws may prove challenging due to jurisdiction and proof, so the practice continues unabated in many parts of the world. The United States passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2003 and then strengthened it with a 2005 revision. Included in the bills was a $360 million funding package for an expansion of the Operation Innocence Lost program, a nationwide initiative that helps law enforcement agents pursue sex traffickers and child prostitution rings. The federal laws created several new crimes, including human trafficking, sex trafficking, forced labor, and document servitude, which involves the withholding or destruction of identity or travel documents as a means of controlling young victims. They outlawed psychological manipulation, which means that traffickers can be prosecuted if they cause victims to believe that they would be harmed if they resist. Provisions of the 2005 Act provide state and local law enforcement with new tools to target demand and investigate and prosecute sex trafficking. Whether or not these measures will prove sufficient to reduce the sexual exploitation of children remains to be seen.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

How would you reduce the incidence of human trafficking? Would you punish the sex tourists as felons? Can anything be done to protect young girls from sexual predators?

2.

Does pornography on the Internet increase interest in sex with underage females, and should greater controls be placed on Internet viewing?

SOURCES: International Organization for Migration,  http://www.iom.int/cms/en/sites/iom/home.html ; US Department of State, “Trafficking in Persons Report 2012,”  http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2012/ ; Linda Williams and Jennifer Ngo, “Human Trafficking,” in Claire M. Renzetti and Jeffrey I. Edelson, eds., Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007); Cathrin Schauer, Children in Street Prostitution—Report from the German-Czech Border, publication by ECPAT Germany, UNICEF Germany, Horlemann Editors, Bad Honnef, 2003, available at  http://www.childcentre.info/projects/exploitation/germany/dbaFile11447.doc  (all URLs accessed June 2013).

Critical Feminist Views

A number of feminist writers have attempted to explain the cause of crime, gender differences in crime rates, and the exploitation of female victims from a critical perspective.  Critical feminism  views gender inequality as stemming from the unequal power of men and women in a capitalist society, which leads to the exploitation of women by fathers and husbands. Under this system, women are considered a commodity worth possessing, like land or money. 138  As the Focus on Delinquency feature “Human Trafficking and the Sexual Exploitation of Children” on the previous spread shows, girls in developing nations may become the victims of one particularly vile form of exploitation.

critical feminism

Holds that gender inequality stems from the unequal power of men and women and the subsequent exploitation of women by men; the cause of female delinquency originates with the onset of male supremacy and the efforts of males to control females’ sexuality.

Another form of violence against young girls is  honor killing  and honor crimes, which involve violence against women and girls, including such acts as beating, battering, or killing, by a family member or relative. 139  The attacks are provoked by the belief or perception that an individual’s or family’s honor has been threatened because of the actual or perceived sexual misconduct of the female. Honor killing is common in traditional societies in the Middle East, Southwest Asia, India, China, and Latin America, but a relatively new phenomenon in the United States. However, members of immigrant populations may bring this practice to the United States. For example, on January 1, 2008, Yaser Abdel Said took his two teenaged daughters for a ride in his taxicab, under the guise of taking them to get something to eat. He drove them to Irving, Texas, where he shot both girls to death. The reason: he believed they brought dishonor on his family by dating American boys and seeking independence from his traditional beliefs; Said fled and remains at large. 140  The Texas incident is not unique. In Phoenix, Arizona, Iraqi immigrant Faleh Hassan Almaleki, 50, faces life in prison for killing his daughter, Noor Almaleki, 20. 141  The motive: Almaleki was angry with Noor for not living by traditional Iraqi values, becoming too Westernized, and refusing to enter into an arranged marriage.

honor killing

Violence against women and girls that is provoked by the belief or perception that an individual’s or family’s honor has been threatened because of the actual or perceived sexual misconduct of the female.

Patriarchy and Delinquency

According to critical thinkers, the origin of the exploitation and victimization of women can be traced to the development of private property and male domination of the laws of inheritance, which led to male control over property and power. 142  A  patriarchal  system developed in which men’s work was valued and women’s work was devalued. As capitalism prevailed, the division of labor by gender made women responsible for the unpaid maintenance and reproduction of the current and future labor force, work that was derisively called “domestic work.” Although this unpaid work done by women is crucial and profitable for capitalists, who reap these free benefits, such labor is exploitative and oppressive for women. 143  Even when women gained the right to work for pay, they were exploited as cheap labor. The dual exploitation of women within the household and in the labor market means that women produce far greater surplus value for capitalists than men.

patriarchal

A social system in which men are dominant in family, government, and business matters.

Patriarchy, or male supremacy, has been and continues to be supported by capitalists. This system sustains female oppression at home and in the workplace. 144  Although the number of traditional patriarchal families is in steep decline, in those that still exist, a wife’s economic dependence ties men more securely to wage-earning jobs, further serving the interests of capitalists by undermining potential rebellion against the system.

Gender Conflict

Critical feminists link delinquent behavior patterns to the gender conflict created by paternalism and gender-based economic inequality. In his classic book, Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime, James Messerschmidt argues that capitalist society is defined by both patriarchy and class conflict. Capitalists control the labor of workers, and men control women both economically and biologically. 145  This “double marginality” explains why females in a capitalist society commit fewer crimes than males. Because they are isolated in the family, they have fewer opportunities to engage in elite deviance (white-collar and economic crimes). Although powerful females as well as males will commit white-collar crimes, the female crime rate is restricted because of the patriarchal nature of the capitalist system. 146  Women are also denied access to male-dominated street crimes.

Because male domination renders lower-class women powerless, they are forced to commit less serious, nonviolent, self-destructive crimes, such as abusing drugs. Recent efforts of the capitalist classes to undermine the social support of the poor has hit women particularly hard. The end of welfare, concentration on welfare fraud, and cutbacks to social services have all directly and uniquely affected women. 147

Powerlessness also increases the likelihood that women will become targets of violent acts. 148  When lower-class males are shut out of the economic opportunity structure, they try to build their self-image through acts of machismo; such acts may involve violent abuse of women. This type of reaction accounts for a significant percentage of female victims who are attacked by a spouse or intimate partner. According to this view, female victimization should decline as women’s place in society is elevated and they are able to obtain more power at home, in the workplace, and in government. Empirical research seems to support this view. Cross-national data show that in nations where the status of women is generally high, sexual violence rates are significantly lower than in nations where women do not enjoy similar educational and occupational opportunities. 149  Women’s victimization rates decline as they are empowered socially, economically, and legally. 150

Masculinities and Delinquency

In Masculinities and Crime, Messerschmidt expands on these themes. 151  He suggests that in every culture males try to emulate “ideal” masculine behaviors. In Western culture, this means being authoritative, in charge, combative, and controlling. Failure to adopt these roles leaves men feeling effeminate and unmanly. Their struggle to dominate women in order to prove their manliness is called “doing gender.” Crime is a vehicle for men to “do gender” because it separates them from the weak and allows them to demonstrate physical bravery. Violence directed toward women is an especially economical way to demonstrate manhood. Would a weak, effeminate male ever attack a woman?

Feminist writers have supported this view by maintaining that in contemporary society men achieve masculinity at the expense of women. In the best-case scenario, men must convince others that in no way are they feminine or have female qualities. For example, they are sloppy and don’t cook or do housework because these are “female” activities. More ominously, men may work at excluding, hurting, denigrating, exploiting, or otherwise abusing women. Even in all-male groups, men often prove their manhood by treating the weakest member of the group as “woman-like” and abusing him accordingly. Men need to defend themselves at all costs from being contaminated with femininity, and these efforts begin in children’s playgroups and continue into adulthood and marriage. 152  In the Youth Stories feature, a notorious case of sexual violence illustrates the toll the culture of male violence can take on young girls.

Relationship Conflict

The interplay of gender, conflict, and power relationships shapes the direction and content of adolescent personal relationships. When Jody Miller and Norman White conducted in-depth interviews with African American adolescents in St. Louis, Missouri, they found significant differences in dating violence structured by gender relationships. 153  To gain status among their friends, boys must take the role of being a “playa” (player)—guys who use girls for sex and have multiple sexual partners and conquests. Playas have little emotional attachment to their sexual partners, and adopt a detached, uninvolved “cool” attitude and demeanor. They are much more likely to cheat on their girlfriends, whereas girls are more likely to be loyal to their boyfriends. In addition, boys are more willing to share sexual details with their peers, mistreat their girlfriends openly in front of friends, and downplay the meaningfulness of their relationships. This dynamic shapes the nature of dating violence: girls’ violence is related to emotionality, especially the anger they experience when they suspect their boyfriend is cheating. Some girls attack their boyfriends to get an emotional response from them, to drive them out of their cool state, even if it means being struck back harder in return. Some are willing to interpret the violent response as an indicator that the boy actually likes them; any response is favorable, even if it is violent.

youth stories: Rehtaeh Parsons

In 2013, Rehtaeh Parsons, a 17-year-old Canadian girl, committed suicide 18 months after she was sexually assaulted by four boys. Rehtaeh, who was 15 at the time of the assault, had gone to a friend’s home in the city of Cole Harbour, in Nova Scotia, Canada, and after a night of drinking remembered little of what happened. However, she did recall that boys had sex with her and that someone took a photo of the incident. Posted on the Internet, the image quickly spread through Rehtaeh’s high school and through the community of Cole Harbour. After that she was bullied, shunned, and humiliated by her friends and classmates and eventually forced to switch schools. She checked herself into a hospital for six weeks to help cope with depression and suicidal thoughts. Though things slowly improved and she made some new friends, her past followed and she could not cope with the shame and humiliation of what had happened. What was most maddening to the public following the case was that police investigated the sexual assault claim, but no charges were filed against any of the boys. After completing their investigation and, in consultation with prosecutors, the police announced there was insufficient evidence to proceed with charges. In the aftermath of the publicity following the young woman’s death, over 90,000 people signed a petition to reopen the case. Public anger was also evident on social media sites, where many users bashed the police, the school board, and the boys alleged to have raped Rehtaeh. Things got so heated on the Web that local police were forced to issue the following statement:

We discourage anyone from taking the law into their own hands, or in any way encouraging vigilante justice. The information being used is unverified or may lead to an assumption of guilt towards people that may not actually be involved. Only a police investigation in which evidence is collected and verified can lead to such conclusions.

In the aftermath of the case, Ross Landry, Nova Scotia’s minister of justice, said he would not review the police findings. However, in response to the public outrage he changed his position and said he was open to hearing options to review the case. Similarly, Nova Scotia’s Premier Darrell Dexter appointed a cabinet minister to oversee the provincial government’s response to the death and told the press, “Nova Scotia is mourning the loss of Rehtaeh Parsons, a young girl who has touched the lives of people all across the province and around the world.”

The Rehtaeh case shows how social media can both destroy lives and also be a vehicle to demand justice for those whom it destroyed. On April 12, 2013, police in Canada said they had received new information and were reopening the case.

CRITICAL THINKING

The boys in this case were recently taken into custody. Should they be held responsible for Rehtaeh’s death, even though she took her own life?

SOURCE: CTV News, “Police Warn Against Vigilantism in Rehtaeh Parsons Case,”  http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/police-warn-against-vigilantism-in-rehtaeh-parsons-case-1.1234199  (accessed June 2013).

Exploitation and Delinquency

Critical feminists also focus on the social forces that shape women’s lives and experiences to explain female delinquency. 154  They attempt to show how the sexual victimization of girls is a function of male socialization because so many young males learn to be aggressive and to exploit women. Males seek same-sex peer groups for social support; these groups encourage members to exploit and sexually abuse women. On college campuses, peers encourage sexual violence against women who are considered “teasers,” “bar pickups,” or “loose women.” These derogatory labels allow the males to justify their actions; a code of secrecy then protects the aggressors from retribution. 155

According to the critical feminist view, exploitation triggers the onset of female delinquent and deviant behavior. When female victims run away and abuse substances, they may be reacting to abuse they have suffered at home or at school. Their attempts at survival are labeled as deviant or delinquent behavior. 156  When the exploited girl finds herself in the arms of the justice system her problems may just be beginning. While boys who get in trouble may be considered “overzealous” youth or kids who just went too far, young girls who get in trouble are seen as in opposition and a threat to acceptable images of femininity; their behavior is considered even more unusual and dangerous than male delinquency. 157

Power-Control Theory

John Hagan and his associates have speculated that gender differences in delinquency are a function of class differences that influence family life. Hagan, who calls his view  power-control theory , suggests that class influences delinquency by controlling the quality of family life. 158  In paternalistic families, fathers assume the role of breadwinners, and mothers have menial jobs or remain at home. Mothers are expected to control the behavior of their daughters while granting greater freedom to sons. The parent-daughter relationship can be viewed as a preparation for the “cult of domesticity,” which makes daughters’ involvement in delinquency unlikely. Hence, males exhibit a higher degree of delinquent behavior than their sisters.

power-control theory

Holds that gender differences in the delinquency rate are a function of class differences and economic conditions that influence the structure of family life.

In  egalitarian families —in which the husband and wife share similar positions of power at home and in the workplace—daughters gain a kind of freedom that reflects reduced parental control. These families produce daughters whose law-violating behaviors mirror those of their brothers. Ironically, these kinds of relationships also occur in households with absent fathers. Similarly, Hagan and his associates found that when both fathers and mothers hold equally valued managerial positions, the similarity between the rates of their daughters’ and sons’ delinquency is greatest. Therefore, middle-class girls are most likely to violate the law because they are less closely controlled than lower-class girls.

egalitarian families

Husband and wife share power at home; daughters gain a kind of freedom similar to that of sons, and their law-violating behaviors mirror those of their brothers.

Research conducted by Hagan and his colleagues has tended to support the core relationship between family structure and gender differences in delinquency. 159  Other social scientists have produced tests of the theory, which have generally supported its hypothesis. For example, Brenda Sims Blackwell and Mark Reed found that the gap between brother-sister delinquency is greatest in patriarchal families and least in egalitarian families, a finding consistent with the core premise of power-control theory. 160

However, some of the basic premises of power-control theory, such as the relationship between social class and delinquency, have been challenged. Some critics have questioned the assumption that upper-class youths may engage in more petty delinquency than lower-class youths because they are brought up to be risk takers who do not fear the consequences of their misdeeds. 161

Power-control theory encourages a new approach to the study of delinquency, one that addresses gender differences, class position, and family structure. It also helps explain the relative increase in female delinquency by stressing the significance of changing feminine roles. With the increase in single-parent homes, the patterns Hagan has identified may change. The decline of the patriarchal family may produce looser family ties on girls, changing sex roles, and increased delinquency. Ironically, this raises an interesting dilemma: the daughters of successful and powerful mothers are more at risk for delinquency than the daughters of stay-at-home moms! However, as sociologist Christopher Uggen points out, there may be a bright side to this dilemma. Not only are they more likely to commit delinquent acts, the daughters of independent working mothers may also be encouraged to take prosocial risks such as engaging in athletic competition and breaking into traditional male-dominated occupations, such as policing and the military. 162

According to power-control theory, as more families become egalitarian, with both parents sharing equal roles and having equal authority, children’s roles will become more homogenous. Because sons and daughters are treated equally, their behavior will take on similar patterns. Some, like Alice Blair, shown here listening to coach Russ Wilson during a huddle in Paint Creek, Texas, will take on what has been considered a traditional male role. Blair plays defense on the school’s six-person football team.

Gender and the Juvenile Justice System

Gender differences not only have an effect on crime patterns but also may have a significant impact on the way children are treated by the juvenile justice system. As a general rule, males who are involved in the justice system are sanctioned more severely than females.

Males are more likely to be petitioned to juvenile court if caught in a delinquent act; if petitioned, are more likely to be adjudicated; and if adjudicated, are more likely to receive residential placement as a sanction. About 40 percent of males petitioned to juvenile court for violent crimes receive some sort of court-ordered sanction (residential placement, formal probation, restitution, community service, etc.) following adjudication; in comparison, about 30 percent of girls receive similar sanctions. Cases involving males are more likely to be waived to criminal court (10 in 1,000) than are cases involving females (1 in 1,000). 163

While juvenile justice authorities treat boys more harshly than girls, they do not take into account such factors as offense seriousness or a prior record that might result in harsher dispositions. If these factors were controlled, gender differences in case outcome might disappear. In fact, in many ways girls receive more punitive treatment than boys, especially in cases involving sexual matters or offenses. This is not a recent phenomenon. Throughout the history of the juvenile justice system, girls were more likely to be punished for immoral behavior than actual delinquency. More than 30 years ago, Meda Chesney-Lind’s now classic research first identified the fact that police are more likely to arrest female adolescents for sexual activity and to ignore the same behavior among male delinquents. Girls are more likely than boys to be picked up by police for status offenses and are more likely to be kept in detention for such offenses. 164

Some critics believe that girls, more than boys, are still disadvantaged if their behavior is viewed as morally incorrect by government officials or if they are considered beyond parental control. 165  Girls may still be subject to harsh punishments if they are considered dangerously immoral. 166  Even though girls are still less likely to be arrested than boys, those who fail to measure up to stereotypes of proper female behavior are more likely to be sanctioned than male offenders. 167  Recent research by Tia Stevens and her associates found that over the past decades, regardless of racial/ethnic group, the girls who are involved in behavior considered inappropriate for females are more likely to be formally charged and involved in the juvenile justice system. It may be that tolerance for misbehavior significantly decreases when girls violate gender norms, and the punishment can sometimes be very harsh. 168

Lisa Pasko’s research confirms that the focus of the juvenile justice system continues to be on girls’ sexual behavior. She notes that in the early eras, courts blamed the cause of girls’ sexually immoral behavior on bad families, alcohol or drug use, poverty, and immigrant status. Girls may have been incarcerated for immorality, incorrigibility, and truancy, but underlying the recorded charge was usually some form of “sexual offense.” Today, the focus is still on sexuality. Girls are not directly arrested and adjudicated for sexual immorality, but the focus remains on their “bad” choices; they are still told to take responsibility for their sexual decisions. In the contemporary era, the correctional focus remains on the control and micromanagement of girls’ bodies and sexuality. 169

Girls more so than boys may be feeling the brunt of the more punitive policies now being used in the juvenile justice system. When Chesney-Lind and Vickie Paramore analyzed data from the city and county of Honolulu, they found that tougher juvenile justice standards meant that more cases were being handled formally. 170  While girls are actually committing fewer violent crimes, they are more likely to become enmeshed in the grasp of the juvenile justice system. Once in the system, they may receive fewer benefits and services than their male counterparts. Institutionalized girls report that they are given fewer privileges and less space, equipment, programs, and treatment than institutionalized boys. 171

SUMMARY

· 1 Be able to discuss the development of interest in female delinquency

·  Early delinquency experts often ignored female offenders, assuming that girls rarely violated the law, or if they did, that their illegal acts were status offenses.

·  Contemporary interest in the association between gender and delinquency has surged because girls are now getting involved in serious delinquent acts that are quite similar to those of young men.

·  Another reason for the interest in gender studies is that conceptions of gender differences have changed.

· 2 Be familiar with the gender differences in development

·  Gender differences in development include socialization, cognition, and personality.

·  Psychologists believe that differences in the way females and males are socialized affect their development.

·  Although there are few gender differences in aggression during the first few years of life, girls are socialized to be less aggressive than boys and are supervised more closely.

·  There are also cognitive differences between males and females starting in childhood.

·  In most cases cognitive differences are small and gradually narrowing.

· 3 Discuss the basis of gender differences

·  Some experts suggest that gender differences may have a biological origin: males and females are essentially different.

·  Females are more left brain–oriented and males more right brain–oriented.

·  A second view is that gender differences are developed over the life course and reflect different treatment of males and females.

·  Another view is that gender differences are a result of the interaction of socialization, learning, and enculturation.

· 4 Know the trends in gender differences in the delinquency rate

·  Gender differences in the delinquency rates have narrowed.

·  Boys still account for more serious violent crime arrests.

·  According to self-report data, gender patterns in delinquency have become similar.

· 5 Be familiar with early biological explanations of female delinquency

·  Lombroso maintained that women were lower on the evolutionary scale than men, more childlike, and less intelligent.

·  Women who committed crimes could be distinguished from “normal” women by physical characteristics—excessive body hair, wrinkles, and an abnormal cranium, for example.

·  In appearance, delinquent females appeared closer to men than to other women. The masculinity hypothesis suggested that delinquent girls had excessive male characteristics.

·  So-called experts suggested that female delinquency goes unrecorded because the female is the instigator rather than the perpetrator.

· 6 Discuss contemporary trait views of female delinquency

·  Empirical evidence suggests that girls who reach puberty at an early age are at the highest risk for delinquency.

·  One reason is that early bloomers may be more attractive to older adolescent boys, and increased contact with this high-risk group places the girls in jeopardy for antisocial behavior.

·  One view is that hormonal imbalance may influence aggressive behavior in young girls.

·  Another view is that excessive amounts of male hormones (androgens) are related to delinquency.

·  Because girls are socialized to be less aggressive than boys, it is possible that the young women who get involved in antisocial and violent behavior are suffering from some form of mental anguish or abnormality.

·  Clinical interviews indicate that female delinquents are significantly more likely than males to suffer from mood disorders.

· 7 Discuss the association between socialization and female delinquency

·  Girls may be supervised more closely than boys. If girls behave in a socially disapproved fashion, their parents may be more likely to notice.

·  Girls seem to be more deeply affected than boys by child abuse, and the link between abuse and female delinquency seems stronger than it is for male delinquency.

·  A significant body of literature links abusive home lives to gang participation and crime.

·  The socialization approach holds that family interaction is the key to understanding female delinquency.

·  Girls are expected to follow narrowly defined behavioral patterns.

· 8 Know the feminist view of female delinquency

·  Liberal feminism has influenced thinking about delinquency.

·  According to liberal feminists, females are less delinquent than males because their social roles provide fewer opportunities to commit crime.

·  Critical feminists hold that gender inequality stems from the unequal power of men and women and the subsequent exploitation of women by men.

·  Critical feminists focus on the social forces that shape girls’ lives. They attempt to show how the sexual victimization of girls is often a function of male socialization and that young males learn to be exploitive of women.

· 9 Be able to discuss Hagan’s power-control theory

·  John Hagan and his associates have speculated that gender differences in delinquency are a function of class differences that influence family life.

·  His power-control theory suggests that class influences delinquency by controlling the quality of family life.

·  In paternalistic families, fathers assume the role of breadwinners, and mothers have menial jobs or remain at home.

·  In egalitarian families—in which the husband and wife share similar positions of power at home and in the workplace—daughters gain a kind of freedom that reflects reduced parental control.

·  Power-control theory helps explain the relative increase in female delinquency by stressing the significance of changing feminine roles.

· 10 Discuss the treatment of girls in the juvenile justice system

·  Gender differences not only have an effect on crime patterns but also may have a significant impact on the way children are treated by the juvenile justice system.

·  As a general rule, males who are involved in the justice system are sanctioned more severely than females.

·  Girls are more likely than boys to receive harsh punishment if their behavior is viewed as morally incorrect by government officials or if they are considered beyond parental control.

·  Girls may still be subject to harsh punishments if they are considered dangerously immoral.

KEY TERMS

masculinity hypothesis,  p. 243

gender-schema theory,  p. 247

gender similarities hypothesis,  p. 247

chivalry hypothesis,  p. 251

precocious sexuality,  p. 252

liberal feminism,  p. 260

critical feminism,  p. 264

honor killing,  p. 264

patriarchal,  p. 264

power-control theory,  p. 267

egalitarian families,  p. 267

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Are girls delinquent for different reasons than boys? Do girls have a unique set of problems?

2.

As sex roles become more homogenous, do you believe female delinquency will become identical to male delinquency in rate and type?

3.

Does the sexual double standard still exist?

4.

Are lower-class girls more strictly supervised than upper- and middle-class girls? Is control stratified across class lines?

5.

Are girls the victims of unfairness at the hands of the justice system, or do they benefit from “chivalry”?

VIEWPOINT

As the principal of a northeastern middle school, you get a call from a parent who is disturbed because he heard a rumor that the student literary digest plans to publish a story with a sexual theme. The work is written by a middle school girl who became pregnant during the year and underwent an abortion. You ask for and receive a copy of the narrative.

The girl’s story is actually a cautionary tale of young love that results in an unwanted pregnancy. The author details the abusive home life that led her to engage in an intimate relationship with another student, her pregnancy, her conflict with her parents, her decision to abort, and the emotional turmoil that the incident created. She tells students to use contraception if they are sexually active and recommends appropriate types of birth control. There is nothing provocative or sexually explicit in the work.

Some teachers argue that girls should not be allowed to read this material because it has sexual content from which they must be protected, and that in a sense it advocates defiance of parents. Also, some parents may object to a story about precocious sexuality because they fear it may encourage their children to “experiment.” Such behavior is linked to delinquency and drug abuse. Those who advocate publication believe that girls have a right to read about such important issues and decide on their own course of action.

·  Should you force the story’s deletion, because its theme is essentially sexual and controversial?

·  Should you allow publication, because it deals with the subject matter in a mature fashion?

·  Do you think reading and learning about sexual matters encourages or discourages experimentation in sexuality?

·  Should young girls be protected from such material? Would it cause them damage?

·  Inequalities still exist in the way boys and girls are socialized by their parents and treated by social institutions. Do these gender differences also manifest themselves in the delinquency rate? What effect do gender roles have on behavior choices?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

To help you answer these questions and to find more information on the issue of school censorship, read the case of Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al. at  http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/hazelwood.html . Go also to the National Scholastic Press Association journalism website ( http://www.studentpress.org/nspa/ ) to read more about school news and censorship issues. Both websites can be accessed via the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com  by selecting the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Vishal Persaud, “Hooper, Wright Both Found Guilty in Murder of Seath Jackson,” Ocala Star Banner, June 12, 2012,  http://www.ocala.com/article/20120612/articles/120619932  (accessed July 2013); Persaud, “Hooper, Wright Sentenced to Life in Seath Jackson Murder,” Ocala Star Banner, August 22, 2012,  http://www.ocala.com/article/20120822/articles/120829900  (accessed July 2013).

2. Cesare Lombroso and William Ferrero, The Female Offender (New York: Philosophical Library, 1895).

3. National Crime Prevention Council, “Girls in Gangs,”  http://www.ncpc.org/training/training-topics/project-safe-neighborhoods-1/girls-in-gangs-1  (accessed June 2013).

4. Darcy Miller, Catherine Trapani, Kathy Fejes-Mendoza, Carolyn Eggleston, and Donna Dwiggins, “Adolescent Female Offenders: Unique Considerations,” Adolescence 30:429–435 (1995).

5. Rolf Loeber and Dale Hay, “Key Issues in the Development of Aggression and Violence from Childhood to Early Adulthood,” Annual Review of Psychology 48:371–410 (1997).

6. Danielle Boisvert, Jamie Vaske, Justine Taylor, and John Wright, “The Effects of Differential Parenting on Sibling Differences in Self-Control and Delinquency Among Brother-Sister Pairs,” Criminal Justice Review 37:5–23 (2012).

7. Philip Cook and Susan Sorenson, “The Gender Gap among Teen Survey Respondents: Why Are Boys More Likely to Report a Gun in the Home than Girls?” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 22: 61–76 (2006).

8. Allison Morris, Women, Crime, and Criminal Justice (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987).

9. Sarah Meadows, “Evidence of Parallel Pathways: Gender Similarity in the Impact of Social Support on Adolescent Depression and Delinquency,” Social Forces 85:1143–1167 (2007).

10. Dennis Giever, “An Empirical Assessment of the Core Elements of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, November 1995.

11. Abigail Fagan, M. Van Horn, J. Hawkins, and Michael Arthur, “Gender Similarities and Differences in the Association between Risk and Protective Factors and Self-Reported Serious Delinquency,” Prevention Science 8:115–124 (2007).

12. Loeber and Hay, “Key Issues in the Development of Aggression and Violence,” p. 378.

13. John Mirowsky and Catherine Ross, “Sex Differences in Distress: Real or Artifact?” American Sociological Review 60:449–468 (1995).

14. For a review of this issue, see Anne Campbell, Men, Women, and Aggression (New York: Basic Books, 1993).

15. Michael Rutter, Henri Giller, and Ann Hagell, Antisocial Behavior by Young People (London: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

16. Sarah Meadows, “Evidence of Parallel Pathways.”

17. Thomas Parsons, Albert Rizzo, Cheryl Van Der Zaag, Jocelyn McGee, and J. Galen Buckwalter, “Gender Differences and Cognition Among Older Adults,” Aging, Neuropsychology and Cognition 12:78–88 (2005).

18. Diane Halpern and Mary LaMay, “The Smarter Sex: A Critical Review of Sex Differences in Intelligence,” Educational Psychology Review 12:229–246 (2000).

19. Parsons, Rizzo, Van Der Zaag, McGee, and Buckwalter, “Gender Differences and Cognition Among Older Adults.”

20. James Messerschmidt, Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1993).

21. Debra Kaysen, Miranda Morris, Shireen Rizvi, and Patricia Resick, “Peritraumatic Responses and Their Relationship to Perceptions of Threat in Female Crime Victims,” Violence Against Women 11: 1515–1535 (2005).

22. D. J. Pepler and W. M. Craig, “A Peek Behind the Fence: Naturalistic Observations of Aggressive Children with Remote Audiovisual Recording,” Developmental Psychology 31:548–553 (1995).

23. Daniel Mears, Matthew Ploeger, and Mark Warr, “Explaining the Gender Gap in Delinquency: Peer Influence and Moral Evaluations of Behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35: 251–266 (1998).

24. John Gibbs, Dennis Giever, and Jamie Martin, “Parental Management and Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:40–70 (1998); Velmer Burton, Francis Cullen, T. David Evans, Leanne Fiftal Alarid, and R. Gregory Dunaway, “Gender, Self-Control, and Crime,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:123–147 (1998).

25. Camilla Benbow, David Lubinski, Daniel Shea, and Hossain Eftekhari-Sanjani, “Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning Ability at Age 13: Their Status 20 Years Later,” Psychological Science 11:474–480 (2000).

26. Regula Lehmann, Jaap Denissen, J. Mathias Allemand, and Lars Penke, “Age and Gender Differences in Motivational Manifestations of the Big Five from Age 16 to 60,” Developmental Psychology 49: 365–383 (2013).

27. American Association of University Women, Shortchanging Girls, Shortchanging America: Executive Summary (Washington, DC: Author, 1991).

28. Spencer Rathus, Voyages in Childhood (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2004).

29. Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

30. Nicole M. Else-Quest, Ashley Higgins, Carlie Allison, and Lindsay Morton, “Gender Differences in Self-Conscious Emotional Experience: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 138:947–981 (2012).

31. Ann Beutel and Margaret Mooney Marini, “Gender and Values,” American Sociological Review 60:436–448 (1995).

32. Tara Chaplin and Amelia Aldao, “Gender Differences in Emotion Expression in Children: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Psychological Bulletin 138:1–31 (2012).

33. Robert Agnew, “Reflection on ‘A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency,’” Social Forces 91:33–38 (2012).

34. Lisa Broidy and Robert Agnew, “Gender and Crime: A General Strain Theory Perspective,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:275–306 (1997).

35. David Roalf, Natasha Lowery, and Bruce Turetsky, “Behavioral and Physiological Findings of Gender Differences in Global-Local Visual Processing,” Brain and Cognition 60:32–42 (2006).

36. Eleanor Maccoby, The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1999).

37. Kathleen Miller, Merrill Melnick, Grace Barnes, Don Sabo, and Michael Farrell, “Athletic Involvement and Adolescent Delinquency,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36:711–723 (2007).

38. David Rowe, Alexander Vazsonyi, and Daniel Flannery, “Sex Differences in Crime: Do Means and Within-Sex Variation Have Similar Causes?” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:84–100 (1995).

39. Sandra Bem, The Lenses of Gender (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993).

40. Walter DeKeseredy and Martin Schwartz, “Male Peer Support and Woman Abuse,” Sociological Spectrum 13:393–413 (1993).

41. Janet Shibley Hyde, “The Gender Similarities Hypothesis,” American Psychologist 60:581–592 (2005).

42. John Archer, “The Importance of Theory for Evaluating Evidence on Sex Differences,” American Psychologist 61:638–639 (2006); Richard Lippa, “The Gender Reality Hypothesis,” American Psychologist 61:639–640 (2006).

43. Agnew, “Reflection on ‘A Revised Strain Theory of Delinquency.’”

44. Eleanor Maccoby, “Gender and Group Process: A Developmental Perspective,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 11:54–58 (2002).

45. Jean Bottcher, “Social Practices of Gender: How Gender Relates to Delinquency in the Everyday Lives of High-Risk Youths,” Criminology 39:893–932 (2001).

46. Audrey Zakriski, Jack Wright, and Marion Underwood, “Gender Similarities and Differences in Children’s Social Behavior: Finding Personality in Contextualized Patterns of Adaptation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88:844–855 (2005).

47. Yao Zheng and Harrington Cleveland, “Identifying Gender-Specific Developmental Trajectories of Nonviolent and Violent Delinquency from Adolescence to Young Adulthood,” Journal of Adolescence 36:371–381 (2013).

48. Data from Monitoring the Future, 2011 (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 2013).

49. Wesley Jennings, Mildred Maldonado-Molina, and Kelli Komro, “Sex Similarities/Differences in Trajectories of Delinquency among Urban Chicago Youth: The Role of Delinquent Peers,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 35:56–75 (2010).

50. Darrell Steffensmeier, Jennifer Schwartz, Hua Zhong, and Jeff Ackerman, “An Assessment of Recent Trends in Girls’ Violence Using Diverse Longitudinal Sources: Is the Gender Gap Closing?” Criminology 43:355–406 (2005).

51. Sara Goodkind, John Wallace, Jeffrey Shook, Jerald Bachman, and Patrick O’Malley, “Are Girls Really Becoming More Delinquent? Testing the Gender Convergence Hypothesis by Race and Ethnicity, 1976–2005,” Children and Youth Services Review 31:885–895 (2009).

52. Margaret Zahn, Susan Brumbaugh, Darrell Steffensmeier, Barry Feld, Merry Morash, Meda Chesney-Lind, Jody Miller, Allison Ann Payne, Denise C. Gottfredson, and Candace Kruttschnitt, Violence by Teenage Girls: Trends and Context (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008),  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/218905.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

53. Ibid.

54. Lombroso and Ferrero, The Female Offender.

55. Ibid., p. 122.

56. Ibid., pp. 51–52.

57. For a review, see Anne Campbell, Girl Delinquents (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981), pp. 41–48.

58. Cyril Burt, The Young Delinquent (New York: Appleton, 1925); see also Warren Middleton, “Is There a Relation Between Kleptomania and Female Periodicity in Neurotic Individuals?” Psychology Clinic (December 1933), pp. 232–247.

59. William Healy and Augusta Bronner, Delinquents and Criminals: Their Making and Unmaking (New York: Macmillan, 1926).

60. Ibid., p. 10.

61. Miriam Sealock and Sally Simpson, “Unraveling Bias in Arrest Decisions: The Role of Juvenile Offender Typescripts,” Justice Quarterly 15:427–457 (1998).

62. Sigmund Freud, An Outline of Psychoanalysis, trans. James Strachey (New York: Norton, 1949), p. 278.

63. Sigmund Freud, Three Essays of the Theory of Sexuality (New York: Avon Books, 1962), p. 27. (Original work published 1905.)

64. Peter Blos, “Pre-Oedipal Factors in the Etiology of Female Delinquency,” Psychoanalytic Studies of the Child 12:229–242 (1957).

65. Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, Five Hundred Delinquent Women (New York: Knopf, 1934).

66. J. Cowie, V. Cowie, and E. Slater, Delinquency in Girls (London: Heinemann, 1968).

67. Anne Campbell, “On the Invisibility of the Female Delinquent Peer Group,” Women and Criminal Justice 2:41–62 (1990).

68. Carolyn Smith, “Factors Associated with Early Sexual Activity among Urban Adolescents,” Social Work 42:334–346 (1997).

69. For a review, see Christy Miller Buchanan, Jacquelynne Eccles, and Jill Becker, “Are Adolescents the Victims of Raging Hormones? Evidence for Activational Effects of Hormones on Moods and Behavior at Adolescence,” Psychological Bulletin 111:63–107 (1992).

70. L. Kris Gowen, S. Shirley Feldman, Rafael Diaz, and Donnovan Somera Yisrael, “A Comparison of the Sexual Behaviors and Attitudes of Adolescent Girls with Older vs. Similar-Aged Boyfriends,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33:167–176 (2004).

71. Dana Haynie, “Contexts of Risk? Explaining the Link between Girls’ Pubertal Development and Their Delinquency Involvement,” Social Forces 82:355–397 (2003).

72. Elizabeth Cauffman, Susan Farruggia, and Asha Goldweber, “Bad Boys or Poor Parents: Relations to Female Juvenile Delinquency,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 18:699–712 (2008).

73. Avshalom Caspi, Donald Lynam, Terrie Moffitt, and Phil Silva, “Unraveling Girls’ Delinquency: Biological, Dispositional, and Contextual Contributions to Adolescent Misbehavior,” Developmental Psychology 29:283–289 (1993).

74. Rona Carter, James Jaccard, Wendy Silverman, and Armando Pina, “Pubertal Timing and Its Link to Behavioral and Emotional Problems among ‘At-Risk’ African American Adolescent Girls,” Journal of Adolescence 32:467–481 (2009).

75. Sampson Lee Blair, “The Influence of Risk-Taking Behaviors on the Transition into Marriage: An Examination of the Long-Term Consequences of Adolescent Behavior,” Marriage and Family Review 46:126–146 (2010).

76. Dana Haynie and Alex Piquero, “Pubertal Development and Physical Victimization in Adolescence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:3–35 (2006).

77. Jay Belsky, “Early Child Care and Early Child Development: Major Findings from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care,” European Journal of Developmental Psychology 3:95–110 (2006).

78. David Comings, Donn Muhleman, James Johnson, and James MacMurray, “Parent-Daughter Transmission of the Androgen Receptor Gene as an Explanation of the Effect of Father Absence on Age of Menarche,” Child Development 73:1046–1051 (2002).

79. Eleanor Maccoby and Carol Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974).

80. Kathleen Pajer, William Gardner, Robert Rubin, James Perel, and Stephen Neal, “Decreased Cortisol Levels in Adolescent Girls with Conduct Disorder,” Archives of General Psychiatry 58:297–302 (2001).

81. Alan Booth and D. Wayne Osgood, “The Influence of Testosterone on Deviance in Adulthood: Assessing and Explaining the Relationship,” Criminology 31:93–118 (1993).

82. D. H. Baucom, P. K. Besch, and S. Callahan, “Relationship between Testosterone Concentration, Sex Role Identity, and Personality among Females,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 1218–1226 (1985).

83. Lee Ellis, “Evidence of Neuroandrogenic Etiology of Sex Roles from a Combined Analysis of Human, Nonhuman Primate, and Nonprimate Mammalian Studies,” Personality and Individual Differences 7:519–552 (1986).

84. Diana Fishbein, “The Psychobiology of Female Aggression,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 19:99–126 (1992).

85. Spencer Rathus, Psychology, 3rd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1987), p. 88.

86. See, generally, Katharina Dalton, The Premenstrual Syndrome (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1971).

87. Diana Fishbein, “Selected Studies on the Biology of Antisocial Behavior” in John Conklin, ed., New Perspectives in Criminology (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1996), pp. 26–38.

88. Julie Horney, “Menstrual Cycles and Criminal Responsibility,” Law and Human Nature 2:25–36 (1978).

89. Lee Ellis, “The Victimful-Victimless Crime Distinction and Seven Universal Demographic Correlates of Victimful Criminal Behavior,” Personality and Individual Differences 9:525–548 (1988).

90. Lee Ellis, “Evolutionary and Neurochemical Causes of Sex Differences in Victimizing Behavior: Toward a Unified Theory of Criminal Behavior and Social Stratification,” Social Science Information 28: 605–636 (1989).

91. David Foy, Iya Ritchie, and Alison Conway, “Trauma Exposure, Posttraumatic Stress, and Comorbidities in Female Adolescent Offenders: Findings and Implications from Recent Studies,” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 3:1–13 (2012).

92. Jan ter Laak, Martijn de Goede, Liesbeth Aleva, Gerard Brugman, Miranda van Leuven, and Judith Hussmann, “Incarcerated Adolescent Girls: Personality, Social Competence, and Delinquency,” Adolescence 38:251–265 (2003).

93. Dorothy Espelage, Elizabeth Cauffman, Lisa Broidy, Alex Piquero, Paul Mazerolle, and Hans Steiner, “A Cluster-Analytic Investigation of MMPI Profiles of Serious Male and Female Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42:770–777 (2003).

94. Kristen McCabe, Amy Lansing, Ann Garland, and Richard Hough, “Gender Differences in Psychopathology, Functional Impairment, and Familial Risk Factors Among Adjudicated Delinquents,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41:860–867 (2002).

95. Paul Frick, Amy Cornell, Christopher Barry, Doug Bodin, and Heather Dane, “Callous-Unemotional Traits and Conduct Problems in the Prediction of Conduct Problem Severity, Aggression, and Self-Report of Delinquency,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31:457–470 (2003).

96. Majone Steketee, Marianne Junger, and Josine Junger-Tas, “Sex Differences in the Predictors of Juvenile Delinquency: Females Are More Susceptible to Poor Environments; Males Are Influenced More by Low Self-Control,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29:88–105 (2013).

97. Kristine Hickle and Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, “Female Juvenile Arsonists: An Exploratory Look at Characteristics and Solo and Group Arson Offences,” Legal and Criminological Psychology 15:385–399 (2010).

98. Alex Mason and Michael Windle, “Gender, Self-Control, and Informal Social Control in Adolescence: A Test of Three Models of the Continuity of Delinquent Behavior,” Youth and Society 33:479–514 (2002).

99. William I. Thomas, The Unadjusted Girl with Cases and Standpoint for Behavior Analysis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1923)

100. Ibid., p. 109.

101. Elaine Eggleston Doherty, Kerry Green, and Margaret Ensminger, “The Impact of Adolescent Deviance on Marital Trajectories,” Deviant Behavior 33:185–206 (2012).

102. Ibid.

103. Ruth Morris, “Female Delinquents and Relational Problems,” Social Forces 43:82–89 (1964).

104. Cowie, Cowie, and Slater, Delinquency in Girls, p. 27.

105. Morris, “Female Delinquents and Relational Problems.”

106. Clyde Vedder and Dora Somerville, The Delinquent Girl (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1970).

107. Ames Robey, Richard Rosenwal, John Small, and Ruth Lee, “The Runaway Girl: A Reaction to Family Stress,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 34:763–767 (1964).

108. William Wattenberg and Frank Saunders, “Sex Differences among Juvenile Court Offenders,” Sociology and Social Research 39: 24–31 (1954).

109. Don Gibbons and Manzer Griswold, “Sex Differences among Juvenile Court Referrals,” Sociology and Social Research 42:106–110 (1957).

110. Gordon Barker and William Adams, “Comparison of the Delinquencies of Boys and Girls,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 53:470–475 (1962).

111. Erin Kathleen Midgley and Celia Lo, “The Role of a Parent’s Incarceration in the Emotional Health and Problem Behaviors of At-Risk Adolescents,” Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse 22:85–103 (2013).

112. Jennifer Kerpelman and Sondra Smith-Adcock, “Female Adolescents’ Delinquent Activity: The Intersection of Bonds to Parents and Reputation Enhancement,” Youth and Society 37:176–200 (2005).

113. Meredith Worthen, “Gender Differences in Parent-Child Bonding: Implications for Understanding the Gender Gap in Delinquency,” Journal of Crime and Justice 34:3–23 (2011).

114. D. Wayne Osgood, Janet Wilson, Patrick O’Malley, Jerald Bachman, and Lloyd Johnston, “Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behaviors,” American Sociological Review 61:635–655 (1996).

115. Megan Bears Augustyn and Jean Marie McGloin, “The Risk of Informal Socializing with Peers: Considering Gender Differences Across Predatory Delinquency and Substance Use,” Justice Quarterly 30:117–143 (2013).

116. Steketee, Junger, and Junger-Tas, “Sex Differences in the Predictors of Juvenile Delinquency,” 88–105.

117. Cauffman, Farruggia, and Goldweber, “Bad Boys or Poor Parents.”

118. Angela Dixon, Pauline Howie, and Jean Starling, “Trauma Exposure, Posttraumatic Stress, and Psychiatric Comorbidity in Female Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 44:798–806 (2005).

119. Hyeouk Chris Hahm, Yoona Lee, Al Ozonoff, and Michael Wert, “The Impact of Multiple Types of Child Maltreatment on Subsequent Risk Behaviors among Women during the Transition from Adolescence to Young Adulthood,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39:528–540 (2010); Veronica Herrera and Laura Ann McCloskey, “Sexual Abuse, Family Violence, and Female Delinquency: Findings from a Longitudinal Study,” Violence and Victims 18:319–334 (2003).

120. Sherry Hamby, David Finkelhor, and Heather Turner, “Teen Dating Violence: Co-occurrence with Other Victimizations in the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV),” Psychology of Violence 2:111–124 (2012).

121. Julie Messer, Barbara Maughan, and David Quinton, “Precursors and Correlates of Criminal Behaviour in Women,” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 14:82–107 (2004).

122. Emily Gaarder and Joanne Belknap, “Tenuous Borders: Girls Transferred to Adult Court,” Criminology 40:481–518 (2002).

123. Meda Chesney-Lind, “Girls’ Crime and Woman’s Place: Toward a Feminist Model of Female Delinquency,” Crime and Delinquency 35:5–29, at 20 (1989).

124. Pernilla Johansson and Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, “A Gender-Specific Pathway to Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offending? Exploring Howell’s Risk Factors for Serious Delinquency,” Crime and Delinquency 55:216–240 (2009).

125. Dominique Eve Roe-Sepowitz, “Comparing Male and Female Juveniles Charged with Homicide: Child Maltreatment, Substance Abuse, and Crime Details,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24:601–617 (2009).

126. Kristin Carbone-Lopez and Jody Miller, “Precocious Role Entry as a Mediating Factor in Women’s Methamphetamine Use: Implications for Life-Course and Pathways Research,” Criminology 50:187–220 (2012).

127. David Brownfield, “Gender and Gang Membership: Testing Theories to Account for Different Rates of Participation,” Journal of Gang Research 19:25–32 (2012).

128. Joan Moore, Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), p. 93.

129. Ibid., p. 101.

130. Gaarder and Belknap, “Tenuous Borders.”

131. Freda Adler, Sisters in Crime (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975).

132. Ibid., pp. 10–11.

133. Rita James Simon, “Women and Crime Revisited,” Social Science Quarterly 56:658–663 (1976).

134. Ibid., pp. 660–661.

135. Roy Austin, “Women’s Liberation and Increase in Minor, Major, and Occupational Offenses,” Criminology 20:407–430 (1982).

136. Michael Hindelang, “Age, Sex, and the Versatility of ‘Delinquency Involvements,’” Social Forces 14:525–534 (1971).

137. Darrell Steffensmeier and Dana Haynie, “Gender, Structural Disadvantage, and Urban Crime: Do Macrosocial Variables Also Explain Female Offending Rates?” Criminology 38:403–438 (2000); Beth Bjerregaard and Carolyn Smith, “Gender Differences in Gang Participation and Delinquency,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 9:329–350 (1993).

138. Herman Schwendinger and Julia Schwendinger, Rape and Inequality (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1983).

139. Linda M. Williams, “Honor Killings,” in Claire M. Renzetti and Jeffrey I. Edelson, eds., Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Violence (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2007); Dan Bilefsky, “How to Avoid Honor Killing in Turkey? Honor Suicide,” New York Times, July 16, 2006; Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, “Reexamining Femicide: Breaking the Silence and Crossing ‘Scientific’ Borders,” Signs 28:581–608 (2003).

140. FBI, Yaser Abdel Said “Wanted” poster,  http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/murders/yaser-abdel-said/  (accessed June 2013).

141. Michael Sheridan, “Trial of Faleh Hassan Almaleki, Accused of Killing Daughter in ‘Honor Killing,’ Begins in Phoenix,” New York Daily News, January 24, 2011,  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/24/2011-01-24_trial_of_dad_accused_of_killing_daughter_in_honor_killing_begins.html  (accessed June 2013).

142. Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind, “Feminism and Criminology,” Justice Quarterly 5:497–538 (1988).

143. Janet Saltzman Chafetz, “Feminist Theory and Sociology: Underutilized Contributions for Mainstream Theory,” Annual Review of Sociology 23:97–121 (1997).

144. Ibid.

145. James Messerschmidt, Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield, 1986); for a critique of this work, see Herman Schwendinger and Julia Schwendinger, “The World According to James Messerschmidt,” Social Justice 15:123–145 (1988).

146. Kathleen Daly, “Gender and Varieties of White-Collar Crime,” Criminology 27:769–793 (1989).

147. Gillian Balfour, “Re-imagining a Feminist Criminology,” Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48:735–752 (2006).

148. Jane Roberts Chapman, “Violence against Women as a Violation of Human Rights,” Social Justice 17:54–71 (1990).

149. Carrie Yodanis, “Gender Inequality, Violence against Women, and Fear,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19:655–675 (2004).

150. Victoria Titterington, “A Retrospective Investigation of Gender Inequality and Female Homicide Victimization,” Sociological Spectrum 26:205–236 (2006).

151. James Messerschmidt, Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptualization of Theory (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1993).

152. Angela P. Harris, “Gender, Violence, Race, and Criminal Justice,” Stanford Law Review 52:777–810 (2000).

153. Jody Miller and Norman White, “Gender and Adolescent Relationship Violence: A Contextual Examination,” Criminology 41:1207–1248 (2003).

154. Suzie Dod Thomas and Nancy Stein, “Criminality, Imprisonment, and Women’s Rights in the 1990s,” Social Justice 17:1–5 (1990).

155. Walter DeKeseredy and Martin Schwartz, “Male Peer Support and Woman Abuse: An Expansion of DeKeseredy’s Model,” Sociological Spectrum 13:393–413 (1993).

156. Daly and Chesney-Lind, “Feminism and Criminology.” See also Drew Humphries and Susan Caringella-MacDonald, “Murdered Mothers, Missing Wives: Reconsidering Female Victimization,” Social Justice 17:71–78 (1990).

157. Kjersti Ericsson and Nina Jon, “Gendered Social Control: ‘A Virtuous Girl’ and ‘a Proper Boy’,” Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 9:126–141 (2006).

158. John Hagan, A. R. Gillis, and John Simpson, “The Class Structure and Delinquency: Toward a Power-Control Theory of Common Delinquent Behavior,” American Journal of Sociology 90:1151–1178 (1985); John Hagan, John Simpson, and A. R. Gillis, “Class in the Household: A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Delinquency,” American Journal of Sociology 92:788–816 (1987).

159. John Hagan, A. R. Gillis, and John Simpson, “Clarifying and Extending Power-Control Theory,” American Journal of Sociology 95:1024–1037 (1990).

160. Brenda Sims Blackwell and Mark Reed, “Power-Control as a Between and Within-Family Model: Reconsidering the Unit of Analysis,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32:385–400 (2003).

161. Gary Jensen and Kevin Thompson, “What’s Class Got to Do with It? A Further Examination of Power-Control Theory,” American Journal of Sociology 95:1009–1023 (1990); Kevin Thompson, “Gender and Adolescent Drinking Problems: The Effects of Occupational Structure,” Social Problems 36:30–44 (1989); for some critical research, see Simon Singer and Murray Levine, “Power-Control Theory, Gender and Delinquency: A Partial Replication with Additional Evidence on the Effects of Peers,” Criminology 26:627–648 (1988).

162. Christopher Uggen, “Class, Gender, and Arrest: An Intergenerational Analysis of Workplace Power and Control,” Criminology 38:835–862 (2001).

163. Howard Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006),  http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/nr2006.pdf  (accessed May 2013).

164. Thomas J. Gamble, Sherrie Sonnenberg, John Haltigan, and Amy Cuzzola-Kern, “Detention Screening: Prospects for Population Management and the Examination of Disproportionality by Race, Age, and Gender,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 13:380–395 (2002); Kimberly Kempf-Leonard and Lisa Sample, “Disparity Based on Sex: Is Gender-Specific Treatment Warranted?” Justice Quarterly 17:89–128 (2000).

165. Meda Chesney-Lind and Randall Shelden, Girls, Delinquency, and Juvenile Justice (Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth, 1998).

166. Holly Hartwig and Jane Myers, “A Different Approach: Applying a Wellness Paradigm to Adolescent Female Delinquents and Offenders,” Journal of Mental Health Counseling 25:57–75 (2003).

167. Sealock and Simpson, “Unraveling Bias in Arrest Decisions.”

168. Tia Stevens, Merry Morash, and Meda Chesney-Lind, “Are Girls Getting Tougher, or Are We Tougher on Girls? Probability of Arrest and Juvenile Court Oversight in 1980 and 2000,” Justice Quarterly 28:719–744 (2011).

169. Lisa Pasko, “Damaged Daughters: The History of Girls’ Sexuality and the Juvenile Justice System,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 100:1099–1130 (2010).

170. Meda Chesney-Lind and Vickie Paramore, “Are Girls Getting More Violent? Exploring Juvenile Robbery Trends,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 17:142–166 (2001).

171. Joanne Belknap, Kristi Holsinger, and Melissa Dunn, “Understanding Incarcerated Girls,” Prison Journal 77:381–

The Family and Delinquency

Chapter Outline

The Changing American Family

· Family Makeup

· Child Care

· Economic Stress

The Family’s Influence on Delinquency

· Family Breakup

· Family Conflict

· Family Competence

· Family Deviance

Child Abuse and Neglect

· Historical Foundation

· Defining Abuse and Neglect

· The Effects of Abuse

· The Extent of Child Abuse

· The Nature of Abuse

· Sexual Abuse

· Causes of Child Abuse and Neglect

The Child Protection System: Philosophy and Practice

· Investigating and Reporting Abuse

· The Process of State Intervention

· Disposition and Review

· Foster Care

· The Abused Child in Court

· Disposition Outcomes of Abuse and Neglect Cases

· Preventing Child Abuse

Abuse, Neglect, and Delinquency

· Is There an Abuse-Delinquency Link?

The Family and Delinquency Control Policy

Learning Objectives

· 1 Be familiar with the link between family relationships and juvenile delinquency

· 2 Chart the changes American families are now undergoing

· 3 Understand the complex association between family breakup and delinquent behavior

· 4 Understand why families in conflict produce more delinquents than those that function harmoniously

· 5 Compare and contrast the effects of good and bad parenting on delinquency

· 6 Discuss whether having deviant parents affects a child’s behavioral choices

· 7 Know about sibling influence on delinquency

· 8 Discuss the nature and extent of child abuse

· 9 List the assumed causes of child abuse

· 10 Be familiar with the child protection system and the stages in the child protection process

chapter features

focus on Delinquency: Economic Stress and Delinquency

focus on Delinquency: Bad Parents or Bad Kids?

Case profile: Ayden’s Story

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—intervention: Homebuilders

NEHEMIAH GRIEGO, 15, told people at his church that his family had been killed in a car crash and were lying dead inside their home in South Valley, New Mexico. However, police investigation quickly determined that Nehemiah himself had shot and killed his father, mother, and three young siblings. When church officials called the police, the boy led them to his home where the victims, Greg and Sarah Griego and three of their children, Zephania (9), Jael (5), and Angelina (2), were found shot to death. Nehemiah then told deputies the shootings happened because he had “anger issues” and “was annoyed with” his mother. He had been having homicidal and suicidal thoughts, and so around midnight he got a .22 caliber rifle from his parents’ closet and shot his mother in the head, killing her. His 9-year-old brother was sleeping next to her. His brother became upset when he woke up, so Nehemiah shot him in the head. When his sisters began to cry, he shot both of them in the head as well. Nehemiah then got an AR-15 rifle from the closet and waited in a bathroom until his father arrived home at about 5:00 AM. He then shot his father multiple times, killing him instantly. Nehemiah put some of the guns in the family’s van and drove it to Calvary Church, where his story of what happened to his family was questioned. He also told police he took a picture of his dead mother and sent it to his 12-year-old girlfriend. 1

While the Griego family killings are unusual, they are not unique. Each year about 350 murders involve nuclear family members, parents, or brothers and sisters. While there is little question that a positive and nurturing family life can help protect kids from antisocial behaviors, a family wracked by conflict can produce the opposite effect. In fact, most delinquency experts agree that interactions between parents and children, and between siblings, and across genders, provide opportunities for children to acquire or inhibit antisocial behavior patterns. 2  Even kids who are predisposed toward delinquency because of abnormal personality traits or mood disorders, such Nehemiah Griego, may find their life circumstances improved and their involvement with antisocial behavior diminished if they are exposed to positive and effective parenting. 3

Families may be more important than peer groups as an influence on adolescent misbehavior. 4  It comes as no surprise that research shows that, as young adults, people who maintain positive lifestyles report having had warm relationships with their parents, while those who perceived a lack of parental warmth and support were later much more likely to get involved in antisocial behaviors. 5  Families that lack the resources to support at-risk youth simply may be unable to prevent their offspring from entering a delinquent way of life. 6

Good parenting lowers the risk of delinquency for children living in high-crime areas. Research shows kids resist the temptation of the streets if they receive fair discipline and support from parents who provide them with positive role models. 7

For a great deal of information on programs for families and children, visit the David and Lucile Packard Foundation website ( http://www.packard.org/what-we-fund/children-families-and-communities/ ), or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Warm and supportive relationships with parents provide an environment for adolescents in which they are able to adapt to environmentally derived stress and strain in a healthy manner. Families that bond and that have family dinner together on a regular basis seem to be most able to shield children from damaging social and cultural influences. 8  Positive relationships with parents promote prosocial behavior even among adolescents who are exposed to damaging life events or chronic environmental strains. 9

Because these issues are critical for understanding delinquency, this chapter is devoted to an analysis of the family’s role in producing or inhibiting delinquency. We first cover the changing face of the American family. We will review the way family structure and function influence delinquent behavior. The relationships among child abuse, neglect, and delinquency are covered in some depth.

The Changing American Family

The assumed relationship between delinquency and family life is critical today, because the American family is changing. Extended families, once common, are now for the most part anachronisms. In their place is the  nuclear family , described as a “dangerous hothouse of emotions,” because of the close contact between parents and children; in these families, problems are unrelieved by contact with other kin living nearby. 10

nuclear family

A family unit composed of parents and their children; this smaller family structure is subject to great stress due to the intense, close contact between parents and children.

And now the nuclear family is showing signs of breakdown. About half of all marriages may one day end in divorce (the marriage rate: 6.8 per 1,000 total population; the divorce rate: 3.4 per 1,000 population). 11  Much of the responsibility for childrearing is delegated to television and daycare providers. While some families continue functioning as healthy units, producing well-adjusted children, others have crumbled under the stress, severely damaging their children. 12

The so-called traditional family—with a male breadwinner and a female who cares for the home—is a thing of the past. No longer can this family structure be considered the norm. Changing sex roles have created a family in which women play a much greater role in the economic process; this has created a more egalitarian family structure. About three-quarters of all mothers of school-age children are employed, up from 50 percent in 1970 and 40 percent in 1960. The changing economic structure may be reflected in shifting sex roles. Fathers are now spending more time with their children on workdays than they did 20 years ago, and mothers are spending somewhat less time. 13

Family Makeup

There are now about 75 million children under age 18 living in America. As  Figure 8.1  shows, roughly two-thirds of these underage minors now live in two-parent families:

·  Of the 75 million children younger than 18, most (about 70 percent) live with two parents, while another 27 percent live with one parent and the rest with a relative or guardian.

·  Among the children who live with one parent, 87 percent live with their mother.

·  Of the children living with no parents present, most live with a grandparent.

figure 8.1: Percentage of Children Ages 0–17 Living in Various Family Arrangements

SOURCE: US Census Bureau, “Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements,”  http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/fam_fig.asp  (accessed June 2013).

There are still significant racial differences in family makeup. About one-third of all African American children live in families that have two parents compared to about three-quarters of European American children. As many as 40 percent of European American children and 75 percent of African American children will experience parental separation or divorce before they reach age 16, and many of these children will experience multiple family disruptions over time. 14

Ironically, while fewer underage children today are living with two parents, the proportion of young adults still living in their parents’ home (called the “Boomerang Generation”) has significantly increased during the past decade. The percentage of men age 25 to 34 living in the home of their parents rose from 14 percent in 2005 to about 20 percent today; young women are less likely to live at home, but the likelihood of them returning to the nest also increased (from 8 to 10 percent). 15  The reason: the economic downturn and lack of jobs has made independent living financially difficult.

Fragile Families

Nonmarital childbearing increased dramatically in the United States during the latter half of the twentieth century, changing the context in which American children are raised and giving rise to a new family form—fragile families, defined as unmarried couples with children. Some analysts see these changes as a positive sign of greater individual freedom and women’s economic independence; others argue that they contribute to poverty and income inequality. 16  Given the importance of families to children’s health and development, researchers and policy makers have become increasingly interested in the nature of parental relationships in fragile families and their implications for children’s future life chances, especially children’s access to resources and the stability and quality of these resources. Parents living in cooperative, stable unions tend to pool their incomes and work together to raise their child. By contrast, those living apart in uncooperative relationships can jeopardize their child’s resources, both financial and social. Such living arrangements can also impact on a child’s well-being: research indicates that child abuse is more likely to occur in two-parent families in which one caretaker is a live-in boyfriend or stepfather. 17

In sum, at the time their child is born, unmarried parents have high hopes for a future together. About half of these parents are living together, and another 30 percent are romantically involved. Relationship quality and father involvement are high. Underlying this optimism, however, are signs of problems, including distrust of the opposite sex and a belief that a single mother can raise a child as well as a married mother. Five years later, the picture is more mixed. On the positive side, about a third of parents are living together, about half of noncohabiting fathers see their child on a regular basis, and co-parenting relationships are positive. On the negative side, a third of fathers have virtually disappeared from their children’s lives, and new partnerships and new children are common, leading to high instability and growing complexity in these families.

Teen Moms/Single Moms

Living in a single-parent home, especially one headed by an unmarried teenage mother, has long been associated with difficulties for both the mother and her child. As you may recall ( Chapter 1 ), kids born into single-parent homes are more likely to live in poverty and to experience long-term physical and social difficulties. 18  One reason is that more than 90 percent of teens who give birth are unmarried, compared with 62 percent in 1980, and young single moms may have a tough time earning a decent living in a tough economy. 19

Very often these conditions are interactive: teen moms suffer social problems, which in turn have a negative effect on their children. Research shows that by age 14, when compared to the children of older moms, the offspring of teen mothers were more likely to have disturbed psychological behavior, poorer school performance, poorer reading ability, were involved with the criminal justice system, and were more likely to smoke and drink on a regular basis. However, the connection between teen moms and troubled children flows through their economic circumstances—those without economic means were much more likely to produce troubled kids than those who enjoyed support, financial and otherwise, from their families. 20

While teenage moms still experience difficulties, there are significantly fewer of them in the population than there were 20 years ago (see  Figure 8.2 ). Availability of birth control and the legalization of abortion has helped reduce the number of pregnant teens. However, there remains substantial racial and ethnic disparities among the birth rates for adolescents ages 15 through 17. Today, the teen birth rate per 1,000 ranges from 7 for Asians to 41 for Hispanics. While this disparity is troubling, the birth rates for black non-Hispanic, white non-Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander females ages 15 through 17 dropped by about half or more since 1991. As  Figure 8.2  shows, the decline has been experienced by girls in all racial and ethnic groups.

figure 8.2: Birthrates for Females Ages 15–17 by Race and Ethnicity Origin

SOURCE: “America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2009,”  http://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2009/ac_09.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

Child Care

Charged with caring for children is a daycare system whose workers are often paid minimum wage. Of special concern are “family daycare homes,” in which a single provider takes care of three to nine children. Today more than 60 percent of all young children, about 12 million, are in some form of child care, either before or after they begin their formal education. Children living in poverty are much more likely to be in nonparental care than more affluent kids. Several states neither license nor monitor these private providers. Even in states that mandate registration and inspection of daycare providers, it is estimated that 90 percent or more of the facilities operate “underground.” It is not uncommon for one adult to care for eight infants, an impossible task regardless of training or feelings of concern. During times of economic downturn, unlicensed child care provides a more reasonable alternative to state-regulated and therefore more costly licensed centers. And because punishments are typically a small fine, prosecutors rarely go after unlicensed child care operators unless tragedy strikes. Such was the case when recently four children died in unlicensed child care centers in Jackson County, Missouri, in an eight-month period. Two of the deaths occurred where caregivers were watching too many children without a license; despite their legal problems the center operators continue to care for children. 21

Children from working poor families are most likely to suffer from inadequate child care; these children often spend time in makeshift arrangements that allow their parents to work, but lack the stimulating environment children need to thrive. Unlike many other Western countries, the United States does not provide universal daycare to working mothers. As a result, writes Valerie Polakow in her provocative book Who Cares for Our Children? The Child Care Crisis in the Other America, lack of access to affordable high-quality child care is frequently the tipping point that catapults a family into poverty, joblessness, and homelessness—a constant threat to the well-being of lower-class women and children. 22

Economic Stress

The family is also undergoing economic stress and there are more than 16 million kids living in poverty. 23  The majority of indigent families live in substandard housing without adequate health care, nutrition, or child care. Those whose incomes place them above the poverty line are deprived of government assistance. Recent political trends suggest that the social “safety net” is under attack and that poor families can expect less government aid in the coming years.

Will this economic pressure be reduced in the future? In addition to recent economic upheaval and high unemployment rates, the family will remain under stress because of changes in the population makeup. Life spans are increasing, and as a result the number of senior citizens is on the rise. There are currently about 4 million people over 85 years of age in the United States, a number that will rise to 20 million by 2050. 24  As people retire, there will be fewer workers to cover the costs of Social Security, medical care, and nursing home care. Because the elderly will require a greater percentage of the nation’s income for their care, less money will be available to care for needy children. These costs will put greater economic stress on families. Voter sentiment has an impact on the allocation of public funds, and there is concern that an older generation, worried about health care costs, may be reluctant to spend tax dollars on at-risk kids. The Focus on Delinquency feature “Economic Stress and Delinquency” describes a long-term study of how economic stressors affect families.

FOCUS on delinquency: Economic Stress and Delinquency

Rand Conger is one of the nation’s leading experts on family life. For the past two decades, he has been involved with four major community studies that have examined the influence of economic stress on families, children, and adolescents; in sum, these studies involve almost 1,500 families and over 4,000 individual family members, who represent a diverse cross-section of society. The extensive information that has been collected on all of these families over time includes reports by family members, videotaped discussions in the home, and data from schools and other community agencies.

One thing that Conger and his associates have learned is that in all of these different types of families, economic stress appears to have a harmful effect on parents and children. According to his “Family Stress Model” of economic hardship, such factors as low income and income loss increase parents’ sadness, pessimism about the future, anger, despair, and withdrawal from other family members. Economic stress has this impact on parents’ social-emotional functioning through the daily pressures it creates for them, such as being unable to pay bills or acquire basic necessities (adequate food, housing, clothing, and medical care). As parents become more emotionally distressed, they tend to interact with one another and their children in a more irritable and less supportive fashion. These patterns of behavior increase instability in the marriage and also disrupt effective parenting practices, such as monitoring children’s activities and using consistent and appropriate disciplinary strategies. Marital instability and disrupted parenting, in turn, increase children’s risk of suffering developmental problems, such as depression, substance abuse, and engaging in delinquent behaviors. These economic stress processes also decrease children’s ability to function in a competent manner in school and with peers.

The findings also show, however, that parents who remain supportive of one another, and who demonstrate effective problem-solving skills in spite of hardship, can disrupt this negative process and shield their children and themselves from these adverse consequences of economic stress. These parenting skills can be taught and used by human service professionals to assist families experiencing economic pressure or similar stresses in their lives.

CRITICAL THINKING

To help deal with these problems, Conger advocates support for social policies that adequately aid families during stressful times as they recover from downturns in the economy. He also advocates educating parents about effective strategies for managing the economic, emotional, and family relationship challenges they will face when hardship occurs. What would you add to the mix to improve family functioning in America?

SOURCES: Rand D. Conger and Katherine Jewsbury Conger, “Understanding the Processes through which Economic Hardship Influences Families and Children, in D. Russell Crane and Tim B. Heaton, eds., Handbook of Families and Poverty (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008), pp. 64–81; Iowa State University, Institute for Social and Behavioral Research, the research of Rand Conger,  http://www.isbr.iastate.edu/staff/Personals/rdconger/  (accessed June 2013).

The Family’s Influence on Delinquency

The effect of these family stressors can have a significant impact on children’s behavior. The family is the primary unit in which children learn the values and attitudes that guide their actions throughout their lives. Family disruption or change can have a long-lasting impact on children. In contrast, effective parenting can help neutralize the effect of both individual (e.g., emotional problems) and social (e.g., delinquent peers) forces, which promote delinquent behaviors. 25

Four categories of family dysfunction seem to promote delinquent behavior: families disrupted by separation and divorce, families involved in interpersonal conflict, ineffective parents who lack proper parenting skills, and families that contain deviant parents who may transmit their behavior to their children (see  Figure 8.3 ). 26  These factors may interact with one another: drug-abusing parents may be more likely to experience family conflict, child neglect, and marital breakup. We now turn to the specific types of family problems that have been linked to delinquent behavior.

figure 8.3: Family Influences on Behavior

Each of these four factors has been linked to antisocial behavior and delinquency. Interaction between these factors may escalate delinquent activity.

Family Breakup

One of the most enduring controversies in the study of delinquency is the relationship between a parent absent from the home and the onset of delinquent behavior. Parents or guardians act as the main source of informal social control. When a breakdown in the family occurs, the social control function is interrupted and children are free to get involved in antisocial behaviors. 27

Research indicates that parents whose marriage is secure produce children who are self-confident and independent. 28  In contrast, research conducted in both the United States and abroad shows that children raised in homes with one or both parents absent may be prone to antisocial behavior. 29  A number of experts contend that a  broken home  is a strong determinant of a child’s law-violating behavior. The connection seems self-evident, because a child is first socialized at home and therefore any disjunction in an orderly family structure could be expected to have a negative impact on the child.

broken home

Home in which one or both parents are absent due to divorce or separation; children in such an environment may be prone to antisocial behavior.

The suspected broken home–delinquency relationship is important because, if current trends continue, less than half of all children born today will live continuously with their own mother and father throughout childhood. And because stepfamilies, or so-called  blended families , are less stable than families consisting of two biological parents, an increasing number of children will experience family breakup two or even three times during childhood. 30

blended families

Nuclear families that are the product of divorce and remarriage, blending one parent from each of two families and their combined children into one family unit.

Economic stress can influence family functioning. Here, Laura, 27, with her daughter, fills out a form at the Jefferson Action Center, an assistance center in the Denver suburb of Lakewood. Laura grew up in a solidly middle-class family, but she and her boyfriend, who has struggled to find work, are now relying on government assistance to cover food and $650 rent for their family. More than 40 million Americans now live below the poverty line, a number unseen in nearly half a century, erasing gains from the war on poverty in the 1960s amid a weak economy and a fraying government safety net. Will economic hardship eventually produce increases in the delinquency rate?

Children who have experienced family breakup are more likely to demonstrate behavior problems and hyperactivity than children in intact families. 31  Family breakup is often associated with conflict, hostility, and aggression; children of divorce are suspected of having lax supervision, weakened attachment, and greater susceptibility to peer pressure. 32

The effects of divorce seem gender-specific:

·  Boys seem to be more affected by the post-divorce absence of the father. In post-divorce situations, fathers seem less likely to be around to solve problems, to discuss standards of conduct, or to enforce discipline. A divorced father who remains actively involved in his child’s life reduces his son’s chances of delinquency.

·  Girls are more affected by both the quality of the mother’s parenting and post-divorce parental conflict. It is possible that extreme levels of parental conflict may serve as a model to young girls coping with the aftermath of their parents’ separation. 33

·  There are distinct racial and ethnic differences in the impact of divorce/separation on youth. Some groups (e.g., Hispanics, Asians) have been raised in cultures where divorce is rare and parents have less experience in developing childrearing practices that buffer the effects of family breakup on adolescent problem behavior. 34

Divorce and Delinquency

The relationship between broken homes and delinquency has been controversial, to say the least. It was first established in early research, which suggested that a significant association existed between parental absence and youthful misconduct. 35  For many years the link was clear: children growing up in broken homes were much more likely to fall prey to delinquency than those who lived in two-parent households. 36

Beginning in the late 1950s, some researchers began to question the link between broken homes and delinquency. Early studies, they claimed, used the records of police, courts, and correctional institutions. 37  This research may have been tainted by sampling bias: Youths from broken homes may get arrested more often than youths from intact families, but this does not necessarily mean they engage in more frequent and serious delinquent behavior. Official statistics may reflect the fact that agents of the justice system treat children from disrupted households more severely, because they cannot call on parents for support. The parens patriae philosophy of the juvenile courts calls for official intervention when parental supervision is considered inadequate. 38  A number of subsequent studies, using self-report data, have failed to establish any clear-cut relationship between broken homes and delinquent behavior. 39  Boys and girls from intact families seem as likely to self-report delinquency as those whose parents are divorced or separated. Researchers concluded that the absence of parents has a greater effect on agents of the justice system than it does on the behavior of children. 40

The Divorce-Delinquency Link Reconsidered

The consensus is that family breakup is in fact traumatic and most likely does have a direct influence on adolescent misbehavior. 41  Research shows that the more often children are forced to go through family transitions, the more likely they are to engage in delinquent activity. 42  So the prevailing wisdom today is that divorce is related to delinquency and status offending, especially if a child had a close relationship with the parent who is forced to leave the home. 43

Of course, not all kids growing up in homes in which parents are divorced or separated turn to delinquency. Most do not, and the majority grow up to live happy and fulfilled lives. One divorce situation is obviously different from another, and these differences may explain the effect of family dissolution on a child’s misbehavior.

One factor may be how parents react to marital breakup. As you may recall ( Chapter 6 ), developmental/life-course theorists, such as Robert Sampson and John Laub, believe that a good marriage helps men “knife off” from misbehavior. If conversely a divorce is hostile, anger and rage that may have precipitated the dissolution of the marriage may not be alleviated by separation. Domestic violence that may have been present in stress-filled marriages does not abate after separation but merely shifts to ex-partners who are targeted in the aftermath of divorce. 44  Parents who are in post-divorce turmoil may in turn influence their children to misbehave.

Another factor is how parental bonds are affected by marital breakup. When Sara Jaffee and her associates studied the quality of marriage, they found that the less time fathers lived with their children, the more conduct problems their children manifested. However, when fathers themselves engage in high levels of antisocial behavior, their leaving home may actually improve their children’s behavior. Staying married, Jaffee concludes, may not be the answer to the problems faced by children living in single-parent families unless parents can refrain from deviant behaviors and become reliable sources of emotional and economic support. 45

It is also possible that family breakup is not per se the cause of children’s misbehavior, but rather, it’s the aftermath of divorce that is to blame. After a divorce, some newly single parents may spend more time socializing outside of the home, looking for new romantic partners, at the expense of family time. Less supervision and a reduction of family attachments may be the real culprit and not the events leading up to divorce and separation associated with concurrent increases in offending. 46

Long-Term Effects

Not only does divorce hurt kids in the near term, it also has long-term consequences that harm their childhood and may last into adulthood. In her study of the effects of parental absence on children, sociologist Sara McLanahan found that children who grow up apart from their biological fathers typically do less well than children who grow up with both biological parents. They are less likely to finish high school and attend college, less likely to find and keep a steady job, and more likely to become teen parents. Although most children who grow up with a single parent do quite well, differences between children in one- and two-parent families are significant, and there is fairly good evidence that father absence per se is responsible for some social problems. 47

In their classic book The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee reported on the findings of a longitudinal study with 131 children whose parents divorced during their adolescence. 48  They found that children of divorce develop lingering fears about their own ability to develop long-term relationships; these fears often impede their ability to marry and raise families. While most parents are able to reduce their emotional pain and get on with their lives a few years after they separate, this is not true of their children, whose emotional turmoil may last for decades. Wallerstein and her associates found that adolescents who experienced divorce are still struggling with the fear that their relationships will fail like those of their parents.

While divorce may take a heavy toll, it is true that many kids who experience family breakup do quite well and are able to get through the ordeal in good shape. When E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly studied the children of divorce, they found that many do undergo some trauma, but for the most part they are much better off than those Wallerstein encountered. 49  While children in single-parent families and stepfamilies have more psychological problems than those in intact families, more than 75 percent ultimately do as well as children from intact families.

Family Conflict

Not all unhappy marriages end in divorce; some continue in an atmosphere of conflict. Intrafamily conflict is a common experience in many American families. The link between parental conflict and delinquency was established more than 50 years ago when F. Ivan Nye found that a child’s perception of his or her parents’ marital happiness was a significant predictor of delinquency. 50  Contemporary studies support these early findings that children who grow up in maladapted homes and witness discord or violence later exhibit emotional disturbance and behavior problems. 51  There seems to be little difference between the behavior of children who merely witness  intrafamily violence  and those who are its victims. 52  In one recent study, family expert Lynette Renner found that children who experienced any form of family violence were more likely to act out than those who avoided relational conflict. However, Renner found that children who experienced indirect types of family violence, such as exposure to the physical abuse of a sibling, were more likely to externalize behavior scores than children who experienced direct maltreatment and child physical abuse. 53

intrafamily violence

An environment of discord and conflict within the family; children who grow up in dysfunctional homes often exhibit delinquent behaviors, having learned at a young age that aggression pays off.

FOCUS on delinquency: Bad Parents or Bad Kids?

Which comes first, bad parents or bad kids? Does parental conflict cause delinquency, or do delinquents create family conflict? Although damaged parent-child relationships are associated with delinquency, it is difficult to assess the relationship. It is often assumed that preexisting family problems cause delinquency, but it may also be true that children who act out put enormous stress on a family. Kids who are conflict prone may actually help to destabilize households. To avoid escalation of a child’s aggression, parents may give in to their children’s demands. The children learn that aggression pays off. Parents may feel overwhelmed and shut their child out of their lives. Adolescent misbehavior may be a precursor of family conflict; strife leads to more adolescent misconduct, producing an endless cycle of family stress and delinquency.

David Huh and colleagues surveyed nearly 500 adolescent girls and found little evidence that poor parenting is a direct cause of children’s misbehavior problems or that it escalates misbehavior. Rather, children’s problem behaviors undermine parenting effectiveness. Increases in adolescent behavior problems, such as substance abuse, resulted in decreases in parental control and support. In contrast, parents’ problems played only a small role in escalating their children’s deviant or behavior problems. Huh suggests it is possible that parents whose children consistently act out may eventually become exasperated and give up on attempts at control.

More recently, Martha Gault-Sherman also found that family conflict may escalate after kids get involved in delinquency and that the parent-child relationship is interactional: while a lack of parental attachment has an effect on delinquency, an adolescent’s delinquency helps decrease parental attachment. Lack of parental involvement with kids may influence delinquency, but involvement declines after kids get in trouble or engage in delinquency. Her findings regarding parental attachment provide strong evidence for the existence of a reciprocal relationship between parenting and delinquency.

Another take on the association between family conflict and children’s delinquency comes from John Paul Wright and Kevin Beaver, who believe there is a genetic component to the relationship. Delinquent kids may reside in conflict-ridden families because they have inherited traits, such as low self-control. Wright and Beaver have found a large body of research showing that impulsivity and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—both of which are aspects of low self-control—are inherited. Therefore, what appears to be the effect of bad parenting or family conflict is actually caused by “bad genes.” Because of this genetic effect, the role of parenting may be more complicated than is typically assumed. Parents may help neutralize the effect of inherited traits, or the traits of parents may interact in unique ways with the traits of each of their children. It is possible the genetically determined traits of a child are likely to influence how a parent treats the child and not vice versa. So if family conflict is associated with delinquency, it may be because both parents and children have inherited a genetic disposition toward conflict and antisocial behavior.

CRITICAL THINKING

There may be a bright side to the association between family conflict and delinquency: Sonja Siennick recently found that young adult offenders receive more parental financial assistance than do their nonoffending peers and even their own nonoffending siblings. Offenders’ life circumstances may trigger parental assistance even when kids have been involved in crime; parents do not give up on their troubled teens. Maybe it’s because they feel guilty for causing their kids to engage in a delinquent way of life! What do you think?

SOURCES: Martha Gault-Sherman, “It’s a Two-Way Street: The Bidirectional Relationship between Parenting and Delinquency,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41:121–145 (2012); Sonja Siennick, “Tough Love? Crime and Parental Assistance in Young Adulthood,” Criminology 49:163–196 (2011); David Huh, Jennifer Tristan, Emily Wade, and Eric Stice, “Does Problem Behavior Elicit Poor Parenting? A Prospective Study of Adolescent Girls,” Journal of Adolescent Research 21:185–204 (2006); John Paul Wright and Kevin Beaver, “Do Parents Matter in Creating Self-Control in Their Children? A Genetically Informed Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-Control,” Criminology 43:1169–1202 (2005).

Which is worse, growing up in a home marked by conflict or growing up in a broken home? Research shows that children in both broken homes and high-conflict intact homes were worse off than children in low-conflict, intact families. 54  However, even when parents are divorced, kids who maintain attachments to their parents are less likely to engage in delinquency than those who are alienated and detached. 55  The influence of family conflict on delinquency is explored further in the Focus on Delinquency feature entitled “Bad Parents or Bad Kids?”

Family Competence

Children raised by parents who lack proper parenting skills are more at risk than those whose parents are supportive and effectively control their children in a noncoercive fashion. 56  Some parents are overly permissive and indulgent. They are warm and receptive to their children’s needs, but place few boundaries and establish few rules; their kids are needy and lack self-control. Permissive yet disengaged parenting has been associated with negative behavioral outcomes. 57  In contrast, some parents who are overly authoritarian may lose legitimacy with their offspring despite their controlling efforts. 58

The quality of parenting becomes more acute when kids lack other forms of social support. Research findings have shown that the impact of uninvolved and permissive parenting for problematic youth outcomes is greater in higher-risk neighborhoods. In other words, parental competence is required if a youngster hopes to escape the damage wrought by living in a disorganized lower-class neighborhood. 59  In contrast, children who are properly supervised, especially in disorganized areas, are less likely to succumb to the temptations of the streets. Even children who appear to be at risk are better able to resist involvement in delinquent activity when they report that they can communicate with parents. 60

Parents of beyond-control youngsters have been found to be inconsistent rule-setters, to be less likely to show interest in their children, and to display high levels of hostile detachment. Children who feel inhibited with their parents and refuse to discuss important issues with them are more likely to engage in deviant activities. Kids who report having troubled home lives also exhibit lower levels of self-esteem and are more prone to antisocial behaviors. 61

Parental Efficacy

If bad or incompetent parenting can produce antisocial children, can competent parenting produce an opposite result? Studies show that delinquency will be reduced if both or at least one parent provides the type of structure that integrates children into families, while giving them the ability to assert their individuality and regulate their own behavior. 62  This phenomenon is referred to as  parental efficacy . 63  In some cultures emotional support from the mother is critical, whereas in others the father’s support remains the key factor. 64  Adolescents whose parents maintain close relationships with them report less delinquent behavior and substance use regardless of the type of family structure—that is, blended families, same-sex parents, and so on. Kids who reside in homes where parents are warm and giving are more likely to develop personality traits such as a positive self-image that helps them avoid the lure of delinquent behaviors. 65  This finding suggests that the quality of parent-adolescent relationships better predicts adolescent outcomes than family type. 66

parental efficacy

Families in which parents integrate their children into the household unit while helping them assert their individuality and regulate their own behavior.

Inconsistent/Harsh Discipline

Parents of delinquent youths tend to be inconsistent disciplinarians, either overly harsh or extremely lenient. One debate concerns the efficacy of using physical discipline. National surveys find mixed views. Parents who advocate physical punishment believe that it is a necessary aspect of disciplining practices that produce well-behaved children; in contrast, opponents state that physical discipline harms children psychologically and interferes with their development. 67

Opponents of physical punishment believe that it weakens the bond between parents and children, lowers the children’s self-esteem, and undermines their faith in justice. It is possible that physical punishment encourages children to become more secretive and dishonest. 68  Overly strict discipline may have an even more insidious link to antisocial behaviors: abused children have a higher risk of neurological dysfunction than the non-abused, and brain abnormalities have been linked to violent crime. 69

Despite public support for corporal punishment, there is growing evidence of a “violence begetting violence” cycle. Children who are subject to even minimal amounts of physical punishment may be more likely to use violence themselves. 70  Sociologist Murray Straus reviewed physical discipline in a series of surveys and found a powerful relationship between exposure to physical punishment and later aggression. 71

The Parenting Project ( http://www.parentingproject.org/ ) is dedicated to addressing our nation’s crises of child abuse, neglect and abandonment, teen pregnancy, and overall violence by bringing parenting, empathy, and nurturing skills to all school-age children and teens. For more information about these issues, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Nonviolent societies are also ones in which parents rarely punish their children physically; there is a link between corporal punishment, delinquency, spousal abuse, and adult crime. 72  Research conducted in 10 European countries shows that the degree to which parents and teachers approve of corporal punishment is related to the homicide rate. 73

Inconsistent Supervision

Evidence also exists that inconsistent supervision can promote delinquency. Early research by F. Ivan Nye found that mothers who threatened discipline but failed to carry it out were more likely to have delinquent children than those who were consistent in their discipline. 74

Nye’s early efforts have been supported by research showing a strong association between ineffective or negligent supervision and a child’s involvement in delinquency. 75  The data show that youths who believe their parents care little about their activities are more likely to engage in criminal acts than those who believe their actions will be closely monitored. 76  Kids who are not closely supervised spend more time out in the community with their friends and are more likely to get into trouble. Poorly supervised kids may be more prone to acting impulsively and are therefore less able to employ self-control to restrain their activities. 77

Mothers’ Employment

Parents who closely supervise their children and have close ties with them help reduce the likelihood of adolescent delinquent behavior. 78  When life circumstances prevent or interfere with adequate supervision, delinquent opportunities may increase. Some critics have suggested that even in intact homes, a working mother who is unable to adequately supervise her children provides the opportunity for delinquency.

The association between mothers’ employment and delinquency may be a function of preexisting conditions: mothers may work because they lack financial resources to be stay-at-home caretakers. Environmental conditions may also play a role. In poor neighborhoods that lack collective efficacy, parents cannot call upon neighborhood resources to take up the burden of controlling children. 79

Though there is some evidence that the children of working moms are more prone to delinquency, the issue is far from settled. 80  There are research efforts that have found a mother’s employment may have little effect on youthful misbehavior, especially when the children are adequately supervised. 81  Stacy De Coster found that both the children of mothers who are employed and who hold nontraditional values and those whose mothers are homemakers and hold traditional values are less likely than others to be delinquent if the mothers do not exhibit distress and are able to have emotional bonds with their children. Emotional bonds ultimately protect youths from delinquent peer associations regardless of whether they have working or stay-at-home moms. 82

Resource Dilution

Parents may find it hard to control their children because they have such large families that their resources, such as time, are spread too thin ( resource dilution ). It is also possible that the relationship is indirect, caused by the connection of family size to some external factor; resource dilution has been linked to educational underachievement, long considered a correlate of delinquency. 83  Middle children may suffer because they are most likely to be home when large numbers of siblings are also at home and economic resources are most stretched. Large families are more likely to produce delinquents than small ones, and middle children are more likely to engage in delinquent acts than first- or last-born children.

resource dilution

A condition that occurs when parents have such large families that their resources, such as time and money, are spread too thin, causing lack of familial support and control.

Resource dilution may force some mothers into the workforce in order to support their young children. Critics have suggested that these working mothers are unable to adequately supervise their children, leaving the children prone to delinquency. However, research by Thomas Vander Ven and his associates found that having a mother who is employed has little if any effect on youthful misbehavior, especially if the children are adequately supervised. 84

Family Deviance

A number of studies have found that parental deviance has a powerful influence on delinquent behavior. 85  Children who are socialized in homes where parents drink, take drugs, or commit crimes are more likely to engage in those behaviors themselves. 86  Fathers with a long history of criminality have been found to produce sons who are also likely to get arrested for crimes. 87  The effects can be both devastating and long term: the children of deviant parents produce delinquent children themselves. 88  The Cambridge Youth Survey and the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD), a highly respected longitudinal cohort study conducted in England by David Farrington, has found that a significant number of delinquent youths have criminal fathers. About 8 percent of the sons of noncriminal fathers became chronic offenders, compared to 37 percent of youths with criminal fathers. 89  The CSDD also found that school yard bullying may be both inter- and intragenerational. Bullies have children who bully others, and these “second-generation bullies” grow up to become the fathers of children who are also bullies (see  Chapter 10  for more on bullying in the school yard). 90  Thus, one family may have a grandfather, father, and son who are or were school yard bullies. 91

Parental Involvement in the Justice System

The effect of having deviant parents is enhanced if they also suffer arrest, conviction and incarceration. 92  Parental incarceration seems to take the worse toll: children whose parents go to prison are much more likely to be at risk to delinquency and suffer an arrest by age 25 than children of nonincarcerated parents. 93  While it is possible that being separated from parents for any reason is related to delinquency, research shows that children who suffer parental separation due to illness, death, or divorce are less likely to become delinquents than those who were separated due to incarceration. Separation caused by parental imprisonment causes severe and long-term harm. 94

While having an incarcerated parent may result in less supervision and family cohesion, it may be problems that preceded imprisonment—intrafamily conflict and abuse—that have the greatest influence on a child’s subsequent delinquency. 95  When Peggy Giordano studied the lives of kids whose parents were incarcerated, she found that while family problems had preceded the arrest and incarceration, they continued and were exacerbated even after the parent was released. Economically disadvantaged women partnered up with highly antisocial men, and were locked into a pattern of continued drug use and antisocial behaviors. They created a family climate of extreme unpredictability and stress for their children; family problems were intergenerational. Over time, many of these kids growing up in dysfunctional families find themselves in trouble with the law and are doomed to produce another generation of children who face the same sort and level of social problems. 96

Deviant Siblings

Some evidence also exists that having deviant siblings may influence behavior; research shows that if one sibling is a delinquent, there is a significant likelihood that his brother or sister will engage in delinquent behaviors. 97  Not surprisingly, siblings who maintain a warm relationship and feel close to one another are also likely to behave in a similar fashion. If one of these siblings takes drugs and engages in delinquent behavior, so too will his brother or sister. 98  A number of interpretations of these data are possible:

·  Siblings who live in the same environment are influenced by similar social and economic factors; it is not surprising that their behavior is similar.

·  Deviance is genetically determined, and the traits that cause one sibling to engage in delinquency are shared by his or her brother or sister.

·  Deviant siblings grow closer because of shared interests. It is possible that the relationship is due to personal interactions: younger siblings imitate older siblings.

·  One of the most common forms of child abuse involves siblings. It is possible that deviant siblings have shared experiences with abuse. Research shows that sibling experiences with violence is significantly related to substance use, delinquency, and aggression. 99

Why Family Deviance Is Intergenerational

Although the intergenerational transmission of deviance has been established, the link is still uncertain. A number of factors may play a role:

·  Inheritance/genetic factors. The link between parental deviance and child misbehavior may be genetic. 100  Parents of delinquent youths have been found to suffer neurological conditions linked to antisocial behaviors, and these conditions may be inherited genetically. 101  It is possible that childhood misbehavior is strongly genetically influenced, with little or no environmental or experiential effect. 102  If children behave like their parents, it’s because they share the same genes and not because they have learned to be bad or live in an environment that causes both parental and child misbehaviors.

·  Exposure to violence. The children of criminal parents are more likely to have experienced more violence and injury than the norm. Exposure to violence has been linked to negative outcomes. 103

·  Substance abuse. Children of drug-abusing parents are more likely to get involved in drug abuse and delinquency than the children of nonabusers. 104  One possibility: parental substance abuse can produce children with neurological impairments that are related to delinquency. 105

·  Parenting ability. The link between parental deviance and child delinquency may be shaped by parenting ability. Deviant parents are less likely to have close relationships with their offspring. They are more likely to use overly harsh and inconsistent discipline, a parenting style that has consistently been linked to the onset of delinquent behavior. 106  Parents who themselves have been involved in crime exhibit lower levels of effective parenting and greater association with factors that can impede their parenting abilities (e.g., substance abuse and mental illness). Their children are more likely to have experienced negative effects of ineffective parenting such as abuse and out-of-home placement, factors highly associated with delinquency. 107

·  Stigma. The association between parental deviance and children’s delinquency may be related to labeling and stigma. Social control agents may be quick to fix a delinquent label on the children of known law violators, increasing the likelihood that they will pick up an “official” delinquent label. 108  The resulting stigma increases the chances they may fall into a delinquent career.

Helping deal with issues of teen pregnancy and other family issues, Planned Parenthood is the world’s largest and oldest voluntary family planning organization. For more information about Planned Parenthood, visit their website ( http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ ) or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Delinquent behavior may run in families. Here, Jeremy Jarvis, 13 (left), and his brother Denver Jarvis, 15, appear in juvenile court in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, at the Broward County Courthouse. The boys were charged with aggravated battery for participating in setting a 15-year-old boy on fire. Jeremy avoided incarceration, but Denver pleaded no contest in February 2012 to second-degree attempted murder and was sentenced to eight years in prison, a year of house arrest, and 21 years of probation. In 2013, his sentence was reduced to 10 years of probation. If deviance does run in families, do you think it’s a product of the environment, socialization, or genetics?

Child Abuse and Neglect

In one of New York City’s most notorious child abuse cases, a 7-year-old Brooklyn girl, Nixzmary Brown, was horribly tortured and abused before being killed by a severe blow to the head. 109  The suspects in the case: Nixzaliz Santiago, her mother, and Cesar Rodriguez, her stepfather. At the time of her death, Nixzmary weighed only 36 pounds and had been tied to a chair and forced to use a litter box for a toilet. According to her mother, Rodriguez, who beat the girl regularly, pushed her head under the bathtub faucet after stripping her naked, beat her, and tied her to a stool. Then he listened to music in another room. Some time later, the mother got up the nerve to go to her daughter and found that the little girl’s body was cold. Law enforcement agents said that the abuse the 7-year-old experienced was among the worst they had ever witnessed. Autopsy reports revealed she had cuts and bruises all over her body, two black eyes, and a skull that was hit so hard her brain bled. Both Nixzmary’s mother and stepfather got long prison sentences for their crimes.

In the aftermath of this terrible crime, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told the press, “How can anybody fathom what these parents did to this young, 7-year-old girl? It sort of defies description.” Tragically, Nixzmary’s situation was known to authorities for some time before her death. The city’s Administration for Children’s Services had received two complaints about the family. The first, in 2004, was found to be unsubstantiated, and the second occurred on December 1, 2005, when the young girl showed up at school with a black eye. Yet little was done to help her or remove her from her brutal home. When asked why they did not get a court order, child welfare authorities blamed the parents for being uncooperative, ignoring repeated phone calls from caseworkers and turning them away at the door. Still, the head of New York’s welfare system couldn’t explain why caseworkers didn’t get a warrant to enter the house, nor did they attempt to take Nixzmary from home and place her in foster care. After her death, New York passed Nixzmary’s Law, which increased the sentence for an adult convicted of torturing a child, changing the maximum sentence to life in prison. 110

Nixzmary’s horrible death is tragically not unique. Thousands of children are physically abused or neglected by their parents or other adults each year and this treatment has serious consequences for their behavior over the life course. Because of this topic’s importance, the remainder of this chapter is devoted to the issues of child abuse and neglect and their relationship with delinquent behavior.

Historical Foundation

Parental abuse and neglect are not modern phenomena. Maltreatment of children has occurred throughout history. Some concern for the negative effects of such maltreatment was voiced in the eighteenth century in the United States, but concerted efforts to deal with the problem did not begin until 1874.

In that year, residents of a New York City apartment building reported to public health nurse Etta Wheeler that a child in one of the apartments was being abused by her stepmother. The nurse found a young child named Mary Ellen Wilson who had been repeatedly beaten and was malnourished from a diet of bread and water. Even though the child was seriously ill, the police agreed that the law entitled the parents to raise Mary Ellen as they saw fit. The New York City Department of Charities claimed it had no custody rights over Mary Ellen.

According to legend, Mary Ellen’s removal from her parents had to be arranged through the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) on the ground that she was a member of the animal kingdom. The truth, however, is less sensational: Mary Ellen’s case was heard by a judge. Because the child needed protection, she was placed in an orphanage. 111  The SPCA was actually founded the following year. 112

Little research into the problems of maltreated children occurred before that of C. Henry Kempe, of the University of Colorado. In 1962, Kempe reported the results of a survey of medical and law-enforcement agencies that indicated the child abuse rate was much higher than had been thought. He coined a term,  battered child syndrome , which he applied to cases of nonaccidental injury of children by their parents or guardians. 113

battered child syndrome

Nonaccidental physical injury of children by their parents or guardians.

Defining Abuse and Neglect

Kempe’s pioneering work has been expanded in a more generic expression of  child abuse  that includes neglect as well as physical abuse. Specifically, it describes any physical or emotional trauma to a child for which no reasonable explanation, such as an accident, can be found. Child abuse is generally seen as a pattern of behavior rather than a single act. The effects of a pattern of behavior are cumulative. That is, the longer the abuse continues, the more severe the effect will be. 114

child abuse

Any physical, emotional, or sexual trauma to a child, including neglecting to give proper care and attention, for which no reasonable explanation can be found.

Although the terms child abuse and neglect are sometimes used interchangeably, they represent different forms of maltreatment.  Neglect  refers to deprivations children suffer at the hands of their parents (lack of food, shelter, health care, love). Abuse is a more overt form of aggression against the child, one that often requires medical attention. The distinction between the terms is often unclear because, in many cases, both abuse and neglect occur simultaneously. What are the forms that abuse and neglect may take?

neglect

Passive neglect by a parent or guardian, depriving children of food, shelter, health care, and love.

·  Physical abuse includes throwing, shooting, stabbing, burning, drowning, suffocating, biting, or deliberately disfiguring a child. Included within this category is shaken-baby syndrome (SBS), a form of child abuse affecting between 1,200 and 1,600 children every year. SBS is a collection of signs and symptoms resulting from violently shaking an infant or child. 115

·  Physical neglect results from parents’ failure to provide adequate food, shelter, or medical care for their children, as well as failure to protect them from physical danger.

·  Emotional abuse or neglect is manifested by constant criticism and rejection of the child. 116  Those who suffer emotional abuse have significantly lower self-esteem as adults. 117

·  Emotional neglect includes inadequate nurturing, inattention to a child’s emotional development, and lack of concern about maladaptive behavior.

·   Abandonment  refers to the situation in which parents leave their children with the intention of severing the parent-child relationship. 118

abandonment

Parents physically leave their children with the intention of completely severing the parent-child relationship.

·  Sexual abuse refers to the exploitation of children through rape, incest, and molestation by parents, family members, friends, or legal guardians. Sexual abuse can vary from rewarding children for sexual behavior that is inappropriate for their level of development to using force or the threat of force for the purposes of sex. It can involve children who are aware of the sexual content of their actions and others too young to have any idea what their actions mean.

The Effects of Abuse

Regardless of how abuse is defined, the effects can be devastating. Mental health and delinquency experts have found that abused kids experience mental and social problems across their life span, ranging from substance abuse to possession of a damaged personality. 119  Children who have experienced some form of maltreatment suffer devalued sense of self, mistrust of others, a tendency to perceive hostility in others in situations where the intentions of others are ambiguous, and a tendency to generate antagonistic solutions to social conflicts. Victims of abuse are prone to suffer mental illness, such as dissociative identity disorder (DID) (sometimes known as multiple personality disorder [MPD]); research shows that child abuse is present in the histories of the vast majority of DID subjects. 120  Children who experience maltreatment are at increased risk for adverse health effects and behaviors across the life course, including smoking, alcoholism, drug abuse, eating disorders, severe obesity, depression, suicide, sexual promiscuity, and certain chronic diseases. 121  Maltreatment during infancy or early childhood can cause brain impairment, leading to physical, mental, and emotional problems such as sleep disturbances, panic disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Brain dysfunction is particularly common among victims of shaken-baby syndrome. About 25 to 30 percent of infant victims with SBS die from their injuries; nonfatal consequences of SBS include varying degrees of visual impairment (e.g., blindness), motor impairment (e.g., cerebral palsy), and cognitive impairments. 122

Psychologists suggest that maltreatment encourages children to use aggression as a means of solving problems and prevents them from feeling empathy for others. It diminishes their ability to cope with stress and makes them vulnerable to the violence in the culture. Abused children have fewer positive interactions with peers, are less well liked, and are more likely to have disturbed social interactions. 123  Not surprisingly, recent research has found that juvenile female prostitutes more often than not came from homes in which abuse, both physical and substance, was present. 124

The Extent of Child Abuse

Estimating the extent of child abuse is almost impossible. Many victims are so young that they have not learned to communicate. Some are too embarrassed or afraid to do so. Many incidents occur behind closed doors, and even when another adult witnesses inappropriate or criminal behavior, the adult may not want to get involved in a “family matter.” Indications of the severity of the problem came from a groundbreaking 1980 survey conducted by sociologists Richard Gelles and Murray Straus. 125  Gelles and Straus estimated that between 1.4 and 1.9 million children in the United States were subject to physical abuse from their parents. This abuse was rarely a one-time act: the average number of assaults per year was 10.5, and the median was 4.5. Gelles and Straus also found that 16 percent of the couples in their sample reported spousal abuse; 50 percent of the multichild families reported attacks between siblings; 20 percent of the families reported incidents in which children attacked parents. 126

The Gelles and Straus survey was a milestone in identifying child abuse as a national phenomenon. Subsequent surveys conducted in 1985 and 1992 indicated that the incidence of severe violence toward children had declined. 127  One reason was that parental approval of corporal punishment, which stood at 94 percent in 1968, decreased to 68 percent by 1994. 128  Recognition of the problem may have helped moderate cultural values and awakened parents to the dangers of physically disciplining children. Nonetheless, more than 1 million children were still being subjected to severe violence annually. If the definition of “severe abuse” used in the survey had included hitting with objects such as a stick or a belt, the number of child victims would have been closer to 7 million per year.

Monitoring Abuse

Since the pioneering efforts by Gelles and Straus, the Department of Health and Human Services has been monitoring the extent of child maltreatment through its annual survey of Child Protective Services (CPS). 129  The DHHS survey counts victims in two ways:

·  The duplicate count of child victims counts a child each time he or she was found to be a victim.

·  The unique count of child victims counts a child only once regardless of the number of times he or she was found to be a victim during the reporting year.

The last data available (2011) found that, using a duplicate count, about 3.7 million children received a CPS investigation or 48 children per 1,000 children in the population. Using a unique count, nearly 3 million children received a CPS response, at a rate of 40 children per 1,000 children in the population. Typically, about 20 percent of the unique investigations discover that a child has been victimized in some fashion. This means that about 680,000 were substantiated victims of child abuse or neglect; of these more than 50,000 were the victim of multiple (duplicate) offenses in a single year.

Though these figures seem staggering, the number and rate of abuse has actually been in decline. Fifteen years ago, more than 1 million children were identified as victims of abuse or neglect nationwide, and the rate of victimization of children was approximately 15 per 1,000 children; today the 700,000 substantiated cases of child neglect/abuse amount to a rate of about 10 per 1,000 children under 18. While these results are encouraging, trends in reported child maltreatment may be more reflective of the effect budgetary cutbacks have on CPS’s ability to monitor, record, and investigate reports of abuse than an actual decline in child abuse rates (see  Figure 8.4 ).

figure 8.4: Child Abuse Reporting Outcomes

SOURCE: US Department of Health and Human Services, “Child Maltreatment, 2011,”  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf#page=9  (accessed July 2013).

The Nature of Abuse

What do the data tell us about the nature of abuse? There is a direct association between age and abuse: victimization rates are higher for younger children than for their older brothers and sisters. The youngest children are the most vulnerable to maltreatment. About half of all victims are 5 and under; about two-thirds of all abuse victims are under 7 years old. In general, the rate and percentage of victimization decrease with age.

While boys and girls have an almost equal chance of being victimized, there are racial differences in the abuse rate. African American children, Pacific Islander children, and American Indian or Alaska Native children suffer child abuse rates (per 1,000 children) far higher than European American children, Hispanic children, and Asian American children.

Four-fifths of victims were maltreated by a parent either acting alone or with someone else. Nearly two-fifths of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone, one-fifth of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone, and one-fifth of victims were maltreated by both parents. About 13 percent of victims were maltreated by a perpetrator who was not a parent of the child.

Child abuse has been linked to violence and delinquency. There have been a number of tragic cases of abuse, none more notorious than the one involving former Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, shown here being taken from the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. Sandusky was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison for molesting scores of young boys in the child sexual abuse scandal that brought shame to Penn State and led to coach Joe Paterno’s downfall.

The most common form of abuse is neglect (78 percent), followed by physical abuse (17 percent) and sexual abuse (9 percent). About 10 percent of the child victims fall into the “other” category, which consists of such conditions as “abandonment,” “threats of harm to the child,” or “congenital drug addiction.”

Sexual Abuse

In a case that sent shock waves around the nation, Gerald Arthur “Jerry” Sandusky, a football coach with a 30-year career at Penn State University, was indicted and convicted on charges that he was a serial molester. Sandusky used his position of power and trust (he was Assistant Coach of the Year in 1986 and 1999) to found the Second Mile, a nonprofit charity serving underprivileged and at-risk youth in Pennsylvania. Sandusky met his victims through the Second Mile and had forced sexual relations with them on the Penn State campus even after he had retired from football. Although officials at Penn State found out about the abuse, they did not alert law enforcement officials, fearing the publicity would embarrass the university. On June 22, 2012, Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of the 48 charges and was sentenced 30 to 60 years in prison. 130

The Sandusky case and others like it are particularly serious because adolescent victims of sexual abuse are particularly at risk for stress and anxiety. 131  Kids who have undergone traumatic sexual experiences have been found to suffer psychological deficits later. 132  Many run away to escape their environment, which puts them at risk for juvenile arrest and involvement with the justice system. 133  Others suffer posttraumatic mental problems, including acute stress disorders, depression, eating disorders, nightmares, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and other psychological problems. 134  Stress, however, does not end in childhood. Children who are psychologically, sexually, or physically abused are more likely to suffer low self-esteem and be more suicidal as adults. 135  They are also placed at greater risk to be reabused as adults than those who escaped childhood victimization. 136  The reabused carry higher risks for psychological and physical problems, ranging from sexual promiscuity to increased HIV infection rates. 137  Abuse as a child may lead to despair, depression, and even homelessness as adults. One study of homeless women found that they were much more likely than other women to report childhood physical abuse, childhood sexual abuse, adult physical assault, previous sexual assault in adulthood, and a history of mental health problems. 138

Extent of Sexual Abuse

Attempts to determine the extent of sexual abuse indicate that perhaps 1 in 10 boys and 1 in 3 girls have been the victims of some form of sexual exploitation. Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, two researchers at the School of Social Welfare at the University of Pennsylvania, found that the problem of child sexual abuse is much more widespread than was previously believed or documented. Their research indicated that each year in the United States 325,000 children are subjected to some form of sexual exploitation, which includes sexual abuse, prostitution, use in pornography, and molestation by adults. Most are middle-class European Americans. Equal numbers of boys and girls are involved, but the activities of boys generally receive less attention from authorities. Many of these kids are runaways (more than 120,000), whereas others have fled mental hospitals and foster homes. More than 50,000 are thrown out of their home by a parent or guardian. 139

Although sexual abuse is still quite prevalent, the number of reported cases has been in significant decline. 140  These data may either mean that the actual number of cases is truly in decline or that social service professionals are failing to recognize abuse cases because of overwork and understaffing.

Causes of Child Abuse and Neglect

Why do people abuse and hurt children? Maltreatment of children is a complex problem with neither a single cause nor a single solution. It cuts across racial, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic lines. Abusive parents cannot be categorized by sex, age, or educational level.

Of all factors associated with child abuse, three are discussed most often: (1) parents who themselves suffered abuse tend to abuse their own children; (2) the presence of an unrelated adult increases the risk of abuse; and (3) isolated and alienated families tend to become abusive. A cyclical pattern of violence seems to be perpetuated from one generation to another. Evidence indicates that a large number of abused and neglected children grow into adulthood with a tendency to engage in violent behavior. The behavior of abusive parents can often be traced to negative experiences in their own childhood—physical abuse, emotional neglect, and incest. These parents become unable to separate their own childhood traumas from their relationships with their children. Abusive parents often have unrealistic perceptions of normal development. When their children are unable to act appropriately—when they cry or strike their parents—the parents may react in an abusive manner. 141

Parents may also become abusive if they are isolated from friends, neighbors, or relatives. Many abusive parents describe themselves as alienated from their extended families, and they lack close relationships with persons who could provide help in stressful situations. 142  The relationship between alienation and abuse may be particularly acute in homes where there has been divorce or separation, or in which parents have never actually married; abusive punishment in single-parent homes has been found to be twice that of two-parent families. 143  Parents who are unable to cope with stressful events—divorce, financial stress, recurring mental illness, drug addiction—are most at risk. 144

Substance Abuse and Child Abuse

Abusive families suffer from severe stress, and it is therefore not surprising that they frequently harbor members who turn to drugs and alcohol. 145  Among confirmed cases of child maltreatment, 40 percent involve the use of alcohol or other drugs. Alcohol and other substances may act as disinhibitors, lessening impulse control and allowing parents to behave abusively. Children in this environment often demonstrate behavioral problems and are diagnosed as having conduct disorders. This may result in provocative behavior. Increased stress resulting from a parent’s preoccupation with drugs combined with behavioral problems exhibited by the child increases the likelihood of maltreatment. Frequently, these parents suffer from depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem. They live in an atmosphere of stress and family conflict. Children raised in such households are themselves more likely to have problems with alcohol and other drugs. 146

Stepparents and Abuse

Research indicates that stepchildren share a greater risk for abuse than do biological offspring. 147  Stepparents may have less emotional attachment to the children of another. Often the biological parent has to choose between the new mate and the child, sometimes even becoming an accomplice in the abuse. 148

Stepchildren are overrepresented in cases of  familicide , mass murders in which a spouse and one or more children are slain. It is also more common for fathers who kill their biological children to commit suicide than those who kill stepchildren, an indication that the latter act is motivated by hostility and not despair. 149

familicide

Mass murders in which a spouse and one or more children are slain.

Social Class and Abuse

Surveys indicate a high rate of reported abuse and neglect among people in lower economic classes. Children from families with a household income of less than $15,000 per year experience more abuse than children living in more affluent homes. Child care workers indicate that most of their clients either live in poverty or face increased financial stress because of unemployment and economic recession. These findings suggest that parental maltreatment of children is predominantly a lower-class problem. Is this conclusion valid?

One view is that low-income families, especially those headed by a single parent, are often subject to greater environmental stress and have fewer resources to deal with such stress than families with higher incomes. 150  A relationship seems to exist between the burdens of raising a child without adequate resources and the use of excessive force. Self-report surveys do show that indigent parents are more likely than affluent parents to hold attitudes that condone physical chastisement of children. 151

In a well-known case, Hillary Adams, shown here at age 23, uploaded a video to the Internet of her father, Judge William Adams, beating her when she was 16. The case drew national attention to parental violence. The judge was later suspended for a year, with pay. Ironically, Adams had dealt with at least 349 family law cases in the year before his suspension, nearly 50 of which involved state caseworkers seeking to determine whether parents were fit to raise their children. After serving his suspension, the judge returned to the bench; the state will no longer file abuse cases in his court.

Higher rates of maltreatment in low-income families reflect the stress caused by the limited resources that lower-class parents have to help them raise their children; in contrast, middle-class parents devote a smaller percentage of their total resources to raising a family. 152  This burden becomes especially onerous in families with emotionally and physically handicapped children. Stressed-out parents may consider special-needs children a drain on finances with little potential for future success; research finds that children with disabilities are maltreated at a rate almost double that of other children. 153

The Child Protection System: Philosophy and Practice

The oldest federal agency for children, the Children’s Bureau (CB), is part of the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, a section of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), under the Department of Health and Human Services. It is responsible for assisting states in the delivery of child welfare services, services designed to protect children and strengthen families. For more information about these subjects, visit their website at  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb , or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

For most of our nation’s history, courts have assumed that parents have the right to bring up their children as they see fit. In the 2000 case  Troxel v. Granville , the Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the Constitution protects against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children. 154  If the care a child receives falls below reasonable standards, the state may take action to remove a child from the home and place her or him in a less threatening environment. In these extreme circumstances, the rights of both parents and children are constitutionally protected. In the cases of Lassiter v. Department of Social Services and  Santosky v. Kramer , the Supreme Court recognized the child’s right to be free from parental abuse and set down guidelines for a termination-of-custody hearing, including the right to legal representation. 155  States provide a guardian ad litem (a lawyer appointed by the court to look after the interests of those who do not have the capacity to assert their own rights). States also ensure confidentiality of reporting. 156

Troxel v. Granville

The Supreme Court ruled that the due process clause of the Constitution protects against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.

Santosky v. Kramer

The US Supreme Court recognized the child’s right to be free from parental abuse and set down guidelines for a termination-of-custody hearing, including the right to legal representation.

Although child protection agencies have been dealing with abuse and neglect since the late nineteenth century, recent awareness of the problem has prompted judicial authorities to take increasingly bold steps to ensure the safety of children. 157  The assumption that the parent-child relationship is inviolate has been challenged. In 1974, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), which provides funds to states to bolster their services for maltreated children and their parents. 158  The act provides federal funding to states in support of prevention, investigation, and treatment. It also provides grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for demonstration programs.

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act has been the impetus for the states to improve the legal frameworks of their child protection systems. Abusive parents are subject to prosecution under statutes against assault, battery, and homicide.

Investigating and Reporting Abuse

Maltreatment of children can easily be hidden from public view. Although state laws require doctors, teachers, and others who work with children to report suspected cases to child protection agencies, many maltreated children are out of the law’s reach, because they are too young for school or because their parents do not take them to a doctor or a hospital. Parents abuse their children in private and, even when confronted, often accuse their children of lying or blame the children’s medical problems on accidents. Social service agencies must find more effective ways to locate abused children and handle such cases once found. One way is through legal change. Today, statutes in approximately 18 states and Puerto Rico require any person who suspects child abuse or neglect to report it to child protective services (CPS) workers. 159

Once reported to a child protection agency, the case is screened by an intake worker and then turned over to an investigative caseworker. In some jurisdictions, if CPS substantiates a report, the case will likely be referred to a law enforcement agency that will be responsible for investigating the case, collecting evidence that can later be used in court proceedings. If the caseworker determines that the child is in imminent danger of severe harm, the caseworker may immediately remove the child from the home. A court hearing must be held shortly after to approve custody. Stories abound of children erroneously taken from their homes, but it is much more likely that these “gatekeepers” will consider cases unfounded and take no action. Among the most common reasons for screening out cases is that the reporting party is involved in a child custody case, despite the research showing that the risk of abuse increases significantly in the aftermath of divorce. 160  One of the success stories is discussed in the Case Profile “Ayden’s Story.”

Even when there is compelling evidence of abuse, most social service agencies will try to involve the family in voluntary treatment. Postinvestigation services are offered on a voluntary basis by child welfare agencies to ensure the safety of children. These services address the safety of the child and are usually based on an assessment of the family’s strengths, weaknesses, and needs. Examples of postinvestigation services include individual counseling, case management, family-based services (services provided to the entire family, such as counseling or family support), in-home services, foster care services, and court services. Each year more than 60 percent of victims receive postinvestigation services.

Case managers do periodic follow-ups to determine if treatment plans are being followed. If parents are uncooperative, or if the danger to the children is so great that they must be removed from the home, a complaint will be filed in the criminal, family, or juvenile court system. To protect the child, the court could then issue temporary orders for placing the child in shelter care during investigation, providing services, or prohibiting suspected abusers from having contact with the child.

Though most state interventions are handled informally and through treatment, some result in prison sentences. Here, a Pennsylvania State Trooper escorts Tammy Jo Bohon from her home in Point Marion, Pennsylvania, to an awaiting patrol car. Bohon and her husband, Robert David Dodson, were arrested and charged with homicide after the body of their 15-month-old daughter Madison was found starved to death in their Fayette County home, which was filled with animal and human feces. The couple’s seven other children were placed in protective custody. Madison had a medical condition that required her to use a gastric feeding tube, which became dislodged while her mother was away from the house smoking crack. Dodson and Bohon pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and were sentenced to four-and-a-half to nine years in prison.

The Process of State Intervention

Although procedures vary from state to state, most follow a similar legal process once a social service agency files a court petition alleging abuse or neglect. 161   Figure 8.5  diagrams this process.

figure 8.5: The Process of State Intervention in Cases of Abuse and Neglect

If the allegation of abuse is confirmed, the child may be placed in protective custody. Most state statutes require that the court be notified “promptly” or “immediately” if the child is removed; some states, including Arkansas, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, have gone as far as requiring that no more than 12 hours elapse before official action is taken. If the child has not been removed from the home, state authorities are given more time to notify the court of suspected abuse. Some states set a limit of 30 days to take action, whereas others mandate that state action take no more than 20 days once the case has been investigated.

When an abuse or neglect petition is prosecuted, an  advisement hearing  (also called a preliminary protective hearing or emergency custody hearing) is held. The court will review the facts of the case, determine whether permanent removal of the child is justified, and notify the parents of existing charges. Parents have the right to counsel in all cases of abuse and neglect, and many states require the court to appoint an attorney for the child as well. If the parents admit the allegations, the court enters a consent decree, and the case is continued for disposition. Approximately half of all cases are settled by admission at the advisement hearing. If the parents deny the petition, an attorney is appointed for the child and the case is continued for a  pretrial conference .

advisement hearing

A preliminary protective or temporary custody hearing in which the court will review the facts, determine whether removal of the child is justified, and notify parents of the charges against them.

pretrial conference

The attorney for the social services agency presents an overview of the case, and a plea bargain or negotiated settlement can be agreed to in a consent decree.

At the pretrial conference, the attorney for the social service agency presents an overview of the case and the evidence. Such matters as admissibility of photos and written reports are settled. At this point the attorneys can negotiate a settlement of the case, in which the parents accept a treatment plan detailing:

·  The types of services that the child and the child’s family will receive, such as parenting classes, mental health or substance abuse treatment, and family counseling

·  Reunification goals, including visitation schedules and a target date for the child’s return home

·  Concurrent plans for alternative permanent placement options should reunification goals not be met

case profile: Ayden’s Story

AYDEN is a 15-year-old male referred to the county juvenile justice system for disorderly conduct in the family home and possession of marijuana. Ayden and his family had been evicted from their apartment after the last of many police calls and the family was staying at a local homeless shelter. There was a history of domestic violence in the home as well as other contacts with law enforcement, generally related to family discord.

Ayden’s father and mother both had histories of significant alcohol abuse, and Ayden had spent part of his childhood in and out of foster homes due to chronic neglect issues. The local child protection agency had assessed the home on a number of occasions, and records indicated that the living conditions in the home were often found to be deplorable. Ayden and his siblings would be removed from the home while it was being cleaned up—but would then return home again. Ayden’s school records indicated that teachers had been concerned about his hygiene as well as a lack of regular attendance. Ayden’s grades were poor overall and he appeared unmotivated academically. Ayden’s teachers reported that he was pleasant in the classroom and did not demonstrate any behavioral concerns at school.

Ayden’s parents reported to the juvenile justice social worker that Ayden was defiant and belligerent toward them. They described him as “angry all the time” and “unwilling to follow any rules.” Although the family was staying at the local homeless shelter, the parents reported that Ayden’s whereabouts were unknown to them. They suspected that he was staying with friends but were not really sure. They stated that Ayden was “almost an adult” and “at this point he can do what he wants.” They both denied their long-term issue was alcohol and appeared to have very little insight regarding the family system and issues.

Ayden was indeed staying with friends as well as continuing to attend school. The social worker made contact with Ayden at school and began to help him open up about his personal and family situation. Upon further discussion with Ayden, he disclosed a history of physical abuse by both his parents as well as the neglect. Ayden acknowledged his frustration toward his parents and indicated willingness for treatment related to his anger management and drug use concerns. Due to the new child maltreatment reports as well as the delinquency petition, Ayden was placed in a treatment foster home where he received a number of needed services and interventions. The treatment foster parents who were chosen for Ayden had successfully worked with many young men with similar backgrounds and delinquent behavior. The foster parents and Ayden also received additional weekly support in the home, which included addressing behavioral issues, school concerns, family relationships, substance abuse, and anger management.

Within six months of placement, Ayden’s grades were improving and he was doing well in his outpatient treatment programs for anger management and substance use. He reported feeling more stable and less focused on his parent’s chronic alcohol issues. He also reported feeling relieved that he lived in a home with significantly less chaos. To date, Ayden has not had any further referrals for delinquent behavior. Ayden’s parents were repeatedly offered a number of services but to date have refused to engage with Ayden’s treatment or participate in their own.

CRITICAL THINKING

After reading Ayden’s story, what changes would you advocate for the foster care system to improve outcomes?

About three-fourths of the cases that go to pretrial conference are settled by a consent decree. About 85 out of every 100 petitions filed are settled at either the advisement hearing or the pretrial conference. Of the 15 remaining cases, 5 are generally settled before trial. Usually no more than 10 cases out of every 100 actually reach the trial stage of the process. This trial is an adversarial hearing designed to prove the state’s allegations.

Disposition and Review

The most crucial part of an abuse or neglect proceeding is the  disposition hearing . The social service agency presents its case plan, which includes recommendations such as conditions for returning the child to the parents or a visitation plan if the child is to be taken permanently from the parents. An agreement is reached by which the parents commit themselves to following the state orders. Between one-half and two-thirds of all convicted parents will be required to serve time in incarceration; almost half will be assigned to a form of treatment. Concerning the children, some may be placed in temporary care; in other cases, parental rights are terminated and the child is placed in the custody of the child protective service. Legal custody can then be assigned to a relative or some other person.

disposition hearing

The social service agency presents its case plan and recommendations for care of the child and treatment of the parents, including incarceration and counseling or other treatment.

Even if criminal charges are not filed, the perpetrator’s name may be placed on a state child maltreatment registry if abuse or neglect is confirmed. A registry is a central database that collects information about maltreated children and individuals who are found to have abused or neglected those children. These registries are usually confidential and used for internal child protective purposes only. However, they may be used in background checks for certain professions that involve working with children to protect children from contact with individuals who are abusers. 162

In making their decisions, courts are guided by three interests: the role of the parents, protection for the child, and the responsibility of the state. Frequently, these interests conflict. In fact, at times even the interests of the two parents are not in harmony. The state attempts to balance the parents’ natural right to control their child’s upbringing with the child’s right to grow into adulthood free from harm. This is referred to as the  balancing-of-the-interests approach .

balancing-of-the-interests approach

Efforts of the courts to balance the parents’ natural right to raise a child with the child’s right to grow into adulthood free from physical abuse or emotional harm.

Periodically,  review hearings  are held to determine if the conditions of the case plan are being met. Parents who fail to cooperate are warned that they may lose their parental rights. Most abuse and neglect cases are concluded within a year. Either the parents lose their rights and the child is given a permanent foster care or other type of placement, or the child is returned to the parents and the court’s jurisdiction ends.

review hearings

Periodic meetings to determine whether the conditions of the case plan for an abused child are being met by the parents or guardians of the child.

Foster Care

Every year, hundreds of thousands of children are removed from their homes due to parental absence, deviance, conflict, or incompetence. 163  Many of these kids have already experienced multiple threats to their healthy development and safety. And to make matters worse, these vulnerable children then enter a fragmented  foster care  system that lacks the necessary resources, technical proficiency, and interagency coordination to provide families with needed services and supports. Various aspects of the current foster care population are noteworthy:

foster care

Placing a child in the temporary care of a family other than its own as a result of state intervention into problems within the birth family; can be used as a temporary shelter while a permanent adoption effort is being completed.

·  African American children make up the largest proportion of children in care.

·  Over one-quarter of all children in care are under age 5.

·  Most children are placed in nonrelative foster homes, but substantial numbers are also placed with relatives or in group homes or institutions.

·  Of those children exiting care, most are reunited with their birth parents or primary caretakers, or are adopted.

·  A child is more likely to enter care due to neglect than due to physical, sexual, and psychological abuse combined. 164

Living within the foster care system can be a trying and emotionally traumatic experience for children. It is estimated that somewhere between 30 and 80 percent of children in foster care exhibit emotional and/or behavioral problems. Many are traumatized by their experiences before entering foster care, while others are troubled by the foster care experience itself. Within three months of placement, many children exhibit signs of depression, aggression, or withdrawal. Children in foster care are often forced to change schools, placing them at risk educationally. It comes as no surprise that many youths leaving foster care end up in jail or on public assistance. 165

Are kids better off being taken from a conflict-ridden or otherwise troubled home care situation and placed in foster care? A recent study using the advanced analytic tools of applied economics shows that children faced with two options—being allowed to stay at home or being placed into foster care—have generally better life outcomes when they remain with their families. Economist Joseph Doyle used a randomized design and found that children on the margin of foster care placement have better employment, delinquency, and teen motherhood outcomes when they remain at home. Among the findings: 166

·  Only 14 percent of young adults were arrested at least once when staying at home, and 44 percent were arrested when going to foster care.

·  Only 33 percent became teen mothers when staying at home and 56 percent became mothers when going to foster care.

·  At least 33 percent held a job for at least three months when staying at home and only 20 percent held a job for at least three months when going to foster care.

This outcome is significant considering the number of kids in foster care today. Doyle’s research suggests that keeping families intact will produce better results, and therefore a greater portion of the social welfare budget should be spent on family preservation.

The Abused Child in Court

One of the most significant problems associated with abuse cases is the trauma a child must go through in a court hearing. Children get confused and frightened and may change their testimony. Much controversy has arisen over the accuracy of children’s reports of physical and sexual abuse, resulting in hung juries. Prosecutors and experts have been accused of misleading children or eliciting incriminating testimony. In what probably is the best-known case, the McMartin Day Care case in California, children told not only of being sexually abused but also of being forced to participate in bizarre satanic rituals during which the McMartins mutilated animals and forced the children to touch corpses in hidden underground passageways. Prosecutors decided not to press forward after two trials ended in deadlock. Some jurors, when interviewed after the verdict, said that although they believed that children had been abused, the interviewing techniques used by prosecutors had been so suggestive that they had not been able to discern what really happened. 167

State jurisdictions have instituted procedures to minimize the trauma to the child. Most have enacted legislation allowing videotaped statements or interviews with child witnesses taken at a preliminary hearing or at a formal deposition to be admissible in court. Videotaped testimony spares child witnesses the trauma of testifying in open court. States that allow videotaped testimony usually put some restrictions on its use. Some prohibit the government from calling the child to testify at trial if the videotape is used; some states require a finding that the child is “medically unavailable” because of the trauma of the case before videotaping can be used; some require that the defendant be present during the videotaping; a few specify that the child not be able to see or hear the defendant.

Most of the states now allow a child’s testimony to be given on closed-circuit television (CCTV). The child can view the judge and attorneys, and the courtroom participants can observe the child. The standards for CCTV testimony vary widely. Some states, such as New Hampshire, assume that any child witness under age 12 would benefit from not having to appear in court. Others require an independent examination by a mental health professional to determine whether there is a “compelling need” for CCTV testimony.

In addition to innovative methods of testimony, children in sexual abuse cases have been allowed to use anatomically correct dolls to demonstrate happenings that they cannot describe verbally. The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 allows children to use these dolls when testifying in federal courts; at least eight states have passed similar legislation. 168  Similarly, states have relaxed their laws of evidence to allow out-of-court statements by the child to a social worker, teacher, or police officer to be used as evidence (such statements would otherwise be considered  hearsay ). Typically, corroboration is required to support these statements if the child does not also testify.

hearsay

Out-of-court statements made by one person and recounted in court by another; such statements are generally not allowed as evidence except in child abuse cases in which a child’s statements to social workers, teachers, or police may be admissible.

The prevalence of sexual abuse cases has created new problems for the justice system. Often accusations are made in conjunction with marital disputes. The fear is growing that children may become pawns in custody battles; the mere suggestion of sexual abuse is enough to affect the outcome of a divorce action. The justice system must develop techniques that can get at the truth without creating a lifelong scar on the child’s psyche.

Legal Issues

A number of cases have been brought before the Supreme Court testing the right of children to present evidence at trial using nontraditional methods. Two issues stand out. One is the ability of physicians and mental health professionals to testify about statements made to them by children, especially when the children are incapable of testifying. The second concerns the way children testify in court.

In a 1992 case,  White v. Illinois , the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s attorney is not required to produce young victims at trial or to demonstrate the reason why they were unavailable to serve as witnesses. 169  White involved statements given by the child to the child’s babysitter and mother, a doctor, a nurse, and a police officer concerning the alleged assailant in a sexual assault case. The prosecutor twice tried to call the child to testify, but both times the 4-year-old experienced emotional difficulty and could not appear in court. The outcome hinged solely on the testimony of the five witnesses.

By allowing others to testify as to what the child said, White removed the requirement that prosecutors produce child victims in court. This facilitates the prosecution of child abusers in cases where a court appearance by a victim would prove too disturbing or where the victim is too young to understand the court process. 170  The Court noted that statements made to doctors during medical examinations or those made when a victim is upset carry more weight than ones made after careful reflection. The Court ruled that such statements can be repeated during trial, because the circumstances in which they were made could not be duplicated simply by having the child testify to them in court.

In-Court Statements

Children who are victims of sexual or physical abuse often make poor witnesses. Yet their testimony may be crucial. In a 1988 case, Coy v. Iowa, the Supreme Court placed limitations on efforts to protect child witnesses in court. During a sexual assault case, a one-way glass screen was set up so that the child victims would not be able to view the defendant (the defendant, however, could view the witnesses). 171  The Iowa statute that allowed the protective screen assumed that children would be traumatized by their courtroom experience. The Court ruled that unless there is a finding that the child witness needs special protection, the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution grants defendants face-to-face confrontation with their accusers. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor suggested that if courts found it necessary, it would be appropriate to allow children to testify via CCTV or videotape.

Justice O’Connor’s views became law in  Maryland v. Craig . 172  In this case a daycare operator was convicted of sexually abusing a 6-year-old child; one-way CCTV testimony was used during the trial. The decision was overturned in the Maryland Court of Appeals on the grounds that the procedures used were insufficient to show that the child could only testify in this manner because a trial appearance would be too traumatic. On appeal, the Court ruled that the Maryland statute that allows CCTV testimony is sufficient because it requires a determination that the child will suffer distress if forced to testify. The Court noted that CCTV could serve as the equivalent of in-court testimony and would not interfere with the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.

White v. Illinois

The Supreme Court ruled that the state’s attorney is not required to produce young victims at trial or to demonstrate the reason why they were unavailable to serve as witnesses.

Maryland v. Craig

A state statute that allows closed-circuit (CCTV) testimony in child abuse cases is legal because it requires a determination that the child will suffer distress if forced to testify in court. CCTV can serve as the equivalent of in-court testimony and does not interfere with the defendant’s right to confront witnesses.

Disposition Outcomes of Abuse and Neglect Cases

There is considerable controversy over what forms of intervention are helpful in abuse and neglect cases. Today, social service agents avoid removing children from the home whenever possible and instead try to employ techniques to control abusive relationships. In serious cases, the state may remove children from their parents and place them in shelter care or foster homes. Placement of children in foster care is intended to be temporary, but it is not uncommon for children to remain in foster care for three years or more.

Ultimately, the court has the power to terminate the rights of parents over their children, but because the effects of destroying the family unit are far-reaching, the court does so only in the most severe cases. Judicial hesitancy is illustrated in a Virginia appellate case in which grandparents contested a father’s being awarded custody of his children. Even though he had a history of alcohol abuse, had already been found to be an unfit parent, and was awaiting appeal of his conviction for killing the children’s mother, the trial court claimed that he had turned his life around and granted him custody. 173

Despite such occurrences, efforts have been ongoing to improve the child protection system. Jurisdictions have expedited case processing, instituted procedures designed not to frighten child witnesses, coordinated investigations between social service and law enforcement agencies, and assigned an advocate or guardian ad litem to children in need of protection.

Preventing Child Abuse

The child protection system should be a last resort, and the key to solving the abuse problem is through early prevention. There have been a number of successful efforts to prevent child maltreatment. 174  The first step is to identify kids who are at risk for abuse in order to target interventions as early as possible. Researchers have identified five factors that are consistently correlated with maltreatment—child age, race, poverty, parental drug involvement, and single parenting. These factors interact in complex ways, but children who are characterized by all five are at higher risk than children who have only one. Once identified, a number of strategies have been tried:

·  Communitywide interventions. Some programs focus on communitywide solutions to abuse. For example, the Triple P—Positive Parenting Program has proven quite successful. This program consists of several levels of intervention: a media-based campaign targeting the entire community, intensive treatments for progressively smaller groups of families that are at progressively greater risk for maltreatment, and individual family treatment.

·  Home visiting programs. In these family-based interventions, trained professionals visit parents in their homes and administer a standard program that can range in intensity from one visit to multiple visits over months or even years. Some home visiting programs have been shown to have positive effects in areas of family life related to child abuse risk.

·  Helping families with drug or alcohol abuse. Some programs require drug-addicted parents with reports of maltreatment to enroll in drug treatment within a few months and allow them up to 18 months to show progress in all problem areas, including addiction. Only if there is no measurable progress on every front are children removed and placed with relatives or an adoptive home.

·  Sexual abuse education. Schools, religious groups, and youth organizations are now operating programs that teach children what to do in situations of potential abuse, how to stop potential offenders, and how to find help. Such programs also teach children not to blame themselves if they are victimized, a prevention strategy designed to head off emotional problems often triggered by abuse. There is reason to believe that these programs produce benefits such as increased disclosure and less self-blame following abuse.

Abuse, Neglect, and Delinquency

A significant amount of research suggests that being the target of abuse is associated with subsequent episodes of delinquency and violence (see  Exhibit 8.1 ). 175  The more often a child is physically disciplined and the harsher the discipline, the more likely they will later engage in antisocial behaviors. 176  Kids who were neglected have been shown to be at greater risk to be arrested for later juvenile drug and alcohol offenses than non-neglected children. 177  The effects of abuse appear to be long term: exposure to abuse in early life provides a foundation for violent and antisocial behavior in late adolescence and adulthood. 178  Kids who are abused are likely to grow up to be abusers themselves. 179

exhibit 8.1: Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect

·  14 percent of all men in prison in the United States were abused as children.

·  36 percent of all women in prison were abused as children.

·  Children who experience child abuse and neglect are 59 percent more likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 28 percent more likely to be arrested as an adult, and 30 percent more likely to commit violent crime.

·  As many as two-thirds of the people in treatment for drug abuse reported being abused or neglected as children.

·  Abused children are 25 percent more likely to experience teen pregnancy.

·  Abused teens are less likely to practice safe sex, putting them at greater risk for STDs.

·  About 30 percent of abused and neglected children will later abuse their own children, continuing the horrible cycle of abuse.

·  About 80 percent of 21-year-olds who were abused as children met criteria for at least one psychological disorder.

·  More than five children die every day as a result of child abuse.

·  Approximately 80 percent of children who die from abuse are under the age of 4.

SOURCE: Reprinted by permission from Childhelp, National Child Abuse Statistics,  http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics  (accessed June 2013).

Clinical histories of known juvenile offenders support the abuse-delinquency link. These have confirmed that between 70 and 80 percent of juvenile offenders have abusive backgrounds, and many report serious injury, including bruises, lacerations, fractures, and being knocked unconscious by a parent or guardian. 180

Another approach is to use survey data. When Janet Currie and Erdal Tekin used highly sophisticated statistical tests to evaluate data from a large national survey of youth, they found that maltreatment doubles the probability of engaging in many types of delinquency and crime. They also found distinct patterns in the abuse-crime association. Lower-class children are more likely to be mistreated and suffer more damaging effects from their abuse than those in the upper and middle classes; abused boys are at greater risk to commit crime than are girls; children suffering sexual abuse have a greater chance of getting involved in delinquency and substance abuse than those who are physically abused; the more often and severe the abuse, the more likely a child will later engage in crime. 181  Ironically, cases that come to the attention of child protection agencies are also the ones most likely to violate the law; state intervention seems to do little to reduce the abuse-offending link.

Recently Cathy Widom reviewed results from four research investigations in the Midwest, Rochester (New York), Mecklenburg (North Carolina), and the Northwest and concluded that despite differences in geographic region, time period, youths’ ages, definition of child maltreatment, and assessment technique, there is convincing evidence that a link exists between child maltreatment and subsequent crime and delinquency. In addition, the findings indicate that children who experience violence in childhood are at an increased risk to become perpetrators of violence later in life. These children are also at an increased risk for mental health problems, suicide attempts, greater alcohol problems in women, lower rates of employment, and decreased levels of cognitive and intellectual functioning. 182

Is There an Abuse-Delinquency Link?

While the Widom review is quite convincing, many questions remain to be answered about the abuse-delinquency link. Even though an association has been found, it does not necessarily mean that most abused children become delinquent. Many do not, and many delinquent youths come from what appear to be model homes. And, although many studies have found an abuse-delinquency link, others find the association is either insignificant or inconsistent (e.g., applying to girls and not to boys). 183  Widom herself finds that the majority of both abused and non-abused kids do not engage in antisocial behavior. 184

Beyond the difficulty of showing a clear-cut link between abuse and delinquency, it is also difficult to assess the temporal order of the linkage: Does early abuse lead to later delinquency? Or conversely, are antisocial kids subject to overly harsh parental discipline and abuse? It is also possible that a third explanation exists: some external factor, such as environmental deprivation, causes both abuse and delinquency. That is, kids in lower-class areas are the ones most likely to be abused and kids living in lower-class areas are also more likely to become delinquent. 185  It is possible that environmental deprivation causes both abuse and delinquency.

Research also shows that the timing and extent of abuse may shape its impact. Kids who are maltreated solely during early childhood may be less likely to engage in chronic delinquency than those whose abuse is lasting and persists into later adolescence. 186  Persistent maltreatment also gives the victims little opportunity to cope or deal with their ongoing victimization. 187  In sum, while the evidence shows a clear link between abuse and subsequent delinquent behavior, the true nature of the association has yet to be determined.

The Family and Delinquency Control Policy

Since the family is believed to play such an important role in the production of youth crime, it follows that improving family functioning can help prevent delinquency. Counselors commonly work with the families of antisocial youths as part of a court-ordered treatment strategy. Family counseling and therapy are almost mandatory when the child’s acting-out behavior is suspected to be the result of family-related problems such as child abuse or neglect. 188  Some jurisdictions have integrated family counseling services into the juvenile court. 189

There are a number of approaches to delinquency prevention based on improving family relations or if that is not possible offering an alternative. For example, mentoring programs involve nonprofessional volunteers who spend time with young people who have been targeted as having the potential for dropping out of school, school failure, and other social problems. They mentor in a supportive, nonjudgmental manner while also acting as role models. One of the most successful is the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP), designed around the provision of three “quantum opportunities”:

·  Educational activities (peer tutoring, computer-based instruction, homework assistance)

·  Service activities (volunteering with community projects)

·  Development activities (curricula focused on life and family skills, and college and career planning)

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Intervention: Homebuilders

Homebuilders is an in-home, intensive family preservation service (IFPS) and reunification program for families with children (newborn to 17 years old) returning from or at risk of placement into foster care, group or residential treatment, psychiatric hospitals, or juvenile justice facilities. The Homebuilders model is designed to improve parental skills, parental capabilities, family interactions, children’s behavior, and family safety. The goals are to prevent the unnecessary out-of-home placement of children through an intensive, onsite intervention and to teach families new problem-solving skills to improve family functioning.

Homebuilders therapists work with youths and families involved in the child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health system. For high-risk families involved with the child protective services system, the goal of the program is to remove the risk of harm to the child instead of removing the child. Therapists work with families to teach them new behaviors and help them make better choices for their children, while ensuring child safety. In addition, Homebuilders works with youths and their families to address issues that lead to delinquency, while allowing youths to remain in the community. Program staff ensure that kids attend classes regularly, adhere to curfews, comply with the courts, and learn anger management and conflict-resolution skills to avoid getting into more trouble. Youths are helped to avoid the trauma and stigma of psychiatric hospitalization or residential treatment for mental health–related issues by providing crisis intervention and skill building, involving the families in the youths’ treatment, and broadening the continuum of care.

The primary intervention components of the Homebuilders model are engaging and motivating family members; conducting holistic, behavioral assessments of strengths and problems; developing outcome-based goals; using evidence-based cognitive-behavioral interventions; teaching skills to facilitate behavior change; and developing and enhancing ongoing supports and resources.

The core program strategies are:

·  Intervention at crisis point. Homebuilders therapists work with families when they are in crisis. Families are seen within 24 hours of referral to the program.

·  Accessibility. Services are provided in the family’s home and community (e.g., school) at times convenient to families, including evenings, weekends, and holidays. Therapists are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for crisis intervention. This accessibility allows close monitoring of potentially dangerous situations.

·  Flexibility. Intervention strategies and methods are tailored to meet the needs, values, and lifestyles of each family. Services are provided when and where the families wish. Therapists also provide a wide range of services, such as helping families meet the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter; using public transportation; budgeting; and, when necessary, dealing with the social services system.

·  Time limited and low caseload. Families receive 4 to 6 weeks of intensive intervention, with up to two “booster sessions.” Therapists typically serve two families at a time and provide 80 to 100 hours of service, with an average of 45 hours of face-to-face contact with the family.

·  Strengths-based. Therapists help clients identify and prioritize goals, strengths, and values and help them use and enhance strengths and resources to achieve their goals.

·  Ecological/holistic assessment and individualized treatment planning. Assessments of family strengths, problems, and barriers to service/treatment and outcome-based goals and treatment plans are completed collaboratively with each family.

·  Research-based treatment practices. Therapists use evidence-based treatment practices, including motivational interviewing, behavioral parent training, cognitive-behavior therapy strategies, and relapse prevention. Therapists teach family members a variety of skills, including child behavior management, effective discipline, positive behavioral support, communication skills, problem-solving skills, resisting peer pressure, mood management skills, safety planning, and establishing daily routines.

·  Support and resource building. Therapists help families assess their formal and informal support systems and develop and enhance ongoing supports and resources for maintaining and facilitating changes.

Systematic research shows the program can be a cost-effective intervention method. A cost-benefit analysis found that, for each dollar invested in the Homebuilders program, the total benefit-to-cost ratio per participant was $2.54. The total benefits minus the costs was $4,775, a positive result indicating that money is saved by investing in the program.

CRITICAL THINKING

Is it possible for a program like Homebuilders to work in the nation’s most disorganized areas? Can an intervention program such as this overcome the effects of neighborhood dysfunction? Is this a Band-Aid approach to social problems?

SOURCE: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Homebuilders,  http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/homebuilders-mpgprogramdetail-341.aspx  (accessed June 2013).

Incentives in the form of cash and college scholarships have been offered to students for work carried out in these three areas. These incentives serve to provide short-run motivation for school completion and future academic and social achievement. In addition, staff receive cash incentives and bonuses for keeping youths involved in the program. 190  Another effective program, Homebuilders, is discussed in the Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature.

Another approach to involving the family in delinquency prevention is to attack the problem before it occurs. Early childhood prevention programs that target at-risk youths can relieve some of the symptoms associated with delinquency. 191  Frequent home visits by trained nurses and social service personnel help reduce child abuse and other injuries to infants. 192  Evidence suggests that early intervention may be the most effective method and that the later the intervention, the more difficult the change process. 193

Because the family plays such a crucial role in delinquency prevention and control policies, it is one of the focus areas in  Chapter 12 ’s discussion of delinquency prevention strategies. Since it is suspected that child abuse leads to a cycle of violence, there are also programs designed to help abusive parents refrain from repeating their violent episodes.

SUMMARY

· 1 Be familiar with the link between family relationships and juvenile delinquency

·  There is little question that family dysfunction can lead to long-term social problems.

·  Interactions between parents and children provide opportunities for children to acquire or inhibit antisocial behavior patterns.

·  People who perceived a lack of parental warmth and support were later much more likely to get involved in antisocial behaviors.

·  Good parenting lowers the risk of delinquency for children living in high-crime areas.

· 2 Chart the changes American families are now undergoing

·  The nuclear family is showing signs of breakdown.

·  The so-called traditional family—with a male breadwinner and a female who cares for the home—is a thing of the past.

·  Children today live in a profusion of family living arrangements.

·  Though there has been a sharp decline in teen pregnancies over the past decade, most kids born to unwed women have teen moms.

· 3 Understand the complex association between family breakup and delinquent behavior

·  About half of all marriages end in divorce.

·  Research indicates that parents whose marriage is secure produce children who are secure and independent.

·  Children who have experienced family breakup are more likely to demonstrate behavior problems and hyperactivity than children in intact families.

·  There is a growing sentiment that family breakup is traumatic and most likely has a direct influence on factors related to adolescent misbehavior.

·  Divorce may influence children’s misbehavior through its effect on parental misbehavior.

·  While family breakup is linked to delinquency, most kids whose parents are divorced or separated live happy and productive lives.

· 4 Understand why families in conflict produce more delinquents than those that function harmoniously

·  The link between parental conflict and delinquency is well established in the research literature.

·  Children who grow up in dysfunctional homes often exhibit delinquent behaviors, having learned at a young age that aggression pays off.

·  Kids who are conflict prone may actually help to destabilize households.

· 5 Compare and contrast the effects of good and bad parenting on delinquency

·  Children raised by parents who lack proper parenting skills are more at risk than those whose parents are supportive and effectively control their children.

·  Parents of beyond-control youngsters have been found to be inconsistent rule-setters.

·  Children who feel inhibited with their parents and refuse to discuss important issues with them are more likely to engage in deviant activities.

·  Delinquency will be reduced if both or at least one parent can provide parental efficacy, or the type of structure that integrates children into families while giving them the ability to assert their individuality and regulate their own behavior.

· 6 Discuss whether having deviant parents affects a child’s behavioral choices

·  A number of studies have found that parental deviance has a powerful influence on delinquent behavior.

·  A significant number of delinquent youths have criminal fathers.

·  School yard bullying may be both inter- and intragenerational.

·  The link between parental deviance and child misbehavior may be genetic.

·  Children of drug-abusing parents are more likely to get involved in drug abuse and delinquency than the children of nonabusers.

·  The link between parental deviance and child delinquency may be shaped by parenting ability, by learning deviant values, or it may even be related to labeling and stigma.

· 7 Know about sibling influence on delinquency

·  Some evidence shows that siblings may influence behavior.

·  Siblings who live in the same environment are influenced by similar social and economic factors; it is not surprising that their behavior is similar.

·  If deviance is genetically determined, the traits that cause one sibling to engage in delinquency are shared by his or her brother or sister.

·  Deviant siblings grow closer because of shared interests. It is possible that the relationship is due to personal interactions: Younger siblings imitate older siblings.

· 8 Discuss the nature and extent of child abuse

·  Parental abuse and neglect are not modern phenomena. Maltreatment of children has occurred throughout history.

·  Child abuse includes neglect as well as physical and sexual abuse.

·  Physical abuse includes throwing, shooting, stabbing, burning, drowning, suffocating, and biting.

·  Physical neglect results from parents’ failure to provide adequate food, shelter, or medical care for their children.

·  Emotional abuse is manifested by constant criticism and rejection of the child.

·  Emotional neglect includes inadequate nurturing and inattention to a child’s emotional development.

·  Abandonment refers to the situation in which parents leave their children with the intention of severing the parent-child relationship.

·  Sexual abuse refers to the exploitation of children through rape, incest, and molestation by parents, other family members, friends, or legal guardians.

·  Approximately 3 million allegations of child abuse and neglect involving 6 million children are made to child protective services agencies each year.

· 9 List the assumed causes of child abuse

·  Abusive families suffer from severe stress.

·  Substance abuse has been linked to child abuse.

·  Parents who themselves suffered abuse tend to abuse their own children.

·  The presence of an unrelated adult in the home increases the risk of abuse.

·  Isolated and alienated families tend to become abusive.

·  The behavior of abusive parents can often be traced to negative experiences in their own childhood—physical abuse, emotional neglect, and incest.

· 10 Be familiar with the child protection system and the stages in the child protection process

·  If the care a child receives falls below reasonable standards, the state may take action to remove a child from the home and place her or him in a less threatening environment.

·  Child protection agencies have been dealing with abuse and neglect since the late nineteenth century.

·  The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act has been the impetus for the states to improve the legal frameworks of their child protection systems.

·  All states have statutes requiring that persons suspected of abuse and neglect be reported.

·  Once reported to a child protection agency, the case is screened by an intake worker and then turned over to an investigative caseworker.

·  In making their decisions, courts are guided by three interests: the role of the parents, protection for the child, and the responsibility of the state.

KEY TERMS

nuclear family,  p. 278

broken home,  p. 283

blended families,  p. 283

intrafamily violence,  p. 286

parental efficacy,  p. 287

resource dilution,  p. 288

battered child syndrome,  p. 292

child abuse,  p. 292

neglect,  p. 292

abandonment,  p. 292

familicide,  p. 297

Troxel v. Granville,  p. 298

Santosky v. Kramer,  p. 298

advisement hearing,  p. 299

pretrial conference,  p. 300

disposition hearing,  p. 301

balancing-of-the-interests approach,  p. 302

review hearings,  p. 302

foster care,  p. 302

hearsay,  p. 303

White v. Illinois,  p. 304

Maryland v. Craig,  p. 304

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

What are the meanings of the terms child abuse and child neglect?

2.

Discuss the association between child abuse and delinquency. Give two different explanations for the positive relationship between abuse and antisocial behavior.

3.

What causes parents to abuse their children?

4.

What is meant by the child protection system? Do courts act in the best interest of the child when they allow an abused child to remain with the family?

5.

Should children be allowed to testify in court via CCTV? Does this approach prevent defendants in child abuse cases from confronting their accusers?

6.

Is corporal punishment ever permissible as a disciplinary method?

VIEWPOINT

You are an investigator with the county bureau of social services. A case has been referred to you by a middle school’s head guidance counselor. It seems that a young girl, Emily, has been showing up to school in a dazed and listless condition. She has had a hard time concentrating in class and seems withdrawn and uncommunicative. The 13-year-old has missed more than her normal share of school days and has often been late to class. Last week, she seemed so lethargic that her homeroom teacher sent her to the school nurse. A physical examination revealed that she was malnourished and in poor physical health. She also had evidence of bruising that could only come from a severe beating. Emily told the nurse that she had been punished by her parents for doing poorly at school and failing to do her chores at home.

When her parents were called to school to meet with the principal and guidance counselor, they claimed to be members of a religious order that believes children should be punished severely for their misdeeds. Emily had been placed on a restricted diet as well as beaten with a belt to correct her misbehavior. When the guidance counselor asked them if they would be willing to go into family therapy, they were furious and told her to “mind her own business.” It’s a sad day, they said, when “God-fearing American citizens cannot bring up their children according to their religious beliefs.” The girl is in no immediate danger because her punishment has not been life threatening.

The case is then referred to your office. When you go to see the parents at home, they refuse to make any change in their behavior, claiming that they are in the right and you represent all that is wrong with society. The “lax” discipline you suggest leads to drugs, sex, and other teenage problems.

·  Would you get a court order removing Emily from her house, placing her in foster care, and requiring the parents to go into counseling?

·  Would you report the case to the district attorney’s office so it could take criminal action against her parents under the state’s child protection act?

·  Would you take no further action, reasoning that Emily’s parents have the right to discipline their child as they see fit?

·  Would you talk with Emily and see what she wants to happen?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

To help you answer these questions and to find more information on child abuse, visit the website of the National Library of Medicine ( http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ ). Their database provides both links and information on child abuse. Another useful site is Prevent Child Abuse America (Prevent Child Abuse America), a group established in 1972 and dedicated to preventing all forms of child abuse. You can also visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Tracy Dingman, “Probable Cause Statement Lays Out Motive and Details in Murder of Griego Family,” KOB News, New Mexico, January 21, 2013,  http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s2903832.shtml  (accessed June 2013).

2. Abigail Fagan, M. Lee Van Horn, Susan Antaramian, and J. David Hawkins, “How Do Families Matter? Age and Gender Differences in Family Influences on Delinquency and Drug Use,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 9:50–170 (2011).

3. Callie Harbin Burt, Ronald Simons, and Leslie Simons, “A Longitudinal Test of the Effects of Parenting and the Stability of Self-Control: Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime,” Criminology 44:353–396 (2006).

4. Dana Haynie and D. Wayne Osgood, “Reconsidering Peers and Delinquency: How Do Peers Matter?” Social Forces 84:1110–1130 (2005).

5. Emma Palmer and Kirsty Gough, “Childhood Experiences of Parenting and Causal Attributions for Criminal Behavior among Young Offenders and Non-Offenders,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37:790–806 (2007).

6. Karen Matta Oshima, Jin Huang, Melissa Jonson-Reid, and Brett Drake, “Children with Disabilities in Poor Households: Association with Juvenile and Adult Offending,” Social Work Research 34:102–113 (2010).

7. Joan McCord, “Family Relationships, Juvenile Delinquency, and Adult Criminality,” Criminology 29:397–417 (1991); Scott Henggeler, ed., Delinquency and Adolescent Psychopathology: A Family Ecological Systems Approach (Littleton, MA: Wright–PSG, 1982).

8. Bisakha Sen, “The Relationship between Frequency of Family Dinner and Adolescent Problem Behaviors after Adjusting for Other Family Characteristics,” Journal of Adolescence 33:187–196 (2010).

9. Sarah Meadows, “Evidence of Parallel Pathways: Gender Similarity in the Impact of Social Support on Adolescent Depression and Delinquency,” Social Forces 85:1143–1167 (2007).

10. Ruth Inglis, Sins of the Fathers: A Study of the Physical and Emotional Abuse of Children (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1978), p. 131.

11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Vital Statistics Report, “Births, Marriages, Divorces, and Deaths,”  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm  (accessed June 2013).

12. See Joseph J. Costa and Gordon K. Nelson, Child Abuse and Neglect: Legislation, Reporting, and Prevention (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1978), p. xiii.

13. Tamar Lewin, “Men Assuming Bigger Role at Home, New Survey Shows,” New York Times, April 15, 1998, p. A18.

14. Terence P. Thornberry, Carolyn A. Smith, Craig Rivera, David Huizinga, and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Family Disruption and Delinquency, Juvenile Justice Bulletin (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, September 1999),  https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/178285.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

15. US Census Bureau press release, “More Young Adults Are Living in Their Parents’ Home, Census Bureau Reports,” November 3, 2011,  http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/families_households/cb11-183.html  (accessed June 2013).

16. Sara McLanahan and Audrey N. Beck, “Parental Relationships in Fragile Families,” The Future of Children 20 (2010),  http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=73&articleid=529  (accessed June 2013).

17. Ryan Spohn and Don Kurtz, “Family Structure as a Social Context for Family Conflict: Unjust Strain and Serious Delinquency,” Criminal Justice Review 36:332–356 (2011).

18. William S. Comanor and Llad Phillips, “The Impact of Income and Family Structure on Delinquency,” Journal of Applied Economics 5:209–232 (2002).

19. America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2012,  http://childstats.gov/americaschildren/famsoc.asp  (accessed June 2013).

20. Mary Shaw, Debbie Lawlor, and Jake Najman, “Teenage Children of Teenage Mothers: Psychological, Behavioural and Health Outcomes from an Australian Prospective Longitudinal Study,” Social Science and Medicine 62:2526–2539 (2006).

21. Nancy Cambria, “Missouri Prosecutors Face Limits on Punishing Illegal Day Cares,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 10, 2011,  http://www.stltoday.com/news/special-reports/daycares/missouri-prosecutors-face-limits-on-punishing-illegal-day-cares/article_132aead4-f05d-11e0-a77c-0019bb30f31a.html  (accessed June 2012).

22. Valerie Polakow, Who Cares for Our Children? The Child Care Crisis in the Other America (New York: Teachers College Press, 2007).

23. US Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010,” Report P60, n. 238, Table B-2, pp. 68–73.

24. US Census Bureau, “Projected Population of the United States, by Age and Sex: 2000 to 2050,”  http://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/usinterimproj/natprojtab02a.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

25. Christopher Sullivan, “Early Adolescent Delinquency: Assessing the Role of Childhood Problems, Family Environment, and Peer Pressure,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:291–313 (2006).

26. Rolf Loeber and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, “Family Factors as Correlates and Predictors of Juvenile Conduct Problems and Delinquency,” in Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, eds., Crime and Justice, vol. 7 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), pp. 39–41.

27. Carla Davis, “At-Risk Girls and Delinquency,” Crime and Delinquency 53:408–435 (2007).

28. Christopher Kierkus, Brian Johnson, and John Hewitt, “Cohabiting, Family and Community Stressors, Selection, and Juvenile Delinquency,” Criminal Justice Review 35:393–411 (2010).

29. Andre Sourander, Henrik Elonheimo, Solja Niemelä, Art-Matti Nuutila, Hans Helenius, Lauri Sillanmäki, Jorma Piha, Tuulk Tamminen, Kirsti Kumpulkinen, Irma Moilanen, and Frederik Almovist, “Childhood Predictors of Male Criminality: A Prospective Population-Based Follow-up Study from Age 8 to Late Adolescence,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 45:578–586 (2006).

30. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, “Dan Quayle Was Right,” Atlantic Monthly 271:47–84 (1993).

31. C. Patrick Brady, James Bray, and Linda Zeeb, “Behavior Problems of Clinic Children: Relation to Parental Marital Status, Age, and Sex of Child,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:399–412 (1986).

32. Scott Henggeler, Delinquency in Adolescence (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), p. 48.

33. Ronald Simons, Kuei-Hsiu Lin, Leslie Gordon, Rand Conger, and Frederick Lorenz, “Explaining the Higher Incidence of Adjustment Problems among Children of Divorce Compared with Those in Two-Parent Families,” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61:131–148 (1999).

34. En-Ling Pan and Michael Farrell, “Ethnic Differences in the Effects of Intergenerational Relations on Adolescent Problem Behavior in U.S. Single-Mother Families,” Journal of Family Issues 27:1137–1158 (2006).

35. Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950); Ashley Weeks, “Predicting Juvenile Delinquency,” American Sociological Review 8:40–46 (1943).

36. Jackson Toby, “The Differential Impact of Family Disorganization,” American Sociological Review 22:505–512 (1957); Ruth Morris, “Female Delinquency and Relation Problems,” Social Forces 43:82–89 (1964); Roland Chilton and Gerald Markle, “Family Disruption, Delinquent Conduct, and the Effects of Sub-classification,” American Sociological Review 37: 93–99 (1972).

37. For a review of these early studies, see Thomas Monahan, “Family Status and the Delinquent Child: A Reappraisal and Some New Findings,” Social Forces 35:250–258 (1957).

38. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, Report on the Causes of Crime: Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency, vol. 2 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1931), p. 392.

39. John Laub and Robert Sampson, “Unraveling Families and Delinquency: A Reanalysis of the Gluecks’ Data,” Criminology 26:355–380 (1988); Lawrence Rosen, “The Broken Home and Male Delinquency,” in M. Wolfgang, L. Savitz, and N. Johnston, eds., The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency (New York: Wiley, 1970), pp. 489–495.

40. Christina DeJong and Kenneth Jackson, “Putting Race into Context: Race, Juvenile Justice Processing, and Urbanization,” Justice Quarterly 15:487–504 (1998).

41. Robert Johnson, John Hoffman, and Dean Gerstein, The Relationship between Family Structure and Adolescent Substance Abuse (Washington, DC: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1996).

42. Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, Huizinga, and Stouthamer-Loeber, Family Disruption and Delinquency, Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

43. Cesar Rebellon, “Reconsidering the Broken Homes/Delinquency Relationship and Exploring Its Mediating Mechanism(s),” Criminology 40:103–135 (2002).

44. Lisa Stolzenberg and Stewart D’Alessio, “The Effect of Divorce on Domestic Crime,” Crime and Delinquency 53:281–302 (2007).

45. Sara Jaffee, Terrie Moffitt, Avshalom Caspi, and Alan Taylor, “Life with (or without) Father: The Benefits of Living with Two Biological Parents Depend on the Father’s Antisocial Behavior,” Child Development 74: 109–117 (2003).

46. Ryan Schroeder, Aurea Osgood, and Michael Oghia, “Family Transitions and Juvenile Delinquency,” Sociological Inquiry 80:579–604 (2010).

47. Sara McLanahan, “Father Absence and the Welfare of Children,” working paper (Chicago: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Research Foundation, 1998).

48. Judith S. Wallerstein, Julia M. Lewis, and Sandra Blakeslee, The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce (New York: Hyperion, 2000).

49. E. Mavis Hetherington and John Kelly, For Better or for Worse: Divorce Reconsidered (New York: W. W. Norton, 2002).

50. F. Ivan Nye, “Child Adjustment in Broken and Unhappy Unbroken Homes,” Marriage and Family 19:356–361 (1957); Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1958).

51. Diana Formoso, Nancy Gonzales, and Leona Aiken, “Family Conflict and Children’s Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior: Protective Factors,” American Journal of Community Psychology 28:175–199 (2000).

52. Peter Jaffe, David Wolfe, Susan Wilson, and Lydia Zak, “Similarities in Behavior and Social Maladjustment among Child Victims and Witnesses to Family Violence,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:142–146 (1986).

53. Lynette Renner, “Single Types of Family Violence Victimization and Externalizing Behaviors among Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Family Violence 27:177–186 (2012).

54. Paul Amato and Bruce Keith, “Parental Divorce and the Well-Being of Children: A Meta-Analysis,” Psychological Bulletin 110:26–46 (1991).

55. Christopher Kierkus and Douglas Baer, “A Social Control Explanation of the Relationship between Family Structure and Delinquent Behaviour,” Canadian Journal of Criminology 44:425–458 (2002).

56. John Paul Wright and Francis Cullen, “Parental Efficacy and Delinquent Behavior: Do Control and Support Matter?” Criminology 39:677–706 (2001).

57. Kathleen Roche, Margaret Ensminger, and Andrew Cherlin, “Variations in Parenting and Adolescent Outcomes among African American and Latino Families Living in Low-Income, Urban Areas,” Journal of Family Issues 28:882–909 (2007).

58. Rick Trinkner, Ellen S. Cohn, Cesar J. Rebellon, and Karen Van Gundy, “Don’t Trust Anyone over 30: Parental Legitimacy as a Mediator between Parenting Style and Changes in Delinquent Behavior over Time,” Journal of Adolescence 35:119–132 (2012).

59. Ibid.

60. Jennifer Wainright and Charlotte Patterson, “Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Parents,” Journal of Family Psychology 20:526–530 (2006).

61. Roslyn Caldwell, Jenna Silverman, Noelle Lefforge, and Clayton Silver, “Adjudicated Mexican-American Adolescents: The Effects of Familial Emotional Support on Self-Esteem, Emotional Well-Being, and Delinquency,” American Journal of Family Therapy 32:55–69 (2004); Robert Vermeiren, Jef Bogaerts, Vladislav Ruchkin, Dirk Deboutte, and Mary Schwab-Stone,” Subtypes of Self-Esteem and Self-Concept in Adolescent Violent and Property Offenders,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:405–411 (2004).

62. Leslie Gordon Simons and Rand Conger, “Linking Mother-Father Differences in Parenting to a Typology of Family Parenting Styles and Adolescent Outcomes,” Journal of Family Issues 28:212–241 (2007).

63. Carter Hay, “Parenting, Self-Control, and Delinquency: A Test of Self-Control Theory,” Criminology 39:707–736 (2001).

64. Sonia Cota-Robles and Wendy Gamble, “Parent-Adolescent Processes and Reduced Risk for Delinquency: The Effect of Gender for Mexican American Adolescents,” Youth and Society 37:375–392 (2006).

65. Wesley Church, Sara Tomek, Kathleen Bolland, Lisa Hooper, Jeremiah Jaggers, and John Bolland, “A Longitudinal Examination of Predictors of Delinquency: An Analysis of Data from the Mobile Youth Survey,” Children and Youth Services Review 34:2400–2408 (2012).

66. Wainright and Patterson, “Delinquency, Victimization, and Substance Use among Adolescents with Female Same-Sex Parents.”

67. Stephanie Hicks-Pass, “Corporal Punishment in America Today: Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child? A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Best Practices in Mental Health 5:71–88 (2009).

68. Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, “Development of Juvenile Aggression and Violence,” p. 251.

69. Nathaniel Pallone and James Hennessy, “Brain Dysfunction and Criminal Violence,” Society 35:21–27 (1998).

70. Eric Slade and Lawrence Wissow, “Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers,” Pediatrics 113:1321–1330 (2004).

71. Murray Straus, “Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood,” Social Problems 38:101–123 (1991).

72. Murray A. Straus, “Spanking and the Making of a Violent Society: The Short- and Long-Term Consequences of Corporal Punishment,” Pediatrics 98:837–843 (1996).

73. Ibid.

74. Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior.

75. Laurence Steinberg, Ilana Blatt-Eisengart, and Elizabeth Cauffman, “Patterns of Competence and Adjustment among Adolescents from Authoritative, Authoritarian, Indulgent, and Neglectful Homes: A Replication in a Sample of Serious Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 26:47–58 (2006).

76. Lisa Broidy, “Direct Supervision and Delinquency: Assessing the Adequacy of Structural Proxies,” Journal of Criminal Justice 23:541–554 (1995).

77. James Unnever, Francis Cullen, and Robert Agnew, “Why Is ‘Bad’ Parenting Criminogenic? Implications from Rival Theories,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:3–33 (2006).

78. Sung Joon Jang and Carolyn A. Smith, “A Test of Reciprocal Causal Relationships among Parental Supervision, Affective Ties, and Delinquency,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34:307–336 (1997); Linda Waite and Lee Lillard, “Children and Marital Disruption,” American Journal of Sociology 96:930–953 (1991).

79. Jennifer Beyers, John Bates, Gregory Pettit, and Kenneth Dodge, “Neighborhood Structure, Parenting Processes, and the Development of Youths’ Externalizing Behaviors,” American Journal of Community Psychology 31:35–53 (2003).

80. Joongyeup Lee, Hyunseok Jang, and Leana A. Bouffard, “Maternal Employment and Juvenile Delinquency: A Longitudinal Study of Korean Adolescents,” Crime and Delinquency, first published online December 7, 2011.

81. Thomas Vander Ven and Francis Cullen, “The Impact of Maternal Employment on Serious Youth Crime: Does the Quality of Working Conditions Matter?” Crime and Delinquency 50:272–292 (2004); Thomas Vander Ven, Francis Cullen, Mark Carrozza, and John Paul Wright, “Home Alone: The Impact of Maternal Employment on Delinquency,” Social Problems 48:236–257 (2001).

82. Stacy De Coster, “Mothers’ Work and Family Roles, Gender Ideologies, Distress, and Parenting,” Sociological Quarterly 53:585–609 (2012).

83. Douglas Downey, “Number of Siblings and Intellectual Development,” American Psychologist 56:497–504 (2001).

84. Vander Ven, Cullen, Carrozza, and Wright, “Home Alone.”

85. For an early review, see Barbara Wooton, Social Science and Social Pathology (London: Allen and Unwin, 1959).

86. Stacy Tzoumakis, Patrick Lussier, and Raymond Corrado, “Female Juvenile Delinquency, Motherhood, and the Intergenerational Transmission of Aggression and Antisocial Behavior,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 30:211–237 (2012).

87. Marieke van de Rakt, Joseph Murray, and Paul Nieuwbeerta, “The Long-Term Effects of Paternal Imprisonment on Criminal Trajectories of Children,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49:81–108 (2012).

88. Daniel Shaw, “Advancing Our Understanding of Intergenerational Continuity in Antisocial Behavior,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 31:193–199 (2003).

89. Donald J. West and David P. Farrington, eds., “Who Becomes Delinquent?” in The Delinquent Way of Life (London: Heinemann, 1977); Donald J. West, Delinquency: Its Roots, Careers, and Prospects (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982).

90. David Farrington, “Understanding and Preventing Bullying,” in Michael Tonry, ed., Crime and Justice, vol. 17 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), pp. 381–457.

91. Carolyn Smith and David Farrington, “Continuities in Antisocial Behavior and Parenting Across Three Generations,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:230–247 (2004).

92. Joseph Murray, Rolf Loeber, and Dustin Pardini, “Parental Involvement in the Criminal Justice System and the Development of Youth Theft, Marijuana Use, Depression, and Poor Academic Performance,” Criminology 50:255–312 (2012).

93. Erin Kathleen Midgley and Celia Lo, “The Role of a Parent’s Incarceration in the Emotional Health and Problem Behaviors of At-Risk Adolescents,” Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse 22:85–103 (2013); Michael Roettger and Raymond Swisher, “Associations of Fathers’ History of Incarceration with Sons’ Delinquency and Arrest among Black, White, and Hispanic Males in the United States,” Criminology 49:1109–1148 (2011).

94. Joseph Murray and David Farrington, “Parental Imprisonment: Effects on Boys’ Antisocial Behaviour and Delinquency Through the Life-Course,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:1269–1278 (2005).

95. Lauren Aaron and Danielle Dallaire, “Parental Incarceration and Multiple Risk Experiences: Effects on Family Dynamics and Children’s Delinquency,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 39:1471–1484 (2010).

96. Peggy C. Giordano, Legacies of Crime: A Follow-Up of the Children of Highly Delinquent Girls and Boys (London: Cambridge University Press, 2010).

97. Abigail Fagan and Jake Najman, “Sibling Influences on Adolescent Delinquent Behaviour: An Australian Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Adolescence 26:546–558 (2003).

98. David Rowe and Bill Gulley, “Sibling Effects on Substance Use and Delinquency,” Criminology 30:217–232 (1992); see also David Rowe, Joseph Rogers, and Sylvia Meseck-Bushey, “Sibling Delinquency and the Family Environment: Shared and Unshared Influences,” Child Development 63:59–67 (1992).

99. Deeanna Button and Roberta Gealt, “High Risk Behaviors among Victims of Sibling Violence,” Journal of Family Violence 25:131–140 (2010).

100. Matt Delisi, Kevin Beaver, Michael Vaughn, and John Paul Wright, “All in the Family: Gene x Environment Interaction between DRD2 and Criminal Father Is Associated with Five Antisocial Phenotypes,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 36:1177–1187 (2009); John Paul Wright and Kevin Beaver, “Do Parents Matter in Creating Self-Control in Their Children? A Genetically Informed Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-Control,” Criminology 43:1169–1202 (2005).

101. Leonore Simon, “Does Criminal Offender Treatment Work?” Applied and Preventive Psychology Summer:1–22 (1998).

102. Laura Baker, Kristen Jacobson, Adrian Raine, Dora Isabel Lozano, and Serena Bezdjian, “Genetic and Environmental Bases of Childhood Antisocial Behavior: A Multi-Informant Twin Study,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116:219–235 (2007).

103. Dana DeHart and Sandra Altshuler, “Violence Exposure among Children of Incarcerated Mothers,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 26:467–479 (2009).

104. Nancy Day, Lidush Goldschmidt, and Carrie Thomas, “Prenatal Marijuana Exposure Contributes to the Prediction of Marijuana Use at Age 14,” Addiction 101:1313–1322 (2006).

105. Philip Harden and Robert Pihl, “Cognitive Function, Cardiovascular Reactivity, and Behavior in Boys at High Risk for Alcoholism,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 104:94–103 (1995).

106. Laub and Sampson, “Unraveling Families and Delinquency,” p. 370.

107. Anne Dannerbeck, “Differences in Parenting Attributes, Experiences, and Behaviors of Delinquent Youth with and without a Parental History of Incarceration,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 3:199–213 (2005).

108. David P. Farrington, Gwen Gundry, and Donald J. West, “The Familial Transmission of Criminality,” in Alan Lincoln and Murray Straus, eds., Crime and the Family (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1985), pp. 193–206.

109. Kareem Fahim, “Mother Gets 43 Years in Death of Child, 7,” New York Times, November 12, 2008,  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/nyregion/13nixzmary.html  (accessed June 2013).

110. Associated Press, “Gov Signs Nixzmary’s Law,” New York Post, October 10, 2009,  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/item_6ilH907iItYusqmo4PogkO  (accessed June 2013).

111. Richard Gelles and Claire Pedrick Cornell, Intimate Violence in Families, 2nd ed. (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990), p. 33.

112. Lois Hochhauser, “Child Abuse and the Law: A Mandate for Change,” Harvard Law Journal 18:200 (1973); see also Douglas J. Besharov, “The Legal Aspects of Reporting Known and Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect,” Villanova Law Review 23:458 (1978).

113. C. Henry Kempe, F. N. Silverman, B. F. Steele, W. Droegemueller, and H. K. Silver, “The Battered-Child Syndrome,” Journal of the American Medical Association 181:17–24 (1962).

114. Brian G. Fraser, “A Glance at the Past, a Gaze at the Present, a Glimpse at the Future: A Critical Analysis of the Development of Child Abuse Reporting Statutes,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 54:643 (1977–1978).

115. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control,  http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/  (accessed June 2013).

116. See, especially, Inglis, Sins of the Fathers, ch. 8.

117. William Downs and Brenda Miller, “Relationships between Experiences of Parental Violence During Childhood and Women’s Self-Esteem,” Violence and Victims 13:63–78 (1998).

118. Ruth S. Kempe and C. Henry Kempe, Child Abuse (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978), pp. 6–7.

119. Fred Rogosch and Dante Cicchetti, “Child Maltreatment and Emergent Personality Organization: Perspectives from the Five-Factor Model,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 32:123–145 (2004).

120. Wendy Fisk, “Childhood Trauma and Dissociative Identity Disorder,” Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 5:431–447 (1996).

121. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,  http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/childmaltreatment/  (accessed June 2013).

122. National Center on Shaken Baby Syndrome,  http://www.dontshake.com  (accessed June 2013).

123. Mary Haskett and Janet Kistner, “Social Interactions and Peer Perceptions of Young Physically Abused Children,” Child Development 62:679–690 (1991).

124. Kara Marie Brawn and Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, “Female Juvenile Prostitutes: Exploring the Relationship to Substance Use,” Children and Youth Services Review 30:1395–1402 (2008).

125. Murray Straus, Richard Gelles, and Suzanne Steinmentz, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1980); Richard Gelles and Murray Straus, “Violence in the American Family,” Journal of Social Issues 35:15–39 (1979).

126. Gelles and Straus, “Violence in the American Family,” p. 24.

127. Richard Gelles and Murray Straus, The Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988).

128. Murray A. Straus and Anita K. Mathur, “Social Change and Trends in Approval of Corporal Punishment by Parents from 1968 to 1994,” in D. Frehsee, W. Horn, and K. Bussman, eds., Violence Against Children (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1996), pp. 91–105.

129. US Department of Health and Human Services, “Child Maltreatment, 2011,”  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf#page=9  (accessed June 2013).

130. Joe Drape, “Sandusky Guilty of Sexual Abuse of 10 Young Boys,” New York Times, June 22, 2012,  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/sports/ncaafootball/jerry-sandusky-convicted-of-sexually-abusing-boys.html  (accessed June 2013).

131. Catherine Grus, “Child Abuse: Correlations with Hostile Attributions,” Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 24:296–298 (2006).

132. Kim Logio, “Gender, Race, Childhood Abuse, and Body Image among Adolescents,” Violence Against Women 9:931–955 (2003).

133. Jeanne Kaufman and Cathy Spatz Widom, “Childhood Victimization, Running Away, and Delinquency,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 36:347–370 (1999).

134. N. N. Sarkar and Rina Sarkar, “Sexual Assault on Woman: Its Impact on Her Life and Living in Society,” Sexual and Relationship Therapy 20: 407–419 (2005).

135. Michael Wiederman, Randy Sansone, and Lori Sansone, “History of Trauma and Attempted Suicide among Women in a Primary Care Setting,” Violence and Victims 13:3–11 (1998); Susan Leslie Bryant and Lillian Range, “Suicidality in College Women Who Were Sexually and Physically Abused and Physically Punished by Parents,” Violence and Victims 10:195–215 (1995); Downs and Miller, “Relationships between Experiences of Parental Violence During Childhood and Women’s Self-Esteem”; Sally Davies-Netley, Michael Hurlburt, and Richard Hough, “Childhood Abuse as a Precursor to Homelessness for Homeless Women with Severe Mental Illness,” Violence and Victims 11:129–142 (1996).

136. Jane Siegel and Linda Williams, “Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization of Women,” Violence Against Women 9:902–930 (2003).

137. Michael Miner, Jill Klotz Flitter, and Beatrice Robinson,” Association of Sexual Revictimization with Sexuality and Psychological Function,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 21:503–524 (2006).

138. Lana Stermac and Emily Paradis, “Homeless Women and Victimization: Abuse and Mental Health History among Homeless Rape Survivors,” Resources for Feminist Research 28:65–81 (2001).

139. Richard Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S., Canada and Mexico (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2001).

140. Lisa Jones and David Finkelhor, The Decline in Child Sexual Abuse Cases (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2001).

141. Carolyn Webster-Stratton, “Comparison of Abusive and Nonabusive Families with Conduct-Disordered Children,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 55:59–69 (1985); Brandt F. Steele and Carl B. Pollock, “A Psychiatric Study of Parents Who Abuse Infants and Small Children,” in Ray Helfer and C. Henry Kempe, eds., The Battered Child (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968), pp. 103–145.

142. Brandt F. Steele, “Violence within the Family,” in Ray E. Helfer and C. Henry Kempe, eds., Child Abuse and Neglect: The Family and the Community (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1976), p. 13.

143. William Sack, Robert Mason, and James Higgins, “The Single-Parent Family and Abusive Punishment,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 55:252–259 (1985).

144. Blair Justice and Rita Justice, The Abusing Family (New York: Human Sciences Press, 1976); Nanette Dembitz, “Preventing Youth Crime by Preventing Child Neglect,” American Bar Association Journal 65:920–923 (1979).

145. Douglas Ruben, Treating Adult Children of Alcoholics: A Behavioral Approach (New York: Academic Press, 2000).

146. The Relationship between Parental Alcohol or Other Drug Problems and Child Maltreatment (Chicago: Prevent Child Abuse America, 2000).

147. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, “Violence Against Stepchildren,” Current Directions in Psychological Science 5:77–81 (1996).

148. Ibid.

149. Margo Wilson, Martin Daly, and Antonietta Daniele, “Familicide: The Killing of Spouse and Children,” Aggressive Behavior 21:275–291 (1995).

150. Richard Gelles, “Child Abuse and Violence in Single-Parent Families: Parent Absence and Economic Deprivation,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 59:492–501 (1989).

151. Susan Napier and Mitchell Silverman, “Family Violence as a Function of Occupation Status, Socioeconomic Class, and Other Variables,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, November 1995.

152. Robert Burgess and Patricia Draper, “The Explanation of Family Violence,” in Lloyd Ohlin and Michael Tonry, eds., Family Violence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), pp. 59–117.

153. Ibid., pp. 103–104.

154. Troxel et vir. v. Granville No. 99-138 (June 5, 2000).

155. 452 U.S. 18, 101 S.Ct. 2153 (1981); 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388 (1982).

156. For a survey of each state’s reporting requirements, abuse and neglect legislation, and available programs and agencies, see Costa and Nelson, Child Abuse and Neglect.

157. Linda Gordon, “Incest and Resistance: Patterns of Father-Daughter Incest, 1880–1930,” Social Problems 33:253–267 (1986).

158. P.L. 93B247 (1974); P.L. 104B235 (1996).

159. Children’s Bureau, “How the Child Welfare System Works,” May 2012,  https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/cpswork.pdf#Page=3  (accessed June 2013).

160. Robin Fretwell Wilson, “Children at Risk: The Sexual Exploitation of Female Children After Divorce,” Cornell Law Review 86:251–327 (2001).

161. Sue Badeau and Sarah Gesiriech, A Child’s Journey Through the Child Welfare System (Washington, DC: The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, 2003).

162. Children’s Bureau, “How the Child Welfare System Works.”

163. The Future of Children, a publication of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution,  http://futureofchildren.org/  (accessed June 2013).

164. Ibid.

165. Ibid.

166. Joseph Doyle, “Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care,” American Economic Review (2008),  http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march08_aer.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

167. PBS Frontline, “Innocence Lost the Plea,”  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/innocence/  (accessed June 2013). For an analysis of the accuracy of children’s recollections of abuse, see Candace Kruttschnitt and Maude Dornfeld, “Will They Tell? Assessing Preadolescents’ Reports of Family Violence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:136–147 (1992).

168. Debra Whitcomb, When the Victim Is a Child (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1992), p. 33.

169. White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346; 112 S.Ct. 736 (1992).

170. Myrna Raeder, “White’s Effect on the Right to Confront One’s Accuser,” Criminal Justice, Winter 2–7 (1993).

171. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988).

172. Maryland v. Craig, 110 S.Ct. 3157 (1990).

173. Walker v. Fagg, 400 S.E. 2d 708 (Va. App. 1991).

174. “Preventing Child Maltreatment,” Executive Summary, The Future of Children 19 (Fall 2009),  http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/19_02_ExecSummary.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

175. See, for example, Cesar Rebellon and Karen Van Gundy, “Can Control Theory Explain the Link between Parental Physical Abuse and Delinquency? A Longitudinal Analysis,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42:247–274 (2005).

176. Jennifer Lansford, Laura Wager, John Bates, Gregory Pettit, and Kenneth Dodge, “Forms of Spanking and Children’s Externalizing Behaviors,” Family Relations 6:224–236 (2012).

177. Wan-Yi Chen, Jennifer Propp, Ellen deLara, and Kenneth Corvo, “Child Neglect and Its Association with Subsequent Juvenile Drug and Alcohol Offense,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 28:273–290 (2011).

178. Sara Culhane and Heather Taussig, “The Structure of Problem Behavior in a Sample of Maltreated Youths,” Social Work Research 33:70–78 (2009).

179. Egbert Zavala, “Testing the Link between Child Maltreatment and Family Violence among Police Officers,” Crime and Delinquency, first published online November 22, 2010.

180. National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1977 Analysis of Child Abuse and Neglect Research (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1978), p. 29.

181. Janet Currie and Erdal Tekin, “Does Child Abuse Cause Crime?” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 12171, 2006,  http://www.nber.org/papers/w12171  (accessed June 2013).

182. Cathy Widom, “Understanding Child Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency: The Research,” Welfare League of America, 2010,  http://www.cwla.org/programs/juvenilejustice/ucmjd03.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

183. Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Bauserman, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” Psychological Bulletin 124:22–53 (1998).

184. Widom, “Child Abuse, Neglect, and Violent Criminal Behavior,” p. 267.

185. Matthew Zingraff, “Child Maltreatment and Youthful Problem Behavior,” Criminology 31:173–202 (1993).

186. Timothy Ireland, Carolyn Smith, and Terence Thornberry, “Developmental Issues in the Impact of Child Maltreatment on Later Delinquency and Drug Use,” Criminology 40:359–401 (2002).

187. Ibid.

188. Leonard Edwards and Inger Sagatun, “Dealing with Parent and Child in Serious Abuse Cases,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 34:9–14 (1983).

189. Susan McPherson, Lance McDonald, and Charles Ryer, “Intensive Counseling with Families of Juvenile Offenders,” Juvenile and Family Court Journal 34:27–34 (1983).

190. US Department of Education, “The Quantum Opportunity Program,” July 2, 2007,  http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/WWC_QOP_070207.pdf  (accessed July 2013).

191. The programs in this section are described in Edward Zigler, Cara Taussig, and Kathryn Black, “Early Childhood Intervention, a Promising Preventative for Juvenile Delinquency,” American Psychologist 47: 997–1006 (1992).

192. Lawrence W. Sherman, Denise C. Gottfredson, Doris L. MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn D. Bushway, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1998).

193. Zigler, Taussig, and Black, “Early Childhood Intervention,” pp. 1000–1004

9: Peers and Delinquency: Juvenile Gangs and Groups

Chapter Outline

Adolescent Peer Relations

· Peer Relations and Delinquency

· Impact of Peer Relations

Youth Gangs

· What Are Gangs?

· How Did Gangs Develop?

Contemporary Gangs

· Extent

· Location

· Migration

· Globalization

· Types

· Cohesion

· Age

· Gender

· Formation

· Leadership

· Communications

· Ethnic and Racial Composition

· Criminality and Violence

Why Do Youths Join Gangs?

· The Anthropological View

· The Social Disorganization/Sociocultural View

· The Anomie/Alienation View

· The Psychological View

· The Rational Choice View

· Leaving the Gang

Controlling Gang Activity

· Legal Controls

· Law Enforcement Efforts

· Community-Level Programs

· Evaluating Gang-Control Efforts

Learning Objectives

· 1 Be familiar with the influence of peers on delinquency

· 2 Outline how romantic love influences delinquency

· 3 Know the various definitions used to describe gangs

· 4 Discuss the history of gangs

· 5 Be familiar with the extent and location of the gang problem

· 6 Compare the various forms contemporary gangs take

· 7 Characterize the globalization of gangs

· 8 Describe female gangs and gang members

· 9 Analyze the various theories of gang formation

· 10 Describe the various forms of gang-control efforts in use today

chapter features

focus on Delinquency: Birds of a Feather?

cyber Delinquency: Gangs in Cyberspace

Case profile: Luis’s Story

Youth stories: Jason: Strengthening Family Bonds

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—intervention: Cure Violence

IN 2013, MS-13 gang members Heriberto Martinez, also known as “Boxer,” and Carlos Ortega, also known as “Silent” or “Silencio,” were convicted in New York on charges of murder, assault with a dangerous weapon, firearms offenses, and conspiracy. 1  Among their many crimes:

·  Martinez was convicted in connection with the execution-style murder of Vanessa Argueta, a 19-year-old woman and her 2-year-old son, Diego Torres, who was shot and killed during the same incident. Martinez, the leader of the Coronados Clique of MS-13, authorized the murder of Argueta and then helped three of his co-conspirators evade arrest in New York and flee to El Salvador after the commission of the murders. Argueta had been shot in the head and chest, and Torres had been shot twice in the head.

·  Ortega was convicted in connection with the murder of David Sandler and the attempted murder of Aaron Galan. Ortega and his fellow MS-13 gang members lured Sandler, whom the MS-13 believed was a member of the rival Latin Kings street gang, to a meeting under the pretext of wanting to buy marijuana. Once Sandler arrived, Ortega shot him in the face at close range, killing him. Ortega also shot Sandler’s close friend Galan, who was with Sandler at the time, in the face. Miraculously, Galan survived.

·  Martinez also was convicted in connection with the execution-style murder of Nestor Moreno, a security guard. It seems that Martinez and several other members of MS-13 were involved in a dispute with Moreno that escalated into a physical altercation during which Martinez was doused with pepper spray. Martinez identified himself as an MS-13 member to the victim and told him, “It’s not going to end like this.” Martinez, along with four co-conspirators, returned and carried out that threat, shooting Moreno in the head at point-blank range. The gun that Martinez used to kill Moreno was the same semi-automatic handgun used to kill Argueta and her son.

·  Both Martinez and Ortega were convicted in the murder of Mario Alberto Canton Quijada in Far Rockaway, New York. Quijada, who was a fellow member of MS-13, was killed because of his reluctance to “put in work,” or attack rival gang members on behalf of MS-13. Quijada was lured to a secluded spot under the guise of attacking rival gang members and once alone the MS-13 gang members tried to shoot him in the head with the same semi-automatic handgun used in the other murders. However, the gun jammed, and Martinez, Ortega, and the other MS-13 members set upon Quijada with knifes and machetes and hacked him to death.

Although some gangs are made up of only a few loosely organized neighborhood youths, others like MS-13 have thousands of members scattered around the United States and abroad. The latest available data indicate that along with some 10,000 members in the United States, MS-13 has an estimated 60,000 combined members in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. 2  Some gangs have chapters in large cities and suburban towns and even in rural areas. Gangs like MS-13 have a national presence and are responsible for a great deal of crime and violence from coast to coast. A significant portion of all drug distribution in the nation’s inner cities is believed to be gang controlled; gang violence accounts for more than 1,000 homicides each year.

The problem of gang control is a difficult one. Many gangs flourish in inner-city areas that offer lower-class youths few conventional opportunities, and members are resistant to offers of help that cannot deliver legitimate economic hope. Although gang members may be subject to arrest, prosecution, and incarceration, a new crop of young recruits is always ready to take the place of their fallen comrades. Those sent to prison find that, upon release, their former gangs are only too willing to have them return to action. There has been an outcry from politicians to increase punishment for the “little monsters” and to save the “fallen angels,” or the victimized youths who are innocent. 3  While some antigang activity seems to work, the number of gang members has steadily increased and is now estimated to be around 750,000!

We begin this chapter with a discussion of peer relations, showing how they influence delinquent behavior. A great deal of adolescent misbehavior is committed with peers in groups and cliques, groups that may morph into law-violating youth groups and gangs. Because of this connection and the seriousness of gang activity in the United States, we turn our attention to the definition, nature, and structure of delinquent gangs as well as efforts being made to control their criminal activities.

The FBI website has quite a bit of information on gangs and their control ( http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs ). You can also visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Adolescent Peer Relations

Although parents are the primary source of influence and attention in children’s early years, between ages 8 and 14 children seek a stable peer group, and both the number and the variety of friendships increase as children go through adolescence. Friends soon begin to have a greater influence over decision making than parents.

As they go through adolescence, children form friendship dyads, an association with a single “best friend,” then get into  cliques , small groups of friends who share activities and confidences. They also belong to  crowds , loosely organized groups of children who share interests and activities such as sports, religion, or hobbies. Intimate friends play an important role in social development, but adolescents are also deeply influenced by this wider circle of friends. Adolescent self-image is in part formed by perceptions of one’s place in the social world. 4  Kids not only are influenced by their close intimates but also model their behavior on that displayed by others they are less familiar with or do not associate with as long as it can impress their immediate group. In mid-adolescence, kids strive for peer approval and to impress their closest friends. 5

cliques

Small groups of friends who share intimate knowledge and confidences.

crowds

Loosely organized groups who share interests and activities.

In later adolescence, acceptance by peers continues to have a major impact on socialization. By their teens, children report that their friends give them emotional support when they are feeling bad and that they can confide intimate feelings to peers without worrying about their confidences being betrayed. Poor peer relations such as negative interactions with best friends has been found to be related to high social anxiety while, in contrast, close affiliation with a high-status peer crowd seems to afford protection against depression and other negative adolescent psychological symptoms. 6  Some kids may seek others with similar tastes, fears, and anxieties. They may feed off each other emotionally. Girls may seek peers with similar body image problems and together get involved in diet and extreme weight loss activities that can be physically and emotionally harmful. 7

Popular youths do well in school and are socially astute. Kids who have lots of friends and a variety of peer group networks tend to be less delinquent than their less popular mates. 8

In contrast, children who are rejected by their peers are more likely to display aggressive behavior and to disrupt group activities by bickering or behaving antisocially. Kids choose friends who are similar in behavior and values, and the resemblance increases as the friendship develops; resemblance declines when friendship dissolves. In stable friendships, the more accepted popular partner exerts greater influence over the less accepted partner. If the more popular friend engages in delinquency and alcohol use, the less popular “follower” will be soon to follow. 9

It is clear that peer status during childhood is an important contributor to a child’s social and emotional development that follows children of both sexes over the life course. Girls who engage in aggressive behavior with childhood peers later have more conflict-ridden relationships with their romantic partners. Boys who are highly aggressive and are therefore rejected by their peers in childhood are also more likely to engage in criminality and delinquency from adolescence into young adulthood. 10

Peer influence may be more important than parental nurturance in the development of long-term behavior. 11  Peers guide each other and help each other learn to share and cooperate, to cope with aggressive impulses, and to discuss feelings they would not dare bring up at home. Youths can compare their own experiences with peers and learn that others have similar concerns and problems. 12  In fact, there is evidence that peers may actually outweigh the influence of parents in producing a delinquent way of life. Even children born into high-risk families—such as those with single teen mothers—can avoid delinquency if their friends are prosocial and refrain from drug use and criminality. 13  Conversely, negative peer influence can neutralize the positive effects of maternal monitoring and control on deviant behaviors. 14  Youths can compare their own experiences with peers and learn that others have similar concerns and problems. 15

Peer Relations and Delinquency

Kids who hang out with delinquent friends, who spend time socializing with them without parental supervision, and who admire and want to emulate them are the ones most likely to increase involvement in antisocial behaviors. 16

Peer relations, in all cultures, have been linked to adolescent behavior choices, including substance abuse and delinquency.

Research shows that peer group relationships are closely tied to delinquent behaviors: Delinquent acts tend to be committed in small groups rather than alone, a process referred to as co-offending. 17  Many kids are initiated into deviant activities such as smoking marijuana by their friends, and their friends’ pro-deviant attitudes are then used to help support continued involvement in antisocial or illegal acts. 18  In a process called  deviancy training , close friends reinforce deviant behavior through talk and interaction. They talk among themselves about what they have done, such as take drugs or have sex, and laugh and joke about what happened. Their laughter and support leads to more rule breaking. The more adolescents talk positively and reinforce deviant acts, the more likely their friends will engage in the antisocial behavior on a long-term basis. 19

deviancy training

A process in which close friends reinforce deviant behavior choices through talk and interaction.

Some kids are more susceptible to peer influence than others. For example, boys who mature early and reach puberty at a young age are also the ones most likely to develop strong attachments to delinquent, friends and to be influenced by peer pressure. 20  The earlier youngsters develop relationships with delinquent peers and the closer those relationships get, the more likely they will become delinquent.

Romantic Love

As you may recall, in his social bond theory, Travis Hirschi argued that delinquent youth were loners who did not form attachment to others. How then do they fare as romantic partners? When Peggy Giordano and her associates examined the romantic life of delinquents, they found that, surprisingly, they actually report more frequent contact with their romantic partners. However, as Hirschi may have predicted, Giordano found that delinquent youth argue more and report more verbal conflict with their romantic partners than their nondelinquent peers. 21

Does this mean that delinquents are washouts as romantic partners? Not exactly. When sociologists Bill McCarthy and Teresa Casey examined the association between love, sex, and delinquency in a sample of teens, they found that the closeness offered by adolescent romantic love may fill an important void between the weakening of bonds with parents and the onset of adult attachments, and it may discourage an array of negative outcomes, including involvement in delinquency. 22  In contrast, adolescent sexual activity without the promise of love increases the likelihood of offending because it is associated with strain created by loveless relationships. McCarthy and Casey found that romantic love has a deterrent effect that actually encourages youths who have offended to decrease their involvement in crime. They speculate that romantic love discourages offending by strengthening the social bond. By contrast, the association between sex and crime is intensified in relationships short on love. It is possible that kids who engage in sex without love or romance are willing to partake in other risky and/or self-indulgent behaviors, including delinquency and drug usage.

Impact of Peer Relations

Does having antisocial peers cause delinquency, or are delinquents previously antisocial youths who seek out like-minded companions? While it is possible that delinquency is a product of peer influence, it is also possible that the relationship is spurious and produced by other factors. There are a number of views that provide alternative explanations for the peer–delinquency link:

·  Peer relations are controlled by flawed perceptions. Kids may overestimate their friends’ deviant behavior. It is this misperception, rather than actual peer behavior, that influences their delinquent choices. Kids think “all my friends drink, take drugs and have sex, so I better do so also or I will not be part of the group.” But their view is wrong; they are acting on false beliefs. Perception rather than actual peer behavior influences delinquent choices. 23

·  Peer relations are controlled by selecting similar friends. Antisocial youths join with like-minded friends; deviant peers sustain and amplify delinquent careers. 24  Deviant peers do not cause straight kids to go bad, but they amplify the likelihood of a troubled kid getting further involved in antisocial behaviors. 25  As children move through the life course, antisocial friends help them maintain delinquent careers and obstruct the aging-out process. 26

·  Troubled kids choose delinquent peers out of necessity rather than desire. Delinquent kids come from distressed homes, maintain emotional problems, and do poorly in school. These social factors, and not peer influence, are the true cause of their delinquent behaviors. 27  Why do delinquent kids have delinquent friends? The social baggage they cart around prevents them from developing associations with conventional peers. Because they are impulsive, they may hook up with friends who are of similar temperaments in order to sell drugs and commit crimes. 28

·  Labels and stigma control peer interaction. Kids who display emotional or behavioral problems early in childhood are labeled “strange” or “weird” by other kids, labels that stick into mid-adolescence. Stigma leads to estrangement and feelings of isolation and loneliness. Alienated kids are susceptible to depression and psychological deficits that someday may lead to antisocial behavior and substance abuse. 29  Kids who are “outsiders” select delinquent friends who then have an important influence on their behavior. For example, kids who smoke may choose other smokers as their friends; hanging out with smokers supports and accelerates their smoking activity. 30

Do They Really Flock Together?

There is little question that the association between peer influence and delinquency is complex. While at first glance it seems that many crime-involved youth choose like-minded friends, many also hang out with kids who are not delinquent themselves, raising the question of whether birds of a feather really do flock together (see the Focus on Delinquency feature entitled “Birds of a Feather?”).

Having delinquent friends may actually turn out to have social benefits: having disreputable sketchy friends can increase social standing and popularity among the teen population. No one wants to be considered a nerd or socially awkward. Teens may be afraid that if they abstain from rule-violating behaviors they will be socially isolated. Drinking, smoking pot, and partying are the norm in adolescent society; abstainers are disparaged, not admired. 31

By ninth grade, kids who belong to the “party crowd” (a group that engages in underage drinking and precocious sex) gain rather than lose social capital. Participation in the party subculture has short-term costs (such as lower grades or detachment from school), but in the long term provides gains in the form of social capital and peer group popularity. 32  So while some kids may indeed seek out delinquent friends, they may do so to gain popularity, not to enter into a delinquent way of life.

Youth Gangs

As youths move through adolescence, they gravitate toward cliques that provide them with support, assurance, protection, and direction. In some instances the peer group provides the social and emotional basis for antisocial activity. When this happens, the clique is transformed into a  gang .

gang

Group of youths who collectively engage in delinquent behaviors.

Such a powerful mystique has grown up around gangs that mere mention of the word evokes images of black-jacketed youths roaming the streets in groups bearing such names as MS-13, Latin Kings, Crips, and Bloods. Films, television shows, novels, and even Broadway musicals (e.g., West Side Story, Grease) have popularized the youth gang. 33

Considering the suspected role gangs play in violent crime and drug activity, it is not surprising that gangs have recently become the target of a great deal of research interest and government antigang activities. Important attempts have been made to gauge the size, location, makeup, and activities of gangs, and in the following sections this research will be discussed in some detail.

What Are Gangs?

Gangs are groups of youths who engage in delinquent behaviors. Yet gang delinquency differs from group delinquency. While the former involves long-lived institutions that have a distinct structure and organization, including identifiable leadership, division of labor, rules, rituals, and possessions, the latter consists of a short-lived alliance created to commit a particular crime or violent act.

FOCUS on delinquency: Birds of a Feather?

It is ironic that even though the prevailing wisdom is that delinquency is strongly influenced by interaction and involvement with older and/or more experienced peers, most institutional treatment programs based in schools, community centers, and the juvenile justice system continue to organize deviant peers into groups and isolate them from conventional law-abiding kids. In their important book Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth: Problems and Solutions, Kenneth A. Dodge, Thomas Dishion, and Jennifer Lansford find that public policy is often based on a misguided desire to remove deviant youths from the mainstream and segregate them, together, in groups.

Exclusion policy takes place on many different levels. Schools place children who display conduct problems in special education for diagnosis as “seriously emotionally disturbed” (SED) or “behaviorally or emotionally handicapped” (BEH). Once in these groups, students are treated in self-contained classrooms for almost the whole day. The effects of this aggregation include both the possibility of deviant peer influence and the loss of opportunities for positive influence from well-adjusted peers. Several studies indicate that students receiving special education services are more likely to suffer suspension and expulsion than their peers and that that special education may actually increase problem behavior.

Problem kids are also lumped together in the juvenile justice system. Delinquents are placed in residential settings such as detention centers, training schools, reform schools, prisons, boot camps, and wilderness camps that are populated exclusively by other offending youth. In all of these settings, youths interact primarily with other deviant youths under circumstances of limited adult supervision.

Even community-based programs designed to keep at-risk youths off the streets offer little structure or adult supervision and simply provide a place for youths to hang out. These programs may have the unintended effect of increasing behavior problems by increasing the aggregation of at-risk youth.

In sum, it is ironic that while many experts believe that delinquent “birds of a feather flock together,” school, community, and justice system policy has been to isolate at-risk kids, lumping them together and thereby magnifying negative effects of peer influence.

CRITICAL THINKING

If lumping problem youth together causes problems, is there a possible alternative solution? Is this an insurmountable problem?

SOURCE: Kenneth A. Dodge, Jennifer E. Lansford, and Thomas J. Dishion, “The Problem of Deviant Peer Influences in Intervention Programs,” in Kenneth Dodge, Thomas Dishion, Jennifer Lansford, eds., Deviant Peer Influences in Programs for Youth: Problems and Solutions (New York: Guilford Press, 2006), pp. 3–13.

interstitial group

Delinquent group that fills a crack in the social fabric and maintains standard group practices, such as setting goals, recruiting new members, developing status, and assigning roles.

Delinquency experts are often at odds over the precise definition of a gang. The term is sometimes used broadly to describe any congregation of youths who have joined together to engage in delinquent acts. However, police departments often use it only to refer to cohesive groups that hold and defend territory, or turf. 34

Academic experts have also created a variety of definitions (see  Exhibit 9.1 ). The core elements in the concept of the gang are that it is an  interstitial group —one falling within the cracks and crevices of society—and that it maintains standard group processes, such as recruiting new members, setting goals, assigning roles, and developing status. 35

exhibit 9.1: Definitions of Teen Gangs

Frederick Thrasher

An interstitial group originally formed spontaneously and then integrated through conflict. It is characterized by the following types of behavior: meeting face-to-face, milling, movement through space as a unit, conflict, and planning. The result of this collective behavior is the development of tradition, unreflective internal structure, esprit de corps, solidarity, morale, group awareness, and attachment to local territory.

Malcolm Klein

Any denotable adolescent group of youngsters who (a) are generally perceived as a distinct aggregation by others in their neighborhood, (b) recognize themselves as a denotable group (almost invariably with a group name), and (c) have been involved in a sufficient number of delinquent incidents to call forth a consistent negative response from neighborhood residents and/or law enforcement agencies.

Walter Miller

A self-formed association of peers, bound together by mutual interests, with identifiable leadership, well-developed lines of authority, and other organizational features, who act in concert to achieve a specific purpose or purposes, which generally include the conduct of illegal activity and control over a particular territory, facility, or type of enterprise.

G. David Curry and Irving Spergel

Groups containing law-violating juveniles and adults that are complexly organized, although sometimes diffuse, and sometimes cohesive, with established leadership and membership rules. The gang also engages in a range of crime (but with significantly more violence) within a framework of norms and values in respect to mutual support, conflict relations with other gangs, and a tradition of turf, colors, signs, and symbols. Subgroups of the gang may be deferentially committed to various delinquent or criminal patterns, such as drug trafficking, gang fighting, or burglary.

James Short

Groups of young people whose members meet together with some regularity, over time, on the basis of group-defined criteria of membership and group-defined organizational characteristics. In the simplest terms, gangs are unsupervised (by adults), self-determining groups that demonstrate continuity over time.

National Gang Center

A youth gang is commonly thought of as a self-formed association of peers having the following characteristics:

·  The group has three or more members, generally aged 12–24.

·  Members share an identity, typically linked to a name, and often other symbols.

·  Members view themselves as a gang, and they are recognized by others as a gang.

·  The group has some permanence and a degree of organization.

·  The group is involved in an elevated level of criminal activity.

FBI

Gangs are criminal organizations formed on the street operating throughout the United States. Neighborhood or local street gangs are confined to specific neighborhoods and jurisdictions and often imitate larger, more powerful national gangs. The primary purpose for many neighborhood gangs is drug distribution and sales.

SOURCES: Frederick Thrasher, The Gang (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927), p. 57; Malcolm Klein, Street Gangs and Street Workers (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971), p. 13; Walter Miller, “Gangs, Groups, and Serious Youth Crime,” in David Schicor and Delos Kelly, eds., Critical Issues in Juvenile Delinquency (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1980); James Short Jr. and Fred Strodtbeck, Group Process and Gang Delinquency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965); National Gang Center,  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ#q1  (accessed June 2013); FBI, “2011 National Gang Threat Assessment—Emerging Trends,”  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment  (accessed June 2013).

Malcolm Klein argues that two factors stand out in all of these definitions:

·  Members have self-recognition of their gang status and use special vocabulary, clothing, signs, colors, graffiti, and names. Members set themselves apart from the community and are viewed as a separate entity by others. Once they get the label of “gang,” members eventually accept and take pride in their status.

·  There is a commitment to criminal activity, although even the most criminal gang members spend the bulk of their time in noncriminal activities. 36

How Did Gangs Develop?

The youth gang is sometimes viewed as uniquely American, but gangs have also been reported in several other nations. 37  Nor are gangs a recent phenomenon. In the 1600s, London was terrorized by organized gangs that called themselves Hectors, Bugles, Dead Boys, and other colorful names. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, English gang members wore distinctive belts and pins marked with serpents, animals, stars, and the like. 38  The first mention of youth gangs in America occurred in the late 1780s, when prison reformers noted the presence of gangs of young people hanging out on Philadelphia’s street corners. By the 1820s, New York’s Bowery and Five Points districts, Boston’s North End and Fort Hill, and the outlying South-wark and Moyamensing sections of Philadelphia were the locales of youth gangs with colorful names like the Roach Guards, Chichesters, the Plug Uglies, and the Dead Rabbits. 39

To view current examples of gang graffiti and learn to interpret what they mean, visit these websites:

http://www.gangsorus.com/graffiti.html

http://nwgangs.com/hispanic-gang-graffiti.html

You can also go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

In the 1920s, Frederick Thrasher initiated the study of the modern gang in his analysis of more than 1,300 youth groups in Chicago. 40  He found that the social, economic, and ecological processes that affect the structure of cities create cracks in the normal fabric of society—weak family controls, poverty, and social disorganization—and referred to this as an interstitial area. According to Thrasher, groups of youths develop to meet such needs as play, fun, and adventure, activities that sometimes lead to delinquent acts. Impoverished areas present many opportunities for conflict between groups of youths and adult authority. If this conflict continues, the groups become more solidified and their activities become primarily illegal, and the groups develop into gangs.

According to Thrasher, adult society does not meet the needs of lower-class youths, and the gang solves the problem by offering excitement, fun, and opportunity. The gang is not a haven for disturbed youths but an alternative lifestyle for normal boys. Thrasher’s work has had an important influence. Recent studies of delinquent gang behavior also view the gang as a means for lower-class boys to achieve advancement and opportunity as well as to defend themselves and to attack rivals. 41

Gangs in the 1950s and 1960s

The threat of gangs and gang violence swept the public consciousness in the 1950s and early 1960s. Rarely did a week go by without a major city newspaper featuring a story on the violent behavior of fighting gangs and their colorful leaders and names—the Egyptian Kings, the Vice Lords, the Blackstone Rangers. Social service and law enforcement agencies directed major efforts to either rehabilitate or destroy the gangs. Movies, such as The Wild Ones and Blackboard Jungle, were made about gangs, and the Broadway musical West Side Story romanticized violent gangs.

In his classic 1967 work Juvenile Gangs in Context, Malcolm Klein summarized existing knowledge about gangs. 42  He concluded that gang membership was a way for individual boys to satisfy certain personal needs related to the development of youths caught up in the emotional turmoil typical of the period between adolescence and adulthood. A natural inclination to form gangs is reinforced by the perception that the gang represents a substitute for unattainable middle-class rewards.

The experience of being a member of a gang will dominate a youngster’s perceptions, values, expectations, and behavior. Finally, the gang is self-reinforcing: it is within the gang more than anywhere else that a youngster may find forms of acceptance for delinquent behavior—rewards instead of negative sanctions. And as the gang strives for internal cohesion, the negative sanctions of the “outside world” become interpreted as threats to cohesion, thus providing secondary reinforcement for the values central to the legitimization of gang behavior. 43

By the mid-1960s, the gang menace seemed to have disappeared. Some experts attribute the decline of gang activity to successful gang-control programs. 44  They believed that gangs were eliminated because police gang-control units infiltrated gangs, arrested leaders, and constantly harassed members. 45  Gang boys were more likely to be sanctioned by the juvenile justice system and receive more severe sentences than nongang youths. 46  Another explanation for the decline in gang activity was the increase in political awareness that developed during the 1960s. Many gang leaders became involved in the social or political activities of ethnic pride, civil rights, and antiwar groups. In addition, many gang members were drafted. Still another explanation is that gang activity diminished during the 1960s because many gang members became active users of heroin and other drugs, which curtailed their group-related criminal activity. 47

Gangs Reemerge

Interest in gang activity began anew in the early 1970s. Bearing such names as Savage Skulls and Black Assassins, gangs began to form in New York’s South Bronx neighborhoods in the spring of 1971 and quickly spread to other parts of the city. By 1975, there were 275 police-verified gangs, with 11,000 members. 48

Gang activity also reemerged in other major cities, such as Chicago and Los Angeles. The Crips gang was created in Los Angeles in 1969 by teens Raymond Washington and Stanley “Tookie” Williams. Initially called the Baby Avenues, they evolved to Avenue Cribs, and then Cribs. According to legend, the gang name evolved into Crips because some of its members used canes to attack victims; it is also possible it was a simple spelling mistake in newspaper articles about the gang.

As the Crips gained power, other rival gangs feared their growing dominance. By late 1971, L.A. Brims, Piru Street Boys, the Bishops, Athens Park Boys, and other gang boys met to discuss how to combat Crip intimidation. The gangs merged and called themselves the Bloods, known for wearing a red bandana and slashing victims to draw their blood as part of the gang initiation rights. Eventually both these gangs sent representatives to organize chapters in distant areas or to take over existing gangs.

After a period of inactivity, gangs re-emerged in the 1970s and beyond. Among the most powerful gangs were the Bloods and Crips in Los Angeles. Here, Crips gang members pose at a park in Compton, California, in 1992 during the period when the Crips and Bloods gangs formed a truce.

Why Did Gangs Reemerge?

One reason for the increase in gang activity may be involvement in the sale of illegal drugs. 49  Early gangs relied on group loyalty to encourage membership, but modern gang members are lured by the quest for drug profits. In some areas, gangs replaced organized crime families as the dominant suppliers of cocaine and crack. The traditional weapons of gangs—chains, knives, and homemade guns—were replaced by automatic weapons.

Gang formation was also the natural consequence of the economic and social dislocation that occurred when the economy shifted from a relatively high-paying manufacturing to low-wage service economy. 50  Some US cities that required a large population base for their manufacturing plants now face economic stress as these plants shut down. In this uneasy economic climate, gangs flourish, while the influence of successful adult role models and stable families declines. The presence of gangs in areas unaccustomed to delinquent group activity can have a devastating effect on community life.

While this social dislocation was occurring, the media fell in love with gang images, which appeared in films and music videos. Gangsta rap became a national phenomenon. Because there has been a diffusion of the gang culture through the popular media, in which gang boys are made to appear as successful heroes, urban kids may find the lure of gangs and law-violating peer groups irresistible.

Contemporary Gangs

The gang cannot be viewed as a uniform or homogeneous social concept. Gangs vary by activity, makeup, location, leadership style, and age. The next sections describe some of the most salient features of contemporary gangs.

Extent

The federal government sponsors the National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS) to measure gang activity around the United States. 51  The most recent survey involved 3,500 law enforcement jurisdictions that experience gang activities and included most larger cities and metropolitan areas. The NYGS found that following a marked decline from the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, the prevalence rate of gang activity significantly increased between 2001 and 2005 and has since remained fairly constant ever since. Today, approximately one-third of legal jurisdictions experience gang problems. In all, there were an estimated 29,400 gangs and 756,000 gang members throughout the 3,500 jurisdictions in the survey.

Location

A significant majority of urban areas report the presence of gangs, and gangs exist in all levels of the social strata, from rural counties to metropolitan areas.

Traditionally, gangs have operated in large urban areas experiencing rapid population change. In these transitional neighborhoods, diverse ethnic and racial groups find themselves in competition with one another. 52  Intergang conflict and homicide rates are high in these areas, which house the urban “underclass.” 53  However, these neighborhoods eventually evolve into permanently  disorganized neighborhoods , where population shifts slow down, permitting patterns of behavior and traditions to develop over a number of years. Most typical are the poverty-stricken areas of Los Angeles and Chicago and the Mexican American  barrios  of the southwestern states and California. These areas contain large, structured gang clusters that are resistant to change or control by law enforcement agencies. Research by David Pyrooz confirms that cities with greater social and economic deprivation experience higher rates of gang homicide. Communities with fewer resources have limited capacities to regulate human behavior, and gangs are naturally occurring deviant social networks that engage in violence as a result of weakened social controls. It is not, he argues, that these communities are more tolerant of violent gang activities; rather, they lack the collective efficacy to control gangs. 54

disorganized neighborhood

Inner-city areas of extreme poverty where the critical social control mechanisms have broken down.

barrio

A Spanish word meaning “neighborhood.”

While some people think of gangs as a purely urban phenomenon, an estimated 15,000 gangs with 300,000 members are located in small cities, suburban counties, and even rural areas. The growth of gangs in suburban and rural areas has been attributed to a restructuring of the population. There has been a massive movement of people out of the central city to outlying communities and suburbs. In some cities, once-fashionable neighborhoods have declined, while in others downtown areas have undergone extensive renewal. Previously impoverished inner-city districts of major cities such as New York and Chicago are now quite fashionable and expensive, devoted to finance, retail stores, high-priced condos, and entertainment. Two aspects of this development inhibit urban gang formation: (1) there are few residential areas and thus few adolescent recruits, and (2) there is intensive police patrol.

Migration

Because of redevelopment, gangs in some areas have relocated or migrated; gang members have organized new chapters when they relocate to new areas. Many jurisdictions have experienced gang migration, and in a few areas more than half of all gang members have come from other areas. According to the most recent national gang survey, jurisdictions with gang problems (71 percent) report the presence of one or more gang-member migrants. Smaller areas, where gang problems are less common and/or chronic, were significantly less likely than larger areas to report gang-member migrants. About 9 percent of jurisdictions reported that more than half of the documented gang members in their jurisdictions had migrated from other areas. 55

Why do gang members migrate? While the prevailing wisdom is that gang members move for criminal purposes (e.g., to sell drugs to new customers at higher prices), most do so for social reasons (e.g., members moving with families, pursuit of legitimate employment opportunities). Others seek new drug market opportunities or want to avoid law enforcement crackdowns in their hometowns. In all, less than 20 percent move to a new location solely in order to participate in illegal ventures in a new area that may have less gang competition. Most migrators are African American or Hispanic males who maintain close ties with members of their original gangs “back home.” 56  Some migrants join local gangs, shedding old ties and gaining new affiliations.

Although some experts fear the outcome of migration, it appears the number of migrants is relatively small in proportion to the overall gang population. 57 And, despite a widely held perception that larger proportions of gang-member migrants are positively associated with increases in local gang activities, such as violence, drugs, and conflict, the data show that the presence or the proportion of gang-member migrants has little effect on gang activities.

In sum, gang-member migration is far more the exception than the rule outside urban areas. Gang-member migrants are usually a small part of the total gang population, have likely moved to the area for legitimate social or family reasons, and have no prominent impact on local gang offenses.

Globalization

The gang migration problem is not unique to the United States, and homegrown gangs and migrating transnational gangs have developed around the world. 58

Read more about gang makeup and other facts at the National Institute of Justice ( http://www.nij.gov/nij/topics/crime/gangs-organized/gangs/myths-about-youth-gangs.htm ) or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

One reason is that our global society has increased the percentage of people living in extreme poverty in some areas of the world. According to Michaux Parker, this phenomenon occurs because globalization creates a class that benefits from expanding markets while unskilled people and low-wage earners, due to increased economic competition, do not enjoy the material benefits of affluence. 59  As a result, there is a growing global urban underclass from which gang members are being recruited. In addition, globalization means that information and weapons are readily available anywhere in the world, allowing gangs to expand their resources for criminal enterprises.

John Hagedorn, a noted gang expert, finds that a global criminal economy, especially the illegal distribution of drugs, involves gangs as both major and bit players. Numerous gangs operate in distressed areas such as the townships of South Africa where they rule politically and control the underground economy. Chinese triads operate all across the globe but are especially active in South Asia and the United States. In Eastern Europe, the turmoil caused by the move to a market economy and the loss of social safety nets has strengthened gangs and drug organizations. In Albania, one-quarter of all young males are involved in the drug economy. 60

Hagedorn finds that gangs are now being exported from one nation to another. There are Jamaican posses in Kansas; San Diego’s Calle Trente gang had a past relationship to Mexico’s Arellano brothers cartel; the Russian “mafiya” now operates in Chicago; female Muslim gangs are active in Oslo, Norway; and L.A.’s MS-13 and 18th Street gangs are now the largest gangs in Honduras and El Salvador (there is more on these gangs below). 61  Hagedorn finds that changing social and economic conditions in our post-globalization world support the spread of gang activity:

·  Worldwide urbanization and the concentration of population in crowded, poor, and disorganized cities has created fertile conditions for the growth of gangs, particularly in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

·  In the global era, the state has retreated from its role of providing social welfare and an economic safety net. Gangs and other groups of armed young men occupy the vacuum created by the retreat of the social welfare policies of the state.

·  Kids who fear being marginalized in a technological economy that is growing more sophisticated by the day seek alternatives to conventional society. In some nations they may join fundamentalist religious groups or extremely nationalistic political parties. Others have embraced the hip-hop or gangsta culture that provides them with a new identity in opposition to the conventional mainstream culture from which they have been excluded.

·  Globalization has created a flourishing underground economy that can be exploited by internationally connected enterprises run by gangs, cartels, and similar groups who can easily export black market items ranging from guns to pirated DVDs.

·  The wealth of the global economy has led to the redivision of space in cities across the globe. “Economic development,” “making the city safe,” and “ethnic cleansing” has meant clearing out undesirables from urban spaces coveted by dominant ethnic or religious majorities. In America, this often means displacing African American youth from city centers so these areas can be gentrified and rebuilt. This upheaval has increased the attractiveness of gangs for the displaced youths now living in ring-cities or nearby suburbs.

·  Some gangs institutionalize and become permanent social actors in communities, cities, and nations rather than fading away after a generation. These gangs often replace or rival demoralized political groups and play important social, economic, and political roles in cities around the world.

Types

Gangs have been categorized by their dominant activity. Some are devoted to violence and to protecting neighborhood boundaries or turf; others are devoted to theft; some specialize in drug trafficking; still others are concerned with recreation rather than crime. 62  Jeffrey Fagan found that most gangs fall into one of these four categories:

·  Social gang. Involved in few delinquent activities and little drug use other than alcohol and marijuana. Members are more interested in social activities.

·  Party gang. Concentrates on drug use and sales but forgoes most delinquent behavior. Drug sales are designed to finance members’ personal drug use.

·  Serious delinquent gang. Engages in serious delinquent behavior while avoiding drug dealing and usage. Drugs are used only on social occasions.

·  Organized gang. Heavily involved in criminality. Drug use and sales are related to other criminal acts. Gang violence is used to establish control over drug sale territories. This gang is on the verge of becoming a formal criminal organization. 63

Cohesion

The standard definition of a gang implies that it is a cohesive group. However, some experts refer to gangs as  near-groups , which have limited cohesion, impermanence, minimal consensus of norms, shifting membership, disturbed leadership, and limited definitions of membership expectations. 64  Gangs maintain a small core of committed members, who work constantly to keep the gang going, and a much larger group of affiliated youths who participate in gang activity only when the mood suits them. 65

near-groups

Clusters of youth who, outwardly, seem unified but actually have limited cohesion, impermanence, minimal consensus of norms, and shifting membership.

Current research indicates that although some gangs remain near-groups, others become quite organized and stable. These gangs resemble traditional organized crime families more than temporary youth groups. Some, such as Chicago’s Latin Kings and Gangster Disciples, have members who pay regular dues, are expected to attend gang meetings regularly, and carry out political activities to further gang ambitions.

Age

The ages of gang members range widely, perhaps from as young as 8 to as old as 55. 66  Traditionally, most members of offending groups were usually no more than a few years apart in age, with a leader who may be a few years older than most other members. 67  However, because members are staying in gangs longer than in the past, the age spread between gang members has widened considerably.

Research indicates that youths first hear about gangs at around 9 years of age, get involved in violence at 10 or 11, and join their first gang at 12. By age 13, most members have (a) fired a pistol, (b) seen someone killed or seriously injured, (c) gotten a gang tattoo, and (d) been arrested. 68  Gang experts believe the average age of gang members has been increasing yearly, a phenomenon explained in part by the changing structure of the US economy: kids are staying in gangs longer because there are fewer jobs in the legitimate economy for untrained, uneducated workers. 69  Though gang members are aging, that does not mean very young kids are not being recruited into gangs in the United States and in other cultures.

Why Are Gang Members Aging?

Gang members are getting older, and the majority are now legal adults. As noted earlier, relatively high-paid, low-skilled factory jobs that would entice older gang members to leave the gang have been lost to overseas competition. A transformed US economy now prioritizes information and services over heavy industry. This shift in emphasis undermines labor unions that might have attracted former gang boys. Equally damaging has been the embrace of social policies that stress security and the needs of the wealthy while weakening the economic safety net for the poor (e.g., reducing welfare eligibility). William Julius Wilson found that the inability of inner-city males to obtain adequate jobs means that they cannot afford to marry and raise families. Criminal records acquired at an early age quickly lock these youths out of the job market so that remaining in a gang becomes an economic necessity. 70  In the wake of reduced opportunity for unskilled labor, gangs have become an important ghetto employer offering low-level drug-dealing opportunities that are certainly not available in the nongang world. 71

Gender

Traditionally, gangs were considered a male-dominated enterprise. Of the more than 1,000 groups included in Thrasher’s original survey, only half a dozen were female gangs. Females were involved in gangs in three ways: as auxiliaries (or branches) of male gangs, as part of sexually mixed gangs, or as autonomous gangs. Auxiliaries are a feminized version of the male gang name, such as the Lady Disciples rather than the Devil’s Disciples.

It is difficult to accurately assess female gang representation. National data indicate that less than 10 percent of gang members are female; smaller cities and rural counties report a higher percentage of female gang membership compared to urban areas. 72  However, the National Gang Survey finds that during early adolescence, roughly one-third of all gang members are female, but studies show that females leave gangs at an earlier age than males, hence their smaller numbers. Gender-mixed gangs are also more commonly reported now than in the past, which is an important trend, since females in majority-male gangs exhibit the highest delinquency rates (including higher rates than males in all-male gangs).

Girls in the Gang

Why do girls join gangs? There are a variety of reasons, including but not limited to financial opportunity, identity and status, peer pressure, family dysfunction, and protection. 73  Some admit that they join because they are bored and look to gangs for a social life; they are seeking fun and excitement and a means to find parties and meet boys. Still, others join simply because gangs are there in the neighborhood and are viewed as part of their way of life. And some children of gang members are just following in their parents’ footsteps. 74

What benefits does gang membership offer to females? According to the “liberation” view, ganging can provide girls with a sense of sisterhood, independence, and solidarity, as well as a chance to earn profit through illegal activities.

Mark Fleisher and Jessie Krienert’s research in Illinois found that girls from tough inner-city neighborhoods drift into gangs to escape the turmoil of their home lives, characterized by abuse, parental crime, and fatherless homes. Their affiliation begins when they hang around the street with gang boys, signaling their gang affiliation and symbolizing a lifestyle shift away from their home and school and into the street culture. The shift causes rifts with parents, leading to more time on the street and closer gang ties. 75  These young girls, typically ages 14 to 15, are targets for sexual and criminal exploitation.

Although initial female gang participation may be forged by links to male gang members, once in gangs, girls form close ties with other female members and engage in group criminal activity. 76  In contrast, the “social injury” view of female gang involvement suggests that young girls are still sexually exploited by male gang boys and are sometimes forced to exploit other females.

Girls who are members of male gang auxiliaries report that males control them by determining the arenas within which they can operate (e.g., the extent to which they may become involved in intergang violence). Males also play a divisive role in the girls’ relationships with each other; this manipulation is absent for girls in independent gangs. 77  When criminologist Jody Miller studied female gangs in St. Louis, Missouri, and Columbus, Ohio, she found that girls in mixed gangs expressed little evidence of sisterhood and solidarity with other female gang members. 78  Rather, female gang members expressed hostility to other women in the gang, believing, for example, that those who suffered sexual assault by males in the same gang actually deserved what they got. Instead of trying to create a sense of sisterhood, female gang members tried to identify with males and view themselves as thereby becoming “one of the guys” in the gang.

Why then do girls join gangs if they are exploitive and provide little opportunities for sisterhood? Miller found that even though being a gang member is not a walk in the park, most girls join gangs in an effort to cope with their turbulent personal lives, which may provide them with an even harsher reality; they see the gang as an institution that can increase their status and improve their lifestyle. The gang provides them with an alternative to a tough urban lifestyle filled with the risk of violence and victimization. Many of the girl gang members had early exposure to neighborhood violence, had encounters with girl gangs while growing up, had experienced severe family problems (violence or abuse), and had close family members who were gang involved. 79  Did they experience life benefits after they joined the gang? The evidence is mixed. Miller found that female gang members increased their delinquent activities and increased their risk of becoming a crime victim; they were more likely to suffer physical injury than girls who shunned gang membership. The risk of being sexually assaulted by male members of their own gang was also not insignificant nor is the risk of being in a violent domestic relationship. 80  However, female gang membership did have some benefits: it protected female gang members from sexual assault by nongang neighborhood men, which they viewed as a more dangerous and deadly risk.

Why do girls leave the gang? One not so surprising answer is that female gang members begin to drift away from gangs when they become young mothers. Fleisher and Krienert found that a majority of the Illinois gang girls they studied became inactive members soon after getting pregnant. Pregnancy leads to a disinterest in hanging around the streets and an interest in the safety of the fetus. Other girls became inactive after they decided to settle down and raise a family. But pregnancy seemed to be the primary motivating factor for leaving the gang life. 81

Formation

Gang formation involves a sense of territoriality. Most gang members live in close proximity to one another, and their sense of belonging extends only to their small area of the city. At first, a gang may form when members of an ethnic minority join together for self-preservation. As the group gains domination over an area, it may view the area as its own territory, or turf, which needs to be defended from outsiders.

Gang girl Maria (left) watches as Randy gets a tattoo from her best friend Scooby in a Yakima, Washington, bedroom, as Muchies (right rear) and Victoria (left rear) look on. As one of the few girls in the male-dominated gang Chicanos Por Vida (CPV—Chicanos for Life), the 17-year-old has a lot to prove. With her short boy-like haircut, tattoos, body piercings, and baggy brown clothing, Maria says she is ready to take punches—and bullets—to demonstrate her loyalty for CPV and her toughness, just like the men.

Once formed, gangs grow when youths who admire the older gang members “apply” and are accepted for membership. Sometimes the new members will be given a special identity that reflects their apprenticeship status. Joan Moore and her associates found that  klikas , or youth cliques, in Hispanic gangs remain together as unique groups with separate names, identities, and experiences; they also have more intimate relationships among themselves than among the general gang membership. 82  She likens klikas to a particular class in a university, such as the class of ’14.

klikas

Subgroups of same-aged youths in Hispanic gangs that remain together and have separate names and a unique identity in the gang.

Moore also found that gangs can expand by including members’ kin, even if they do not live in the neighborhood, and rival gang members who wish to join because they admire the gang’s way of doing things. Adding outsiders gives the gang the ability to take over new territory. However, it also brings with it new problems because it usually results in greater conflicts with rival gangs.

Leadership

Delinquent gangs tend to be small and transitory. 83  Youths often belong to more than a single group or clique and develop an extensive network of delinquent associates. Group roles can vary, and an adolescent who assumes a leadership role in one group may be a follower in another.

Those who assume leadership roles are described as “cool characters” who have earned their position by demonstrating fighting prowess, verbal quickness, or athletic distinction. They emphasize that leadership is held by one person and varies with particular activities, such as fighting, sex, and negotiations. In fact, in some gangs each age level has its own leaders. Older members are not necessarily considered leaders by younger members. In his analysis of Los Angeles gangs, Malcolm Klein observed that many gang leaders deny leadership. He overheard one gang boy claim, “We got no leaders, man. Everybody’s a leader, and nobody can talk for nobody else.” 84  The most plausible explanation of this ambivalence is the boy’s fear that his decisions will conflict with those of other leaders.

There appear, then, to be diverse concepts of leadership, depending on the structure of the gang. Less organized gangs are marked by diffuse and shifting leadership. The more organized gangs have a clear chain of command and leaders who are supposed to plan activities and control members’ behavior. 85

Communications

Gangs seek recognition, both from their rivals and from the community. Image and reputation depend on the ability to communicate to the rest of the world. One major source of communication is  graffiti  (see  Figure 9.1 ). Gang graffiti gives insights into gang rivalries, affiliation, and territory in a given community. Gang graffiti may include the elements described in  Exhibit 9.2 .

graffiti

Inscriptions or drawings made on a wall or structure and used by delinquents for gang messages and turf definition.

figure 9.1: Gang Symbols Used in Graffiti

SOURCE: Provided by Illinois State Police,  http://www.isp.state.il.us/docs/5-572.pdf  (accessed July 2013).

exhibit 9.2: Elements of Gang Graffiti

·  The name and/or initials of the gang and, if relevant, its overall affiliation (Crips/Bloods/Sureños/Folks, etc.).

·  Threats or challenges to rivals. These may include abbreviations such as BK for Blood Killer, CK for Crip Killer, or rival gang names with the word Killer or Killa. The number 187, common in gang graffiti around the United States, represents the California Penal Code for homicide. Rival gangs also may be threatened or “disrespected” by crossing their names out with an X or a line, or by writing insults or slurs next to their names.

·  Hints about the history of the gang, such as telephone area codes, territorial markers, and street names from the gang’s originating area.

·  A roll call or list of the gang members’ nicknames. Gang members often refer to one another by their nicknames and may not know the first and/or last names of fellow gang members. These nicknames often describe something about the gang members, such as physical appearance or personality. Names with the number 2 or higher behind them indicate there is more than one person in the gang with that nickname. When reading the graffiti, one can often easily determine that the scribe is either the first or the last moniker listed. As a matter of respect, a scribe may list monikers of his close associates first and his own last. However, if the same graffiti is done in a rival gang’s turf, the scribe is likely to list his moniker first to let the rival gang know that it was he who initiated the insult and marked his territory.

·  Statements bragging about the gang’s reputation. These include words such as loc/loco (“crazy”) and rifamos (“the best”).

SOURCE: Michelle Arciaga, Wayne Sakamoto, and Errika Fearbry Jones, “Responding to Gangs in the School Setting,” National Gang Center Bulletin, 2010,  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Bulletin-5.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

These wall writings are especially elaborate among Latino gangs, who call them placasos or placa, meaning “sign” or “plaque.” Latino graffiti usually contains the writer’s street name and the name of the gang. Strength or power is asserted through the terms rifa, which means to rule, and controllo, indicating that the gang controls the area. Another common inscription is “p/v,” for por vida; this refers to the fact that the gang expects to control the area “for life.” The numeral 13 signifies that the gang is loco, or wild. Crossed-out graffiti indicates that a territory is contested by a rival gang.

Gangs also communicate by means of a secret vocabulary. Members may refer to their crew, posse, troop, or tribe. Within larger gangs are “sets” who hang in particular neighborhoods, and “tips,” small groups formed for particular purposes.

In some areas, gang members communicate their membership by wearing jackets with the name of their gang on the back. In Boston neighborhoods, certain articles of clothing (for example, sneakers) are worn to identify gang membership. In Los Angeles, the Crips are identified with the color blue and will wear some article of blue clothing to communicate their allegiance; their rivals, the Bloods, identify with the color red.

Hand Signs

Several years ago, a young woman was at a dance concert in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, when she was so carried away by the music that she jumped on stage and started to dance with the band. While dancing she used sign language to convey the message, “I love you,” over and over. What she did not realize was that her gestures were almost identical to the Latin King hand sign, a turn of events that enraged several Latin King members on the dance floor; they perceived her hand signing as blatant disrespect to the Latin King and Queen Nation. Her innocent gestures cost the woman her life, as the FBI found out subsequently during a gang conspiracy investigation of the Latin Kings. 86

Gang hand signs are quickly displayed with the fingers, hands, and body, and they have specific meanings to gang members. Hand signs are a powerful nonverbal form of communication because a quick flash of the hand can be used to announce gang affiliation or to issue a challenge or insult to a rival. They have been used by gangs for quite some time, beginning with Chinese triads. Some common hand signs are shown in  Figure 9.2 .

figure 9.2: Gang Hand Signs

SOURCE: Adapted from Gang Signs,  http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~haralds/htmlfiles/gang-signs.html  (accessed June 2013).

Similar to signing,  posting  is a system of positions, facial expressions, and body language to convey a message. Gang boys may hold their chin up to display their feeling of defiance and arrogance, or they may cross their arms and intently stare at someone to show their feeling of disapproval or as a challenge.

posting

A system of positions, facial expressions, and body language used by gang members to convey a message.

Flashing or tossing gang signs in the presence of rivals often escalates into a verbal or physical confrontation. Chicago gangs call this  representing . Gang members will proclaim their affiliation and ask victims, “Who do you ride?” or “What do you be about?” An incorrect response will provoke an attack. False representing can be used to misinform witnesses and victims.

representing

Tossing or flashing gang signs in the presence of rivals, often escalating into a verbal or physical confrontation.

Tattoos

Gang tattoos are used to communicate an individual’s membership in a gang. Many tattoos are messages, such as “outlaw,” “thug life,” “1%er,” among others, and serve as expressions of gang mentality and do not specify any particular gang. While the meaning of a tattoo is often subjective, police and prosecutors consider having symbolic tattoos as evidence of gang membership.

While tattoos and graffiti are the traditional methods of gang communications, members now operate in cyberspace as well. As the Cyber Delinquency feature indicates, gangs are tweeting and texting along with the rest of American youth.

Ethnic and Racial Composition

According to the National Youth Gang Survey, African American/black and/or Hispanic/Latino youth predominate among documented gang members. Law enforcement agencies report a greater percentage of Hispanic/Latino and African American/black gang members compared with other race/ethnicities. Today about 49 percent of gang members are Hispanic/Latino, 35 percent African American/black, 9 percent white, and 7 percent other race/ethnicity, such as Asian. However, the racial composition of gangs varies considerably by locality. For example, white gang membership is lowest in larger cities (8 percent) but significantly higher in other area types, including rural counties (17 percent), where the rate is more than twice as high. 87  Thus, while the prevailing view is that gangs are predominantly a minority problem, there is evidence that white youths make up a greater percentage of gang membership than is generally believed. 88

The ethnic distribution of gangs corresponds to their geographic location; the racial/ethnic composition of gangs is an extension of the characteristics of the larger community. 89  In Philadelphia and Detroit, the overwhelming majority of gang members are African American. In New York and Los Angeles, Latino gangs predominate. Newly emerging immigrant groups are making their presence felt in gangs. Authorities in Buffalo, New York, estimate that 10 percent of their gang population is Jamaican. A significant portion of Honolulu’s gangs is Filipino.

African American Gangs

The first black youth gangs were organized in the early 1920s. 90  Since they had few rival organizations, they were able to concentrate on criminal activity rather than defending their turf. By the 1930s, the expanding number of rival gangs spawned inner-city gang warfare.

In Los Angeles, the first black youth gang formed in the 1920s was the Boozies. This gang virtually ran the inner city until the 1930s. In the next 20 years, a number of black gangs, including the Businessmen, Home Street, Slauson, and Neighborhood, emerged and met with varying degrees of criminal success. In the 1970s, the dominant Crips gang was formed. Other gangs merged into the Crips or affiliated with it by adding “Crips” to their name, so that the Main Street gang became the Main Street Crips. The dominance of the Crips has since been challenged by its archrivals, the Bloods. Both of these groups, whose total membership exceeds 25,000 youths, are heavily involved in drug trafficking.

In Chicago, the Blackstone Rangers dominated illicit activities for almost 25 years, beginning in the 1960s and lasting into the early 1990s, when its leader, Jeff Fort, and many of his associates were indicted and imprisoned. 91  The Rangers, who later evolved into the El Rukn gang, worked with “legitimate” businessmen to import and sell heroin. Earning millions in profits, they established businesses that helped them launder drug money. Though many of the convictions were later overturned, the power of El Rukn was ended.

Gang signs and graffiti are important methods of communication among gang members. Flashing the wrong sign at the wrong time can lead to violent confrontations. Here, a Cambodian teen gang member, Boney, flashes a gang sign outside his home in Long Beach, California.

CYBER delinquency: Gangs in Cyberspace

Gang communications have entered the cyber age, and gang members often use cell phones and the Internet to communicate and promote their illicit activities. Street gangs typically use the voice and text messaging capabilities of cell phones to conduct drug transactions and prearrange meetings with customers. Members of street gangs use prepaid cell phones that they discard after conducting their drug-trafficking operations. Internet-based methods such as social networking sites, encrypted email, Internet telephony, and instant messaging are commonly used by gang members to communicate with one another and with drug customers. Gang members use social networking sites such as MySpace, YouTube, and Facebook as well as personal web pages to communicate and boast about their gang membership and related activities. Take these cases for instance:

·  Members of Crips gangs in Hampton, Virginia, use the Internet to intimidate rival gang members and maintain websites to recruit new members. A 15-year-old Crips gang member was arrested for shooting a rival gang member in the leg. Additionally, he was charged with recruiting new members into his street gang through the use of the gang’s social networking site.

·  Gangs in Oceanside, California, recruit new members and claim new turf from their own website. Gang members flash gang signs and wear gang colors in videos and photos posted on the Web. Sometimes, rivals “spar” on Internet message boards.

Scott Decker and David Pyrooz conducted a survey of gang members, former members, and nongang members in order to measure involvement in online criminal activities, and asked them about their participation in eight forms of online crime over the prior six months. The online crimes included:

·  Illegally downloading movies, music, or software

·  Selling stolen property online

·  Conducting drug sales via the Internet

·  Harassment

·  Coordinating assaults online

·  Searching online to find targets to rob or steal

·  Uploading deviant videos (typically of fights)

·  Assaults that took place in the street that were motivated by an online communication

A higher percentage of gang members reported participating in most of the offense types. The differences were most pronounced for illegal downloads, uploading deviant videos (typically fights and gang activities), and assaults on the street that were precipitated by online activities. In addition, they compared the overall prevalence of online offending across the three groups, and found that 43 percent of current gang members committed an offense online in the last six months, compared to less than one-third of former and nongang members.

Decker and Pyrooz concluded that over the course of the past 10 years, Internet use has penetrated new groups, created new activities, and changed old ways of behavior. Gangs have been a part of these changes as well. They found that Internet use was widespread among both gang and nongang members. Each used the Internet to shop online, view YouTube videos, and use social networking sites such as Facebook. In comparing gang members to nongang members and former gang members, it is clear that the impact of gang membership on crime also holds for online criminal activities. Gang members were involved in all eight crime types at a higher level than the other groups. In addition, their overall involvement in these crime types was significantly higher than the other groups, nearly twice as high.

CRITICAL THINKING

There have been recent scandals over government monitoring of electronic communications, including the Net. Considering the expanding use of cyberspace by gangs to enhance their criminal activity, do you believe such monitoring by the government is justified?

SOURCES: Scott H. Decker and David Pyrooz, “Gang Offending and Online Behavior,” JRSA Journal 30 (2012),  http://www.jrsa.org/pubs/forum/sep2012_30-3/Gang_Offending_and_Online_Behavior.htm  (accessed June 2013); National Gang Intelligence Center, National Gang Threat Assessment, 2011,  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment#CurrentGang  (accessed June 2013).

One of the Rangers’ chief rivals, the Black Gangster Disciples, morphed into the dominant gang in Chicago. They have a structure, activities, and relationships similar to traditional organized crime. Members are actively involved in politics through the formation of the “Growth and Development” movement. Gangster Disciples registered voters from the inner city and then “encouraged” the newly registered voters to vote for candidates loyal to their cause. While incarcerated, the Black Gangster Disciples will unite with allied gangs under the guise of the Brothers of Struggle (BOS). The gang continues to be involved in large-scale drug trafficking, murders, and white-collar crime. 92  They also have extensive ownership of “legitimate” private businesses. They offer protection against rival gangs and supply stolen merchandise to customers and employees. 93

Today a number of African American gangs have a national presence across the United States; three of the largest are Black P. Stone Nation, Bloods, and Crips:

·  Black P. Stone Nation consists of seven highly structured street gangs with a single leader and a common culture. Most of its estimated 6,000 to 8,000 members are African American males from the Chicago metropolitan area. The gang’s main source of income is the street-level distribution of cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and, to a lesser extent, methamphetamine. Members also are involved in many other types of criminal activity, including assault, auto theft, burglary, carjacking, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, and robbery.

·  Bloods is an association of structured and unstructured gangs that have adopted a single-gang culture. The original Bloods were formed in the early 1970s to provide protection from the Crips street gang in Los Angeles. Large, national-level Bloods gangs include Bounty Hunter Bloods and Crenshaw Mafia Gangsters. Bloods membership is estimated to be 7,000 to 30,000 nationwide; most members are African American males. Bloods gangs are active in 123 cities in 33 states. The main source of income for Bloods gangs is street-level distribution of cocaine and marijuana. Bloods members also are involved in transporting and distributing methamphetamine, heroin, and PCP (phencyclidine), but to a much lesser extent. The gangs also are involved in other criminal activity, including assault, auto theft, burglary, carjacking, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, identity fraud, and robbery.

·  Crips is a collection of structured and unstructured gangs that have adopted a common gang culture. Crips membership is estimated at 30,000 to 35,000; most members are African American males from the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Large, national-level Crips gangs include 107 Hoover Crips, Insane Gangster Crips, and Rolling 60s Crips. Crips gangs operate in 221 cities in 41 states. The main source of income for Crips gangs is the street-level distribution of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, and PCP. The gangs also are involved in other criminal activity such as assault, auto theft, burglary, and homicide. 94

African American gang members have some unique characteristics. They frequently use nicknames. In South Carolina, the personal moniker “Shotgun” would indicate the bearer’s weapon of choice; a female gang member might call herself “Big Mama Blood” to show she is affiliated with the Bloods and that she means business. 95  The three most popular categories of black gang members’ nicknames in Las Vegas are combinations of any single letter of the alphabet with a Loc, Mac, or Wak—for example, X-Loc, P-Mac, D-Wak. The next most popular nicknames are Dre or Baby with any letter following—Baby-X, for example. 96  In Baltimore, nicknames that were once benign, such as “Peanut King,” have become more sinister: “Murder,” “Killer,” “Savage,” and various forms of the word “bloody.” Young gang members tattoo their names on their necks and arms, and ink teardrops under their eyes, one for each person they’ve killed. 97

African and Caribbean Gangs

Immigrants from African nations such as the Sudan are also forming large gangs in the United States. Somali nationals—mostly refugees displaced by the wars in Somalia and surrounding countries—have migrated to low-income communities where Somali youth admire and emulate the local gangs, such as Bloods and Crips, as well as Ethiopian gangs. Recently, 29 suspected Somalian gang members were indicted for a prostitution trafficking operation, according to open source reporting. Over a 10-year period, Somalian gang members transported underage females from Minnesota to Ohio and Tennessee for prostitution. Other Somali gang members have been arrested for murdering drug dealers and engaging in home invasion robberies.

Along with Africa, youth from Caribbean nations have engaged in gang activity. According to the National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC), Haitian gangs have proliferated in many states in recent years and are now present in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. The Zoe Pound gang, founded in Miami by Haitian immigrants, is involved in drug trafficking, robbery, and related violent crime. In February 2010, 22 suspected Zoe Pound members in Chicago were charged with possession of and conspiracy to traffic powder and crack cocaine from Illinois to Florida, according to FBI reporting. 10  The Haitian Boys Posse and Custer Street Gang are involved in a myriad of criminal activities, including drug and weapons trafficking, robberies, shootings and homicides along the East Coast.

Hispanic Gangs

The popularity of gangs and gang culture is relatively high among youth of Hispanic background, explaining in part their disproportionate participation in gang membership. 98  Take for instance the feared MS-13 gang, begun in Los Angeles by Salvadorans fleeing a civil war. When they first arrived in L.A., they were preyed upon by preexisting Mexican gangs. The MS-13 gang was formed as a means of self-protection. The name refers to a mara, Spanish slang for “posse” or gang. Salva-truchas is local slang for being alert and ready to take action; the “13” is a reference to their beginnings on 13th Street in Los Angeles.

Over time, the gang’s ranks grew and members entered a variety of rackets, from extortion to drug trafficking. When law enforcement cracked down and deported members, the deportees quickly created outposts in El Salvador and throughout Central America. The Salvadoran government has responded by criminalizing gang membership and arresting thousands. But government efforts have not stemmed the tide of recruitment, and the gangs appear to be more popular than ever. 99

Developing alongside MS-13 were their main rivals, the 18th Street Gang. This group began as an offshoot of a preexisting Los Angeles gang, the Clanton 14 (named after a street in the gang’s home neighborhood). The Clanton gang had been active in Los Angeles for decades and had also become quite choosy in its membership, rejecting recent Mexican immigrants and Chicanos. Those rejected formed their own gang and named it the 18th Street Gang. Today, 18th Street Gang members can be identified by their tattoos, most common the number 18, which is usually represented in Roman numerals (XVIII). Although 18th Street maintains a stronghold in several Southern California cities, members have migrated throughout the nation. 100

Latino gangs such as MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang have continued to grow and now constitute the largest number of gangs and gang memberships. Some experts believe that MS-13 is now the nation’s most dangerous gang, while others claim that the 18th Street Gang, with over 20,000 members, is the largest.  Exhibit 9.3  describes another of the largest national Latino gangs.

exhibit 9.3: Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation (National)

The Latin Kings street gang was formed in Chicago in the 1960s and consisted predominantly of Mexican and Puerto Rican males. Originally created with the philosophy of overcoming racial prejudice and creating an organization of “kings,” the Latin Kings evolved into a criminal enterprise operating throughout the United States under two umbrella factions—Motherland, also known as KMC (King Motherland Chicago), and Bloodline (New York). All members of the gang refer to themselves as Latin Kings, and, currently, individuals of any nationality are allowed to become members. Latin Kings associating with the Motherland faction also identify themselves as the Almighty Latin King Nation (ALKN) and make up more than 160 structured chapters operating in 158 cities in 31 states. The membership of Latin Kings following KMC is estimated to be 20,000 to 35,000. The Bloodline was founded by Luis Felipe in the New York State correctional system in 1986. Latin Kings associating with Bloodline also identify themselves as the Almighty Latin King and Queen Nation (ALKQN). Membership is estimated to be 2,200 to 7,500, divided among several dozen chapters operating in 15 cities in 5 states. Bloodline Latin Kings share a common culture and structure with KMC and respect them as the Motherland, but all chapters do not report to the Chicago leadership hierarchy. The gang’s primary source of income is the street-level distribution of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Latin Kings continue to portray themselves as a community organization while engaging in a wide variety of criminal activities, including assault, burglary, homicide, identity theft, and money laundering.

SOURCE: FBI, National Gang Threat Assessment, 2009.

Hispanic gangs are made up of youths whose ethnic ancestry can be traced to one of several Spanish-speaking cultures. They are known for their fierce loyalty to their “home” gang. Admission to the gang usually involves an initiation ritual in which boys are required to prove their machismo. The most common test requires novices to fight several established members or to commit some crime, such as a robbery. The code of conduct associated with membership means never ratting on a brother or even a rival.

In some areas, Hispanic gangs have a fixed leadership hierarchy. However, in Southern California, which has the largest concentration of Hispanic youth gangs, leadership is fluid. During times of crisis those with particular skills will assume command. One boy will lead in combat while another negotiates drug deals.

Hispanic gang members are known for their dress codes. Some wear dark caps pulled down over the ears with a small roll at the bottom. Others wear a folded bandana over the forehead and tied in back. Another popular headpiece is the “stingy brim” fedora or a baseball cap with the wearer’s nickname and gang affiliation written on the bill. Members favor tank-style T-shirts that give them quick access to weapons.

Members mark off territory with colorful and intricate graffiti (“tagging”). Hispanic gang graffiti has very stylized lettering and frequently uses three-dimensional designs. Hispanic gangs have a strong sense of turf, and a great deal of gang violence is directed at warding off any threat to their control. Slights by rivals, including put-downs, stare-downs (“mad-dogging”), defacing gang insignia, and territorial intrusions, can set off a violent confrontation, often with high-powered automatic weapons. The Case Profile, “Luis’s Story,” examines one Latino gang member who was able to turn his life around.

Asian Gangs

Asian gangs are prominent in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Houston. The earliest gangs, the Wah Ching, were formed in the nineteenth century by Chinese youths affiliated with adult crime groups (tongs). In the 1960s, two other gangs formed in San Francisco, the Joe Boys and Yu Li, and they now operate, along with the Wah Ching, in many major US cities. National attention focused on the activities of these Chinese gangs in 1977 when a shootout in the Golden Dragon restaurant in San Francisco left 5 dead and 11 wounded.

In addition to Chinese gangs, Samoan gangs have operated on the West Coast, as have Vietnamese gangs. The formation of Vietnamese gangs can be tied to external factors, including racism and economic problems, and to internal problems, including family stress and failure to achieve the success enjoyed by other Asians. Vietnamese gangs are formed when youths feel they need their ahns, or brothers, for protection. 101

While most Asian gangs are local or regional, some now have a national presence. For example, the Tiny Rascal Gangsters is one of the largest and most violent Asian street gang associations in the United States. It is composed of at least 60 structured and unstructured gangs, commonly referred to as sets, with an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 members and associates who have adopted a common gang culture. They are most active in the Southwest, West Coast, and New England. The Rascals specialize in street-level distribution of powder cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, and methamphetamine. Members also are involved in other criminal activity, including assault, drive-by shootings, extortion, home invasion, homicide, robbery, and theft. 102

Asian gangs are unique and do not share many qualities with other ethnically centered groups. They tend to victimize members of their own ethnic group. They are more organized, have recognizable leaders, and are far more secretive than black or Hispanic groups. They tend to be far less territorial and less openly visible. Asian gangs are also known for the strict control gang elders have over younger members. Elders, some of whom may be in their 30s and 40s, are no longer engaged in street crime and violence but may instead be involved in other forms of illegal activities such as running gambling parlors, drug and human trafficking, and white-collar crime. In New England and California, Asian gangs maintain marijuana cultivation houses specifically for the manufacturing and distribution of high potency marijuana and pay members of the Asian community to reside in them—and not to talk.

case profile: Luis’s Story

LUIS is a 16-year-old Latino male who identified himself as gang involved. He was charged with substantial battery and resisting arrest, due to a fight at a party with a rival gang member. Luis already had a history of truancy and a police record for several thefts, vandalism, underage drinking, and curfew violations. He was smoking marijuana on a daily basis, not attending school, and had experienced little success in the educational environment outside of sports. Luis also exhibited significant anger management concerns and was viewed as a threat to the community.

His family was supportive and apprehensive about his behavior. Luis’s mother was very involved in his life and was doing her best to raise her four children without any assistance or involvement from their father. Luis had felt like “the man of the family” from an early age. Within their family culture, Luis, being the oldest male, felt responsible for caring for his mother and younger siblings. He had joined a gang around the age of 11 in hopes that it would provide additional protection for his family. Despite numerous concerns from his family and the juvenile court, following his arrest Luis was allowed to return home until the next juvenile court proceeding. He was referred for electronic monitoring and an intensive home supervision program.

Luis arrived at his initial juvenile court plea hearing intoxicated and belligerent. His family was concerned that Luis was using drugs and alcohol and that he needed treatment, but the prosecuting attorney did not agree and petitioned for him to be sent directly to a juvenile correctional facility. While the next court hearing was pending, Luis participated in an alcohol and drug assessment, and it was recommended that he enter a residential treatment facility for his drug use and alcohol issues, anger management problems, and gang involvement issues. During the wait between court proceedings, he was involved in an intensive supervision program where he received individual counseling, group treatment, intensive monitoring of his whereabouts and school activities, family and individual crisis intervention, and significant redirection regarding his choices. He was also referred to an alternative school program where his chances for success would be better. Luis’s mother was hopeful that the services would assist him and that Luis would start to turn his life around.

At the dispositional hearing, there was disagreement regarding the best plan for Luis, and a contested hearing took place. The prosecuting attorney again wanted him sent directly to a juvenile correctional facility. The defense attorney argued that Luis needed alcohol and drug treatment, as well as other services, and that he should be sent to an inpatient treatment facility that had already agreed to take him. Luis’s probation officer and his family all advocated for him to get treatment, over the correctional placement. He had been doing better in the community setting with the additional services and supports. The judge listened to all of the testimony and expressed concerns regarding Luis’s juvenile court involvement record and the safety of the community. At the same time, she wanted to give him a chance to be successful in drug treatment. In the end, the judge ordered Luis to the juvenile correctional facility, but “stayed” the order, permitting Luis to enter treatment. This “stay” meant that if Luis left the treatment facility, or if he was terminated from the program, he would automatically go to juvenile corrections. If he was successful in treatment, he would most likely return to the community with the needed supports and services. If at any time Luis decided not to cooperate with the community aftercare plans, or if he had any further law violations, he could also be immediately sent to juvenile corrections. Luis and his family seemed to understand the seriousness of the situation and Luis agreed to treatment.

Luis entered the voluntary 90-day alcohol and drug treatment program and began to work on his sobriety, anger issues, gang involvement, and criminal thinking concerns. Luis’s mother came to visit on a regular basis and participated in family sessions, though it was difficult to coordinate, given her work schedule and responsibility for the other children in the household. The involved professionals assisted with coordinating child care and arranging transportation so she could be there for Luis, who struggled at first and was having a hard time adjusting to the rules of the facility. His mother and the team encouraged him to remain in treatment and try to focus on a positive future, and they reminded him of the “stayed” correctional order. Luis ultimately decided to engage in treatment and he completed the 90-day program.

The team of professionals, along with Luis and his mother, created an aftercare plan that initially included ongoing drug counseling and support, individual counseling, intensive supervision and monitoring, group supports, and placement in an alternative educational setting. Through the alternative school, Luis got involved in a program that offers troubled youth the experience of building homes for underprivileged families. Luis gained valuable work skills, as well as time to focus on positive activities. Though he still struggled with school, with his past gang involvement, and with making good choices, he was able to significantly decrease his police contacts and he had no further arrests as a juvenile. Luis remained living at home with his mother and siblings and was eventually released from the juvenile court–ordered services. The “stayed” correctional order was in place until the juvenile court closed the case upon Luis’s 18th birthday.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Unlike Luis, many kids are not helped and remain in gangs longer than ever before. Do you see a way, considering the global economy, to wean kids out of gangs? Are there any alternatives? What about easing the entry requirements for the military? As you may recall, Laub and Sampson’s age-graded theory argues that a military career can help people “knife off” from crime (see  Chapter 6 ).

2.

Luis’s mother was very involved in his life and says she was doing her best to raise her four children without any assistance or involvement from their father. Could this family situation have been a pivotal factor in Luis’s decision to join a gang? What can be done to help kids in this situation?

They use the younger gang members to protect their business interests and to collect any unpaid gambling debts. In some jurisdictions, police can pressure the elders to control the violent tendencies of the younger members by threatening to crack down on their illegitimate business enterprises (i.e., having patrol cars parked in front of suspected gambling locations). 103

Anglo Gangs

The first American youth gangs were made up of white ethnic youths of European ancestry. During the 1950s, they competed with African American and Hispanic gangs in the nation’s largest cities.

National surveys indicate that today less than 10 percent of gang members are white European Americans. Prevalence rates of white gang membership is lowest in larger cities (8 percent) but significantly higher in other area types, including rural counties (17 percent), where the rate is more than twice as high. However, there is considerable variation by region. One recent survey of almost 6,000 youths found that about 25 percent of youths who claimed to be gang members were white, a far higher number than that found in national surveys. 104  White gangs often organize around white supremacy and the  skinhead  culture. Others may be organized around music and favorite groups. For example, the Juggalos, a loosely organized gang that began with fans of the Insane Clown Posse group, has rapidly been expanding into many US communities. Most crimes committed by Juggalos are sporadic, disorganized, individualistic, and often involve simple assault, personal drug use and possession, petty theft, and vandalism. However, a small number of Juggalos are forming more organized subsets and engaging in more gang-like criminal activity, such as felony assaults, thefts, robberies, and drug sales. Many criminal Juggalos subsets are comprised of transient or homeless individuals. Transient criminal Juggalos groups pose a threat to communities due to the potential for violence, drug use/sales, and their general destructive and violent nature. 105

skinhead

Member of a white supremacist gang, identified by a shaved skull and Nazi or Ku Klux Klan markings.

The Internet has made it easy to recruit alienated white youth who are exposed to online message forums and social networking sites that are antigovernment and anti-immigration. Factors that contribute to growth of these gangs include the following:

·  The white power music industry has experienced a substantial growth in online promotion and sales.

·  Racist skinhead groups such as Hammerskin Nation and Blood & Honor have expanded globally, using the Internet to connect with chapters online.

·  There is less competition from older white supremacist groups, whose activity has diminished due to the arrests or deaths of leaders. 106

If anti-immigrant sentiment builds, there may be a resurgence in skinhead gang membership.

Hybrid Gangs

Another recent phenomenon, hybrid gangs are devoted to making money through illegal activities such as drugs, robbery, and prostitution and are not territorial or homogenous in their makeup. Because criminal enterprise is their sole objective, hybrid gangs recruit from different racial/ethnic groups. They may even have openly gay members, something that would rarely be seen in traditional gangs. 107

Hybrid gangs modify traditional gang culture with their personal interpretations and agendas and are more fluid in their rules and codes of behavior. Some members may belong to a variety of gangs and shift their allegiance when they believe a profitable criminal enterprise may be in the works. In sum, hybrid gangs involve:

·  A mixture of racial/ethnic groups

·  A mixture of symbols and graffiti associated with different gangs

·  Wearing colors traditionally associated with a rival gang

·  Less concern over turf or territory

·  Members who sometimes switch from one gang to another 108

Criminality and Violence

Regardless of their type, gang members typically commit more crimes than any other youths in the social environment. 109  Members self-report significantly more crime than nonmembers, and the more enmeshed a youth is in a gang, the more likely he is to report criminal behavior, to have an official record, and to get sent to juvenile court. The gang membership–crime relationship begins as early as middle school. 110

While the association between gang membership and delinquency is unquestioned, there are actually three different explanations for the relationship:

·  Selection hypothesis. Kids with a history of crime and violence join gangs and maintain their persistent delinquency once they become members.

·  Facilitation hypothesis. Gang membership facilitates deviant behavior because it provides the structure and group support for antisocial activities.

·  Enhancement hypothesis. Selection and facilitation work interactively, increasing the likelihood of enhanced criminality. 111

Gang criminality has numerous patterns. 112  While it is commonly believed that gangs specialize in drug dealing, the major players in the drug importation and distribution business tend to be adults, not gang youths. 113  Nor does it appear that gang membership increases the personal use of drugs: kids who used drugs before they joined gangs continue to do so, but joining a gang does not encourage substance abuse. While gang boys may be dealers, they are not necessarily users. 114  Although gangs do not necessarily encourage drug use, it is still quite common. Geoffrey Hunt and his associates found that 82 percent of the female gang members they surveyed were multiple-drug users, using drugs such as cocaine, crack, LSD, PCP, methamphetamine, heroin, glue/inhalants, MDMA, and Quaaludes. 115

Other gangs engage in a wide variety of criminal activity, ranging from felony assaults to drug dealing. 116  Gang members are most commonly involved in such crimes as larceny/theft, aggravated assault, and burglary/breaking and entering; a significant portion are involved in low-level street drug sales to generate profits for the gang. 117

Do gang kids increase their involvement in criminal activity after they join gangs, or do gangs recruit kids who are already high-rate offenders? Data from the Rochester Youth Development Study (RYDS), a longitudinal cohort study of 1,000 youths in upstate New York, support the gang–crime association theory. Although only 30 percent of the youths in the sample report being gang members, they account for 65 percent of all reported delinquent acts. The RYDS data show that gang members account for 86 percent of all serious crimes, 63 percent of the alcohol use, and 61 percent of the drug abuse. 118  Gang members ratchet up their criminal activities. In the RYDS study, 66 percent of the chronic violent offenders were gang members. 119

Gang Violence

Research shows that gang members are more violent than nonmembers. Chris Melde and Finn-Aage Esbensen found that active gang members experienced a significant increase in violent behavior activities. After leaving the gang, their propensity for violence declined significantly, becoming no different from that of kids who had never been in a gang. 120  One reason is that kids who join gangs are also more likely to carry weapons than are nonmembers. 121  Thornberry and his associates found that young gang members in Rochester, New York, were about 10 times more likely to carry handguns than nongang juvenile offenders, and gun-toting gang members committed about 10 times more violent crimes than nonmembers. 122  Richard Spano and John Bolland collected data on gang boys in Mobile, Alabama, and found that members who were exposed to violence and engaged in violent behavior themselves increased the likelihood of carrying a gun by 665 percent over kids who were neither exposed to violence or engaged in violent acts themselves. 123

It is not surprising, then, that youth gangs are responsible for a disproportionate number of homicides. In large metropolitan cities, the number of reported gang-related homicides increased 13 percent from 2009 to 2010 at a time when the nation’s murder rate was in sharp decline. Of the more than 700 total homicides that occurred in Chicago and Los Angeles, more than half were reported as gang-related. 124

Research indicates that gang violence is impulsive and therefore comes in spurts. It usually involves defense of the gang and gang members’ reputations. 125  Once the threat ends, the level of violence may recede, but it remains at a level higher than it was previously. Peaks in gang homicides tend to correspond to a series of escalating confrontations, usually over control of gang turf or a drug market. 126  The most dangerous areas are along disputed boundaries where a drug hot spot intersects with a turf hot spot. There are also “marauder” patterns in which members of rival gangs travel to their enemy’s territory in search of victims. 127

Violence is a core fact of gang formation and life. 128  Gang members feel threatened by other gangs and are wary of encroachments on their turf. It is not surprising that gangs try to recruit youths who are already gun owners; new members are likely to increase gun ownership and possession. 129  Gang members face a far greater chance of death at an early age than do nonmembers. 130

Revenge, Honor, Courage, and Prestige

While many boys are predisposed toward violence before joining a gang, research shows that once in gangs their violent behavior quickly escalates; after they leave, it significantly declines. 131  A recent study by Andrew Papachristos of gang homicide supports the association between cultural values and violence. 132  Papachristos finds that members do not kill because they are poor or young or live in a socially disadvantaged neighborhood, but rather because they live in a culture that maintains norms conducive to violent retaliation. When a gang boy kills a rival, murders spread through a process of social contagion as gangs are forced to respond in order to maintain their social status and honor through a display of solidarity. The culture that houses gangs associates honor with hypermasculinity and the use of violence to protect reputation. Because formal social control (i.e., the police) is absent in gang areas, violence is condoned or promoted as an acceptable form of social control. The need to conform to cultural values and to protect the gang’s rep is more important than individual thoughts and feelings.

These motivations for gang violence were confirmed by criminologist Scott Decker during his interviews with gang boys who told him that violence is essential to the transformation of a peer group into a gang. When asked why he calls the group he belongs to a gang, one member replied, “There is more violence than a family. With a gang it’s like fighting all the time, killing, shooting.” 133

When joining the gang, members may be forced to partake in violent rituals to prove their reliability. Gang members are ready to fight when others attack them or when they believe their territory or turf is being encroached upon. Violence may be directed against rival gang members accused of insults or against those involved in personal disputes. Gang members also expect to fight when they go to certain locations that are “off-limits” or attend events where violence is routine. A girl gang member may fight when she senses that a member of a rival gang is trying to hook up with her boyfriend. Gini Sykes spent two years hanging with girl gangs in New York City in order to develop an understanding of their lives and lifestyle. One girl, Tiny, told her how ferociousness made up for her lack of stature:

Tiny fixed me with a cold stare that wiped away any earlier impression of childish cuteness. “See, we smaller girls, we go for your weak spot.” Her gaze moved across my features. “Your face. Your throat. Your eyes, so we can blind you. I don’t care if you have more weight on me. I’ll still try to kill you because, you know, I have a bad temper….” 134

Tiny related the story of how she attacked a rival whom she caught in a sexual encounter with her boyfriend:

“She was crying and begging, but she’d disrespected me in front of everybody. We started fighting and she pulled that blade out—.” Tiny shrugged. “I just wasn’t prepared. You can’t tell when someone’s got a razor in their mouth.”

After she was cut, Tiny went into a defensive rage, and

… frantically felt for the wound, blood seeping between her fingers. Suddenly, in self-preservation, she grabbed the girl’s neck, and blinded by her own blood, began smashing her rival’s head into the concrete until Isabel, hearing a siren, dragged her away. The girl had slashed Tiny’s face eleven times.

Gang members are sensitive to any rivals who question their honor. Once an insult is perceived, the gang’s honor cannot be restored until the “debt” is repaid. Police efforts to cool down gang disputes only delay the revenge, which can be a beating or a drive-by shooting. Random acts of revenge have become so common that physicians now consider them a significant health problem—a major contributor to early morbidity and mortality among adolescents and children in major gang cities. 135

Violence is used to maintain the gang’s internal discipline. If subordinates disobey orders, perhaps by using rather than selling drugs, they may be subject to disciplinary action by other gang members.

Another common gang crime is extortion, called “turf tax,” which involves forcing people to pay the gang to be protected from dangerous neighborhood youths.  Prestige crimes  occur when a gang member steals or assaults someone to gain prestige in the gang. These crimes may be part of an initiation rite or an effort to establish a special reputation, a position of responsibility, or a leadership role; to prevail in an internal power struggle; or to respond to a challenge from a rival.

prestige crimes

Stealing or assaulting someone to gain prestige in the neighborhood; often part of gang initiation rites.

Organized Crime and Gangs

While the general public may associate gangs with violent acts such as drive-by shootings, some also equate gangs with organized crime such as large-scale drug dealing. There is no question that in particular communities in certain cities, youth gangs are very active in drug trafficking. However, the common stereotypes of the relationships between youth gangs, drug trafficking, and violence are often overblown. Youth gang expert Malcolm Klein finds distinctions between youth gangs and organized criminal cartels. To remain in business, he argues, organized crime groups must have strong leadership, codes of behavior enforced by the threat of severe sanctions, and a membership with a level of expertise and sophistication that enables them to accumulate and invest the proceeds of illegal activity. They can safely import narcotics and launder the proceeds of drug deals. 136  In contrast, his studies show that most street gangs are only loosely structured, with transient leadership and membership, easily transcended codes of loyalty, and informal rather than formal roles for the members. 137  As a result, very few youth gangs meet the essential criteria for classification as “organized crime.” Youth gang involvement in the drug trade is mainly in street-level distribution rather than large-scale importation and distribution, activities that are managed by adult drug cartels or syndicates, traditional narcotic importers, and other adult criminal organizations. However, while they may not fit the classic definition of organized crime syndicates, youth gangs can become integrally involved in existing, adult-based distribution systems. Where drug-related violence occurs, it mainly stems from drug use and dealing by individual gang members and from gang member involvement in adult criminal drug distribution networks more than from drug-trafficking activities of the youth gang as an organized entity.

Why Do Youths Join Gangs?

Though gangs flourish in inner-city areas, gang membership cannot be assumed to be solely a function of lower-class identity. Many lower-class youths do not join gangs, and middle-class youths are found in suburban skinhead groups. Let’s look at some of the suspected causes of gang delinquency.

The Anthropological View

In the 1950s, Herbert Block and Arthur Niederhoffer suggested that gangs appeal to adolescents’ longing for the tribal process that sustained their ancestors. 138  They found that gang processes do seem similar to the puberty rites of some tribal cultures; gang rituals help the child bridge the gap between childhood and adulthood. For example, tattoos and other identifying marks are an integral part of gang culture. Gang initiation ceremonies are similar to the activities of young men in Pacific Island cultures. Many gangs put new members through a hazing to make sure they have “heart,” a feature similar to tribal rites. In tribal societies, initiation into a cult is viewed as the death of childhood. By analogy, boys in lower-class urban areas yearn to join the gang and “really start to live.” Membership in the gang “means the youth gives up his life as a child and assumes a new way of life.” 139  Gang names are suggestive of “totemic ancestors” because they usually are symbolic (Cobras, Jaguars, and Kings, for example).

The Gang Prevention and Intervention Survey found that fully two-thirds of gang members reported having members in their gang whose parents are also active members. These data indicate that ganging is passed on as a rite of passage from one generation to the next. 140  James Diego Vigil has described the rituals of gang initiation, which include pummeling to show that the boy is ready to leave his matricentric (mother-dominated) household; this is reminiscent of tribal initiation rites. 141  These rituals become an important part of gang activities. Hand signs and graffiti have a tribal flavor. Gang members adopt nicknames that reflect personality or physical traits: The more volatile are called “Crazy,” “Loco,” or “Psycho,” and those who wear glasses are dubbed “Professor.” 142

Gang violence can be experienced around the world. This gang in Manchester, England, included (top row, from left) Michael Lee, Liam Brogan, Lewis Tracy; (middle row, from left) Connor Browitt, Joshua Tracey, Katy Sharrock; (bottom row, from left) Callum Doran, Connah Doran, and Amanda Browitt. The gang, including boys and girls as young as 12, racially abused locals, vandalized property, and harassed, threatened, and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. One neighbor told police, “Some of these kids are so small, some might think it unbelievable for us to be terrified of them, but they were very menacing indeed. They would wander around the estate like a pack of wild dogs—they always seemed to be together. To us they were the wild runts.”

The Social Disorganization/Sociocultural View

Sociologists have commonly viewed the destructive sociocultural forces in poor inner-city areas as the major cause of gang formation. Thrasher introduced this concept, and it is found in the classic studies of Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin and of Albert Cohen. 143  Irving Spergel’s study Racketville, Slumtown, and Haulburg found that Slumtown—the area with the lowest income and the largest population—had the highest number of violent gangs. 144  According to Spergel, the gang gives lower-class youths a means of attaining status. Malcolm Klein’s research of the late 1960s and 1970s also found that typical gang members came from dysfunctional and destitute families and lacked adequate role models. 145

The social disorganization/sociocultural view retains its prominent position today. In Barrio Gangs, Vigil shows that gang members are pushed into membership because of poverty and minority status. Those who join gangs are the most marginal youths in their neighborhoods and families. Vigil finds that barrio dwellers experience psychological, economic, and social “stressors.” 146  Gang members usually have more than one of these problems, causing them to suffer from “multiple marginality.” Barrio youths join gangs seeking a sense of belonging. 147

Overall, the sociocultural view assumes that gangs are a natural response to lower-class life and a status-generating medium for boys who cannot realize their aspirations by legitimate means. Youths who join gangs may hold conventional goals but are either unwilling or unable to accomplish them through conventional means. 148  Gangs are not made up solely of youths who seek deviant peers to compensate for parental brutality or incompetence. They recruit youths from many different kinds of families. The gang thus is a coalition of troubled youths who are socialized mainly by the streets rather than by conventional institutions. 149

The Anomie/Alienation View

According to this view, conditions of anomie/alienation encourage gang formation on both a cultural and individual level. On a cultural level, youths are encouraged to join gangs during periods of social, economic, and cultural turmoil. 150  Immigration or emigration, rapidly expanding or contracting populations, and the incursion of different racial/ethnic groups, or even different segments or generations of the same racial/ethnic population, can create fragmented communities and gang problems. 151

Historically, gangs formed during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and after the crumbling of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. The rise of right-wing youth gangs in Germany is associated with the unification of East and West Germany. Skinhead groups have formed in Germany in response to immigration from Turkey and North Africa. In the United States, gangs have formed in areas where rapid change has unsettled communities. The gangs and militia groups in present-day Iraq may have formed as a response to the upheaval in that society.

On an individual level, gang membership appeals to adolescents who are alienated from the mainstream of society. It is not surprising that (a) kids who have had problems with the law and suffer juvenile justice processing are more likely to join gangs than nonstigmatized kids and (b) joining gangs further involves them in criminal activities. 152

The Psychological View

Some believe that gangs serve as an outlet for disturbed youths who experience a host of personal trials and tribulations. For example, Lewis Yablonsky found that violent gangs recruit their members from among the more sociopathic youths living in poverty-stricken communities. 153  Yablonsky views the sociopathic youth as one who “has not been trained to have human feelings or compassion or responsibility for another.” 154

Malcolm Klein’s analysis of Los Angeles gang members also found that many suffer from a variety of personal deficits, including low self-concept, social deficits, poor impulse control, and limited life skills. 155  In their in-depth study of Rochester youth, Thornberry and his colleagues found that those who joined gangs suffered from a multitude of social problems, including early involvement in delinquency, violence, and drug abuse, dysfunctional family relations, educational deficits, and involvement with deviant peers. 156

The Rational Choice View

Some youths may make a rational choice to join a gang. Members of the underclass turn to gangs as a method of obtaining desired goods and services, either directly, through theft and extortion, or indirectly, through drug dealing and weapons sales. In this case, joining a gang can be viewed as an “employment decision.” Mercer Sullivan’s study of Brooklyn gangs found that members call success at crime “getting paid.” Gang boys also refer to the rewards of crime as “getting over,” which refers to their pride at “beating the system,” even though they are far from the economic mainstream. 157  According to this view, the gang boy has long been involved in criminal activity prior to his gang membership, and he joins the gang as a means of improving his illegal “productivity.” 158

Gang membership is not a necessary precondition for delinquency. Felix Padilla found this when he studied the Diamonds, a Latino gang in Chicago. 159  The decision to join the gang was made after an assessment of legitimate opportunities. The Diamonds made collective business decisions, and individuals who made their own deals were penalized. The gang maintained a distinct structure and carried out other functions similar to those of legitimate enterprises, including recruiting personnel and financing business ventures.

Drug use is a big part of the gang experience, and drug users may join gangs to enhance availability of drugs and support for their usage. 160  Terence Thornberry and his colleagues at the Rochester Youth Development Study found that before youths join gangs, their substance abuse and delinquency rates are no higher than those of nongang members. When they are in the gang, their crime and drug abuse rates increase, only to decrease when they leave the gang. Thornberry concludes that gangs facilitate criminality rather than provide a haven for youths who are disturbed or already highly delinquent. This research is important because it lends support to the life-course model: events that take place during the life cycle, such as joining a gang, have a significant impact on criminal behavior and drug abuse. 161

Personal Safety

According to Spergel, some adolescents choose to join gangs from a “rational calculation” to achieve safety. 162  Youths who are new to a community may believe they will be harassed or attacked if they remain “unaffiliated.” Girls also join gangs for protection. Though they may be exploited by male gang members, they are protected from assaults by nongang males in the neighborhood. 163

Motivation may have its roots in inter-race or interethnic rivalry; youths who reside in an area dominated by a different racial or ethnic group may be persuaded that gang membership is a means of protection. Ironically, gang members are more likely to be attacked than nonmembers.

Fun and Support

Some youths join gangs simply to have fun. 164  They enjoy hanging out with others like themselves and want to get involved in exciting experiences. There is evidence that youths learn pro-gang attitudes from their peers and that these attitudes direct them to join gangs. 165

Some experts suggest that youths join gangs in an effort to obtain a family-like atmosphere. Many gang members report that they have limited contact with their parents, many of whom are unemployed and have substance abuse problems. 166  Those members who have strained family relations are also the ones most likely to be involved in the most serious and frequent criminal activity. 167  Kids may join gangs to compensate for the lack of a family life experienced at home.

The Thug Lifestyle

Some kids enter the gang life because they want to enhance a chosen “thug” lifestyle. They choose ganging because it celebrates deviance and criminality, values they have already embraced. 168  Where does the thug style come from? In some instances, kids see older boys in the neighborhood acting tough and getting respect. Sometimes, the thug style emulates the dress, swagger, and lingo of media gangsters such as Tony Montana from the cult movie Scarface. Set in 1980s Miami, the film’s protagonist, Tony (played by Al Pacino), is a determined Cuban immigrant who uses street smarts, toughness, and callous brutality to take over a drug empire, becoming enormously rich and powerful before succumbing to greed and his own psychological demons. Tony’s analysis of how the American system works symbolizes the thug lifestyle:

In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.

Young gang boys want to embrace the movie gangster lifestyle and fatalism. They are ready to shoot it out with rival gang members and with the cops. In this “outlaw” world, gang boys can make their own rules, do what they want, and take what they wish without worrying about the consequences. It is a lifestyle where respect is demanded and power rules. Thugs enjoy their ability to use violence to gain vengeance against their enemies or to demonstrate their criminal skills. And like Tony Montana, their prowess is envied and rewarded with respect and financial gain. Just as a doctor, lawyer, or police officer identifies with his profession and gains self-worth from his professional calling and successes, self-esteem for many who choose to join a gang becomes dependent on their thug exploits.

These views of why youths join gangs are summarized in  Concept Summary 9.1 .

CONCEPT SUMMARY 9.1: Views of Gang Formation

View	Premise	Evidence
Anthropological	Gangs appeal to kids’ tribal instincts	Use of totems, signs, secret languages, and symbols
Sociocultural	Gangs form because of destructive sociocultural forces in disorganized inner-city areas	Concentration of gangs in inner-city areas
Anomie/Alienation	Alienated kids join gangs; anomic social and economic conditions encourage gang activity	Upswing in gang activities after market force creates anomic situations Gang activity increases with globalization
Psychological	Kids with personality problems form gangs and become leaders	Antisocial, destructive behavior patterns Increase in violence
Rational choice	Kids join gangs for protection, fun, survival, and to enhance their lifestyle	Presence of party gangs, gang members Protect one another

Leaving the Gang

While there is quite a bit of speculation on why kids join gangs, less is known about why they leave. And most do leave in a relatively short time. Despite popular sayings such as “Blood in, Blood out,” the majority of gang boys remain in the gang for one year or less. Though the trend is for people to stay in gangs longer, resulting in an aging gang population, for most members gang involvement is a short-term activity.

There seem to be two distinct patterns of gang desistance. Some gang members suddenly leave the gang. 169  One reason for the abrupt termination of gang activity may be exposure to violence long associated with ganging. The more kids are bound to their gang, the more likely they will become a crime victim.

The second pattern is a slow, gradual departure from gang membership precipitated by an ongoing change in lifestyle. This member leaves the gang because he gets married and begins spending more time with family and work than he does with the gang. Rather than an abrupt departure, desistance may be part of a slow maturation process in which the gang member turns emotionally from the gang toward conventional activity. The Youth Stories feature focuses on one boy who was able to change his life patterns and leave the gang life.

Regardless of which method of departure, leaving the gang reduces involvement in crime and delinquency, and also in violence and victimization. Not all members can leave; some seem too enmeshed in the gang. But those that do significantly reduce their victimization risk. 170

Controlling Gang Activity

The presence of gangs instills fear in community residents, and fear of gang intimidation, vandalism, graffiti, and drugs is very great in the most gang-infested communities. One study in Orange County, California, found that, not surprisingly, fear of crime and gangs was an “immediate,” daily experience for people who lived in lower-income neighborhoods where gangs were most common. But there was also a spillover effect: fear of gangs and gang violence was present even if gangs were not an immediate danger or fixture in the neighborhood. 171  In the most gang-ridden areas, intimidation of other youths, adults, and business owners is not uncommon, and intimidation of witnesses or potential witnesses is particularly serious because it undermines the justice process.

youth stories: Jason: Strengthening Family Bonds

Sometimes kids can leave gangs if they are given proper intervention and treatment. Take the case of Jason, an 18-year-old gang member who was referred to gang intervention services by juvenile probation when he was 15 years old. Jason maintained infrequent contact with gang intervention personnel over a two-year period while he rotated in and out of the juvenile justice system and struggled with his parents’ substance addictions. Eventually, Jason moved in with his girlfriend’s family, and her parents assumed guardianship of him. His girlfriend became pregnant and gave birth to a son. Jason successfully completed juvenile probation but could not maintain employment because of his literacy issues.

Jason’s primary goal was to gain employment in the transportation industry so he could take care of his son and girlfriend. He also wished to rebuild his relationship with his parents, who were working to address their substance addictions. The gang interventionist connected Jason with a local program that helped him access necessary identification documents and get enrolled in an online high school diploma program to address his literacy deficits and complete his GED. The interventionist also helped Jason access family counseling services so he could start rebuilding a relationship with his parents and develop more effective skills to parent his young son.

During repeated meetings with his intervention specialist, Jason shared that his biggest fear was having his son ask him about his gang-related tattoos. With the assistance of his intervention specialist, he enrolled in a tattoo removal program. During the tattoo removal process, the intervention specialist received information that the gang was considering retaliation against Jason for leaving the gang. The intervention specialist helped Jason explain to the gang that he was focusing on taking care of his family and accomplishing his career goals. The intervention specialist also helped Jason create a plan to avoid future interactions with the gang. Jason successfully completed his high school diploma, received his transportation worker identification credentials, and obtained an entry-level position.

He is currently working and taking care of his son and girlfriend.

CRITICAL THINKING

Libertarians argue that the government should stay out of people’s lives and that social service programs should be curtailed. Do stories such as Jason’s convince you that people need a helping hand and that the government has a duty to provide help?

SOURCE: Michelle Arciaga Young and Victor Gonzalez, “Getting Out of Gangs, Staying Out of Gangs: Gang Intervention and Desistance Strategies,” National Gang Center Bulletin, 2013,  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Documents/Getting-Out-Staying-Out.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

Because gangs are now a national threat, there has been a concerted effort to control gang activity. In fact, the federal government has formed a National Gang Intelligence Center to acquire information on gangs and coordinate prevention efforts ( Exhibit 9.4 )

exhibit 9.4: National Gang Intelligence Center

To help curb the growth of gangs and related criminal activity, the FBI, at the direction of Congress, established the National Gang Intelligence Center, or NGIC, in 2005. The NGIC integrates gang intelligence from across federal, state, and local law enforcement on the growth, migration, criminal activity, and association of gangs that pose a significant threat to the United States. It supports law enforcement by sharing timely and accurate information and by providing strategic/tactical analysis of intelligence. Located just outside Washington, DC, the NGIC is staffed and supported by a number of partnering agencies, including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), and United States Marshals Service (USMS).

The databases of each component agency are available to the NGIC, as are other gang-related databases, permitting centralized access to information. In addition, the NGIC provides operational and analytical support for investigations. Using these resources, they have identified those gangs that pose the greatest danger to communities and targeted them with their combined investigative resources and the same federal racketeering statutes and intelligence and investigative techniques that have been used to attack organized crime.

The NGIC concentrates on gangs operating on a national level that demonstrate criminal connectivity between sets and common identifiers and goals. Because many violent gangs do not operate on a national level, the NGIC also focuses on regional-level gangs. The NGIC produces intelligence assessments, intelligence bulletins, joint agency intelligence products, and other nonstandard intelligence products for customers.

SOURCE: National Gang Intelligence Center,  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/gangs/ngic  (accessed June 2013).

A number of approaches have been tried, some involving efforts to control or deter gang activity through tough legal sanctions backed up by effective law enforcement. Another approach involves social service efforts designed to provide alternatives to gang membership. Both of these methods will be discussed in the next sections.

Legal Controls

A number of states have created laws specifically designed to control gang activity. One approach has been to create enhanced penalties for behaviors typically associated with gang members. Take for example drive-by shootings, a form of retaliation popular with gangs. A number of states have passed legislation increasing penalties for such behavior and adding sanctions to control its reoccurrence (e.g., the driver loses his license). Arizona’s drive-by shooting law is set out in  Exhibit 9.5 .

exhibit 9.5: Drive-By Shooting Statute: Arizona

· A. A person commits drive-by shooting by intentionally discharging a weapon from a motor vehicle at a person, another occupied motor vehicle, or an occupied structure.

· B. Motor vehicles that are used in violation of this section are subject to seizure for forfeiture in the manner provided for in chapter 39 of this title.

· C. Notwithstanding title 28,  chapter 4 , the judge shall order the surrender to the judge of any driver’s license of the convicted person and, on surrender of the license, shall invalidate or destroy the license and forward the abstract of conviction to the department of transportation with an order of the court revoking the driving privilege of the person for a period of at least one year but not more than five years. On receipt of the abstract of conviction and order, the department of transportation shall revoke the driving privilege of the person for the period of time ordered by the judge.

· D. Drive-by shooting is a class 2 felony.

SOURCE: Arizona State Legislature, Arizona 13-1209. Drive-by shooting; driver’s license revocation; classification; definitions.

Other jurisdictions have made it a crime to recruit gang members, to engage in organized gang activity, and to loiter for the purpose of carrying out gang business. Some cities have gone as far as passing anti-graffiti measures to curb the proliferation of written gang messages and threats.  Exhibit 9.6  shows Denver’s anti-graffiti statute.

exhibit 9.6: Anti-Graffiti Statute: Denver, Colorado

Sec. 34-66. Possession of graffiti materials by minors prohibited

· (a) It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to possess any can of spray paint, broad tipped marker pen, glass cutting tool, or glass etching tool or instrument.

· (b) A broad tipped marker pen is one with a tip that exceeds one-quarter (1/4) inch in width.

· (c) It shall be an affirmative defense to charges under this section that the person possessing the materials was:

· (1) Within their home;

· (2) At their place of employment; or

· (3) Upon real property with permission from the owner, occupant, or person having lawful control of such property, to possess such materials. (Ord. No. 424-95, § 1, 6-12-95)

SOURCE: City of Denver,  http://www.denvergov.org/web/ccbills/CB0807-02.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

Legal Injunctions

A civil gang injunction (CGI) is a preliminary or permanent court order issued in a civil case against a criminal street gang and its members to enjoin (prohibit) certain behavior within a defined safety zone, which may include associating together in public or violating trespass and curfew laws. The goal is to abate a public nuisance caused by the conduct and activities of a gang. A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property that affects an entire community. CGIs are most effective against a multigenerational turf-based criminal street gang with deep roots that openly commits criminal and nuisance activity in its own turf. 172

The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate into violence. Some jurisdictions such as Fort Worth, Texas, and San Francisco, California, have filed lawsuits against gangs and gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars, or in particular areas. The injunctions can prohibit gang members from associating with each other, carrying weapons, possessing drugs, committing crimes, and displaying gang symbols in a safety zone—neighborhoods where suspected gang members live and are most active. Some injunctions set curfews for members and ban them from possessing alcohol in public areas—even if they’re of legal drinking age.

Those who disobey the order face a misdemeanor charge and up to a year in jail. In some cases, such injunctions don’t allow gang members even to talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint. 173  Some libertarian organizations consider these restrictions as overreaching and violating civil rights.

Some appellate courts have restricted the scope of gang injunctions. In a 2001 case, People v. Englebrecht, the California Court of Appeal ruled that prosecutors must first prove through clear and convincing evidence that a person is a gang member before using an antigang injunction to restrict his or her right to engage in everyday activities. The case involved David Englebrecht, a 26-year-old father of three who despite not being a gang member was placed under a civil injunction designed to combat a local gang. Under the injunction, Englebrecht was prohibited from making loud noises, whistling, wearing certain clothing, using certain words or hand gestures, or being seen in public with other alleged gang members within an approximately one-square-mile area of Oceanside, California. Despite recognizing that the case involved a mistake of fact (i.e., Englebrecht was not a gang member), the court decided to render a decision that means that all nongang members will have greater protection against being wrongfully and arbitrarily subjected to court restrictions on their ordinary daily activities. 174

If successful, these injunctions give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons. When a CGI is issued, gang members with a history of committing felonies involving guns, narcotics, and intimidation abruptly quit associating in public with other gang members. Moreover, they obey the other provisions of the CGI, violation of which is a misdemeanor. The results of a CGI project are reduced criminal and nuisance gang activity, as well as a better quality of life for the people who live and work in the neighborhood. 175

Law Enforcement Efforts

As gangs have spread from the central city to ring city, suburban, and even rural areas, police departments have responded by creating specialized gang-control units. Research shows that if gang members fear apprehension and punishment they will be as likely to be deterred as any other offender, hence police efforts to increase deterrence levels. 176  Knowing this outcome, police may be more likely to arrest known gang members than other misbehaving youth. 177

Gang control takes three basic forms:

·  Youth services programs, in which traditional police personnel, usually from the youth unit, are given responsibility for gang control

·  Gang details, in which one or more police officers, usually from youth or detective units, are assigned exclusively to gang-control work

·  Gang units, established solely to deal with gang problems, to which one or more officers are assigned exclusively to gang-control work

Today, about one in four law enforcement agencies with a gang problem operate a gang unit, including more than half of larger cities. According to the National Gang Center, across all area types, agencies with long-standing gang problems and/or higher numbers of documented gang members are more likely to report operating a gang unit. Some programs rely on intelligence gathering, aggressive enforcement, and “gang-breaking” activities. They attempt to arrest, prosecute, convict, and incarcerate gang leaders. The Chicago Police Department’s gang crime section maintains intelligence on gang problems and trains its more than 400 officers to deal with gang problems. Officers identify street gang members and enter their names in a computer bank that is programmed to alert the unit if the youths are picked up or arrested.

Gang Sweeps

Many large police departments maintain gang units that engage in  gang sweeps , a method of enforcement in which police, armed with arrest and search warrants, enter a neighborhood in force in an operation to make as many arrests as possible. Each department has its own method of sweeping up known gang members. In Las Vegas, gang-unit officers split into teams, each assigned to its own squad car. One pair of officers will patrol down a “hot street”—a street or area where gang members are known to hang out and conduct drug sales. Two other pairs in squad cars patrol the two streets immediately parallel to the hot street, keeping pace with the lead car. The fourth squad car remains out of sight at the end of the street, slowly patrolling toward the other three. This tactic squeezes gang members toward the center of the targeted area and allows easy pursuit if a suspect tries to flee. 178

gang sweep

A method of enforcement in which police, armed with arrest and search warrants, enter a neighborhood in force in an operation to make as many arrests as possible.

Police Intervention Strategies

Other departments take a more treatment-oriented intervention approach. Take for instance the Gang Intervention through Curfew Enforcement program used in Akron, Ohio. 179  A small detail of gang-unit officers are assigned to conduct neighborhood sweeps in high-crime and gang neighborhoods to take the juveniles off the street who are at highest risk of gang membership, gang violence, or gang victimization. When juveniles are arrested for violation of the curfew ordinance, they are transported to a rehabilitative program center known as Oriana House. Here the juveniles receive counseling and are advised on how to stay out of street gangs. Parents or guardians are notified to pick up their child, and upon arrival at the program site, they are given educational materials designed to help them prevent their kids from becoming involved in gangs. A follow-up call is made by gang-unit officers to the parents or guardians of the suspected gang members to further reinforce the educational materials provided at Oriana House. Target sites are determined by locating gang parties, suspected gang fight locations, and known drug-trafficking spots used by gang members to “post up” and sell drugs.

Community-Policing Strategies

Some communities use community-policing strategies to combat gang activity, in which police officers are assigned to keep the peace in local neighborhoods (community policing will be discussed more fully in  Chapters 12  and  14 ). For example, Boston’s Youth Violence Strike Force (YVSF) is one of the primary enforcement strategies that Boston is pursuing to combat youth gang violence. The YVSF is a multiagency coordinated task force made up of 45 to 50 full-time Boston police officers and others from Massachusetts State Police, the Department of Treasury’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), police departments from neighboring jurisdictions, Massachusetts Corrections, Probation, Parole, and Division of Youth Service (juvenile corrections) officers, and other agencies as appropriate. It works closely with the Suffolk County District Attorney’s and state attorney general’s offices, and participates in the Department of Justice’s Anti-Violent Crime Initiative (AVCI) led locally by the US Attorney. The YVSF investigates youth crimes, arrests those responsible, and breaks up the environment for crime. Drug dens have been closed through joint federal-state-local cooperation. Some former drug houses have been renovated to provide low-income elderly housing.

Another program, Operation Night Light, puts the YVSF together with concerned clergy members, youth outreach workers, and social service professionals to prevent youth and gang violence of probationers by regularly visiting their homes. Operation Night Light pairs one probation officer with two police officers to make surprise visits to the homes, schools, and worksites of high-risk youth probationers during the nontraditional hours of 7:00 pm to midnight.

Another gang reduction program begun in Boston is Operation Ceasefire, a problem-oriented policing approach that focuses police attention on specific places that are known for gang activity and gun violence. This program will be discussed in greater detail in  Chapter 14 .

Community-Level Programs

During the late nineteenth century, social workers of the YMCA worked with youths in Chicago gangs. 180  During the 1950s, the  detached street worker  program was developed in major centers of gang activity. Social workers went into the community to work with gangs on their own turf. They participated in gang activities and tried to get to know their members. The purpose was to act as advocates for the youths, to provide them with positive role models, and to treat individual problems.

detached street workers

Social workers who go out into the community and establish close relationships with juvenile gangs with the goal of modifying gang behavior to conform to conventional behaviors and help gang members get jobs and educational opportunities.

Detached street worker programs are sometimes credited with curbing gang activities in the 1950s and 1960s, although some critics claimed that they turned delinquent groups into legitimate neighborhood organizations. 181  Others believe they helped maintain group solidarity, and as a result, new members were drawn to gangs.

Today, there are numerous community-level programs designed to limit gang activity. Some employ recreation areas open in the evening hours that provide supervised activities. 182  In some areas, city-wide coordinating groups help orient gang-control efforts. In Los Angeles County, the Gang Alternative Prevention Program (GAPP) provides services to juveniles before they become entrenched in gangs, including individual and group counseling, bicultural and bilingual services to adolescents and their parents, and special programs such as tutoring, parent training, job development, and recreational and educational experiences. 183  Some police departments also sponsor prevention programs such as school-based lectures, police-school liaisons, recreation programs, and street worker programs that offer counseling, assistance to parents, and other services. The Stockton, California, police department sponsors a gang intervention called Operation Peacekeeper. 184  It puts outreach workers, who are former gang members themselves, on the street to support kids who want to leave gangs. The program includes monthly forums where known gang members are offered information about available programs as well as a warning that they are being watched. Operation Peacekeeper has been credited with a drop in gang-related homicides and has been praised because outreach workers are able to form bonds with youths unavailable to uniformed officers.

Still another approach has been to involve schools in gang-control programs. Some invite law enforcement agents to lecture students on the dangers of gang involvement and teach them gang-resistance techniques. Others provide resources that can help parents prevent their children from joining gangs, or if they are already members, get them out.

Many kids who want to leave gangs and join conventional society lack the means to do so. One program designed to ease the way is Homeboy and Homegirl Industries, located in Los Angeles, California. The program was founded in 1992 by Father Gregory Boyle, a Jesuit priest, whose guiding principle was that when people are employed, they’re much more likely to lead happy lives because they can be productive and constructive. Youths in the program not only receive access to numerous free services—tattoo removal, counseling, job referrals, and life-skills training—but are able to work (with pay) in the program’s several businesses, which include silk-screening, maintenance, and food service, including its own cafe and bakery.

The Spergel Model

Sociologist Irving Spergel, a leading expert on gangs, has developed a model for helping communities deal with gang-involved youth that has become the basis for gang-control efforts around the nation. Spergel’s model of gang prevention has been adopted by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention as a model called the Gang Reduction Program. The multimillion-dollar initiative was designed to reduce gang crime in targeted neighborhoods by incorporating research-based interventions to address individual, family, and community factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency and gang activity. The program secured local, state, and federal resources in support of community partnerships that implement progressive practices in the prevention, intervention, and suppression of gang activity. 185  The measures used in these programs have been carefully tested and appear to be valid and effective methods of gang control.

Evaluating Gang-Control Efforts

Because gang activity is so pervasive and sustained in some areas, police agencies view these gangs as organized criminal enterprises and deal with them as traditional organized crime families. The aim is to (a) develop informants through criminal prosecutions, payments, and witness protection programs; (b) rely heavily on electronic surveillance and long-term undercover investigations; and (c) use special statutes that create criminal liabilities for conspiracy, extortion, or engaging in criminal enterprises. 186

While aggressive police tactics such as these may work, they also run the risk of becoming overzealous and alienating the community. Take for instance Los Angeles’s antigang unit, Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH), which at its peak contained 200 sworn officers. The unit conducted aggressive antigang actions, including Operation Hammer, which involved the unit’s moving through some of the city’s toughest neighborhoods and arresting gang members for the slightest infractions, including wearing colors, flashing signs, jaywalking, and curfew violations. By making 25,000 arrests per year, the unit significantly reduced gang activity. But problems began to emerge. Unit members developed a warlike mentality, and CRASH officers began resisting supervision and flagrantly ignoring policies and procedures. This subculture eventually gave rise to the Rampart Scandal, in which Rampart CRASH unit officers in Los Angeles were found to be engaging in hard-core criminal activity. Officers admitted to attacking known gang members and falsely accusing them of crimes they had not committed. As a consequence, approximately 10 years after it had been fully staffed and promoted as the ideal in antigang enforcement, LAPD’s gang unit was shut down because of corruption, the use of excessive force, and civil rights violations; the city paid out about $70 million to settle lawsuits related to the scandal. 187  The Rampart Scandal serves as a cautionary tale for police departments attempting to control gang activity, but the threat of racial profiling in gang-control efforts still remains an issue. Recent research shows that police are still more likely to target African American gang boys for arrest than they are members from other racial and ethnic groups. 188

Ironically, these heavy-handed suppression tactics can increase gang cohesion while failing to reduce violence, and keep kids in gangs who would have quit if left to their own devices. In Chicago, a cycle of police suppression and incarceration combined to sustain unacceptably high levels of gang violence. Results from Dallas, Detroit, and St. Louis show no evidence of a positive impact on target neighborhoods. Most young people who enter gangs will leave the gang within a year. But law enforcement practices can target former gang members long after their active participation in the gang has ended, and may dissuade employers from offering jobs to former gang members or youth who merely look like gang members.

Because gangs represent only a small part of the crime rate, aggressive suppression tactics simply make the situation worse by alienating local residents and trapping youth in the criminal justice system. More often than not, minority youth are the target of antigang efforts, and their suppression gives people the impression that police are targeting minority kids.

In contrast to suppression tactics, cities that adopted treatment alternatives fared far better. New York City did not embrace the aggressive tactics used in Los Angeles even when gang crime was on the rise, and has consequently experienced far less gang violence. When gang violence became a serious problem, the city established a system of well-trained street workers and gang intervention programs, grounded in effective social work practices and independent of law enforcement. Gang experts conclude that the city’s serious problem with street gang violence had largely faded away by the 1980s. Crime is at a historic low in New York.

The Problems of Reform

Social and economic solutions seem equally challenging. Experts suggest that to reduce the gang problem, hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs are needed. This solution does not, however, seem practical. Many of the jobs for which undereducated gang boys can qualify are now being shipped overseas. Highly paid manufacturing jobs are particularly hard to obtain. It is unlikely that a boy who has five years as a Crip on his résumé will be in demand for legitimate work opportunities. The more embedded youths become in criminal enterprise, the less likely they are to find meaningful adult work. It is unlikely that gang members can suddenly be transformed into highly paid professionals. As discussed in the Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature, some programs such as Cure Violence can be successful community-based gang-control programs.

Although social solutions to the gang problem seem elusive, the evidence shows that gang involvement is a socioecological phenomenon and must be treated as such. Youths who live in areas where their needs cannot be met by existing institutions join gangs when gang members are there to recruit them. 189  Social causes demand social solutions. Programs that enhance the lives of adolescents are the key to reducing gang delinquency. A more effective alternative would be to devote more resources to the most deteriorated urban areas, even if it requires pulling funds from other groups that receive government aid, such as the elderly. 190  The national report of the Justice Policy Institute suggests the following changes be implemented:

·  Expand the use of evidence-based practice to reduce youth crime. Instead of devoting more resources to the already heavily funded and ineffective gang enforcement tactics, policy makers should expand the use of evidence-based interventions that are scientifically proven to reduce juvenile recidivism.

·  Promote jobs, education, and healthy communities, and lower barriers to the reintegration into society of former gang members. Gang researchers observe that employment and family formation help draw youth away from gangs. Creating positive opportunities through which gang members can leave their past, as opposed to ineffective policies that lock people into gangs or strengthen their attachments, can help to improve public safety.

·  Redirect resources from failed gang enforcement efforts to proven public safety strategies. Gang injunctions, gang sweeps, and various ineffective enforcement initiatives reinforce negative images of whole communities and run counter to best practices in youth development. The Justice Policy Institute suggests that, instead, localities should end practices that can make the youth violence problem worse, and refocus funds on effective public safety strategies. 191

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Intervention: Cure Violence

The Cure Violence (formerly Cease Fire) program has proven to be an effective broad community approach to preventing and reducing gang violence. Undergirded by the public health model, the program approaches violence as an infectious disease. The program tries to interrupt the next event, the next transmission, the next violent activity. Cure Violence targets a small population: members of the community with a high chance of “being shot or being shooters” in the near future. This model prevents violence through a three-pronged approach:

·  Detection and interruption. Cure Violence is a data-driven model. Statistical information and street knowledge help identify where to concentrate efforts, focus resources, and intervene in violence. These data identify communities most impacted and provide a picture of those individuals at the highest risk for violence.

·  Behavior change. Cure Violence intervenes in crises, mediates disputes between individuals, and intercedes in group disputes to prevent violent events. Outreach workers counsel clients and connect them with services; violence interrupters engage members of the target population on the street, mediating conflicts between gangs and working to prevent the cycle of retaliatory violence from starting after a violent incident. The core training for employees is related directly to the work and focuses on conflict mediation and response.

·  Changing community norms. Cure Violence works to change the thinking on violence at the community level and for society at large through the use of public education, community-building activities, and motivational interviewing with the highest risk. For disproportionately impacted communities, violence has come to be accepted as an appropriate—even expected—way to solve conflict. At the street level, Cure Violence provides tools for those most likely to be involved in altercations to resolve conflicts in other ways.

Evaluations of Cure Violence

Multisite evaluations reveal that there were significant changes in gang homicide patterns (e.g., decreases in gang involvement in homicides and fewer retaliatory killings) that could be attributed to the program, but no individual site improved on all outcome measures.

The evaluation of Baltimore’s Safe Streets program (July 2007 through December 2010) is the first rigorous evaluation of a replication of Cure Violence. Safe Streets outreach workers mediated 276 incidents. “Safe Streets was fully implemented in four of Baltimore’s most violent neighborhoods, engaging hundreds of high-risk youth and mediating over 200 disputes with the potential to lead to a shooting. The program was associated with less acceptance for using guns to settle grievances in the one intervention neighborhood where attitudes were studied in two waves of community surveys. Program participants are benefiting from their connections to outreach workers in numerous ways that are likely to be protective against involvement in violence. Because gun violence extracts such enormous loss of life and social costs, efforts to prevent it should be high priorities, even when public and private resources are scarce. The Cure Violence program model represents a very promising strategy for reducing gun violence and changing social norms surrounding violence.”

CRITICAL THINKING

Cure Violence works to change the culture of violence at the community level through the use of public education, community-building activities, motivational interviewing, and more. Do you believe that an external force, such as a treatment program, can change a street culture that has developed over many years? What else might be done to reduce violence at the community level?

SOURCE: Cure Violence,  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/SPT/Programs/139  (accessed June 2013).

SUMMARY

· 1 Be familiar with the influence of peers on delinquency

·  In adolescence, friends begin to have a greater influence over decision making than parents.

·  In mid-adolescence, kids strive for peer approval and to impress their closest friends.

·  Acceptance by peers has a major impact on socialization.

·  Peer status during childhood is an important contributor to a child’s social and emotional development that follows them across the life course.

·  Youths who report inadequate or strained peer relations are the ones most likely to become delinquent.

· 2 Outline how romantic love influences delinquency

·  Delinquent youth actually report frequent contact with their romantic partners.

·  Delinquent youth also fight more with their partners and report higher levels of verbal conflict.

·  Adolescent sexual activity without the promise of love increases the likelihood of offending because it is associated with strain created by loveless relationships.

·  Romantic love has a deterrent effect that actually encourages youth who have offended to decrease their involvement in crime.

· 3 Know the various definitions used to describe gangs

·  Gangs are groups of youths who engage in delinquent behaviors.

·  Gangs are an interstitial group—one falling within the cracks and crevices of society.

·  Members have self-recognition of their gang status and use special vocabulary, clothing, signs, colors, graffiti, and names.

·  There is a commitment to criminal activity, although even the most criminal gang members spend the bulk of their time in noncriminal activities.

· 4 Discuss the history of gangs

·  In the 1600s, London was terrorized by organized gangs that called themselves Hectors, Bugles, Dead Boys, and other colorful names.

·  In the 1920s, Frederick Thrasher initiated the study of the modern gang in his analysis of more than 1,300 youth groups in Chicago.

·  According to Thrasher, gangs form because society does not meet the needs of lower-class youths.

·  In the 1950s and early 1960s, the threat of gangs and gang violence swept the public consciousness.

·  Interest in gang activity began anew in the early 1970s.

·  One reason for the increase in gang activity may be involvement in the sale of illegal drugs.

· 5 Be familiar with the extent and location of the gang problem

·  At recent count, an estimated 774,000 gang members were active in the United States.

·  Traditionally, gangs have operated in large urban areas experiencing rapid population change.

·  While some people think of gangs as a purely urban phenomenon, thousands of gangs are located in small cities, suburban counties, and even rural areas.

·  Because of redevelopment, gangs in some areas have relocated or migrated; gang members have organized new chapters when they relocate to new areas.

· 6 Compare the various forms contemporary gangs take

·  There are different types of gangs, including the social gang, party gang, serious delinquent gang, and organized gang.

·  Gangs are near-groups, which have limited cohesion, impermanence, minimal consensus of norms, shifting membership, disturbed leadership, and limited definitions of membership expectations.

· 7 Characterize the globalization of gangs

·  Changing social and economic conditions in our post-globalization world support the spread of gang activity.

·  One reason is that our global society has increased the percentage of people living in extreme poverty in some areas of the world.

·  Globalization creates a class that benefits from expanding markets and a group of very poor who can be recruited by gangs.

·  Globalization means that information and weapons are readily available anywhere in the world.

·  Numerous gangs operate in distressed areas such as the townships of South Africa where they rule politically and control the underground economy.

·  Gangs are now being exported from one nation to another.

·  In the global era, the state has retreated from its role of providing social welfare and an economic safety net. Gangs and other groups of armed young men occupy the vacuum created by the retreat of the social welfare policies of the state.

· 8 Describe female gangs and gang members

·  There are a variety of reasons why girls join gangs, including but not limited to financial opportunity, identity and status, peer pressure, family dysfunction, and protection.

·  Ganging can provide girls with a sense of sisterhood, independence, and solidarity, as well as a chance to earn profit through illegal activities.

·  Once in gangs, girls form close ties with other female members and engage in group criminal activity.

·  Female gang members begin to drift away from gangs when they become young mothers.

· 9 Analyze the various theories of gang formation

·  The anthropological view is that gangs appeal to adolescents’ longing for the tribal process that sustained their ancestors. Hand signs and graffiti have a tribal flavor.

·  Sociologists have commonly viewed the destructive sociocultural forces in poor inner-city areas as the major cause of gang formation.

·  Some believe that gangs serve as an outlet for disturbed youths who suffer a multitude of personal problems and deficits.

·  Some youths may make a rational choice to join a gang.

·  Some youths join gangs simply to have fun.

· 10 Describe the various forms of gang-control efforts in use today

·  A number of states have created laws specifically designed to control gang activity.

·  One approach has been to create enhanced penalties for behaviors typically associated with gang members.

·  Some jurisdictions have filed lawsuits against gangs and gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars, or in particular areas.

·  Today, about one in four law enforcement agencies with a gang problem operates a gang unit, including more than half of larger cities.

·  Gang sweeps are a method of enforcement in which police, armed with arrest and search warrants, enter a neighborhood in force in an operation to make as many arrests as possible.

·  Another approach is to provide jobs, counseling, education, and social opportunities for former gang members.

KEY TERMS

cliques,  p. 318

crowds,  p. 318

deviancy training,  p. 319

gang,  p. 321

interstitial group,  p. 322

disorganized neighborhood,  p. 326

barrio,  p. 326

near-groups,  p. 328

klikas,  p. 331

graffiti,  p. 332

posting,  p. 333

representing,  p. 333

skinhead,  p. 340

prestige crimes,  p. 343

gang sweep,  p. 351

detached street workers,  p. 352

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Does the emergence of hybrid gangs indicate that the juvenile gang is a form of organized crime?

2.

Discuss the differences among violent, criminal, and drug-oriented gangs.

3.

How do gangs in suburban areas differ from inner-city gangs?

4.

Do delinquents have cold and brittle relationships with their peers?

5.

Can gangs be controlled without changing the economic opportunity structure of society? Are there any truly meaningful alternatives to gangs today for lower-class youths?

6.

Can you think of other rituals in society that reflect an affinity or longing for more tribal times? (Hint: Have you ever pledged a fraternity or sorority, gone to a wedding, or attended a football game?) Do TV shows like Survivor show a longing for more tribal times? After all, they even use tribal names for the competing teams.

VIEWPOINT

After graduation you take a position with a local gang prevention program. One day you are approached by the director of the president’s National Task Force on Gangs (NTFG). This group has been formed to pool resources from a variety of federal agencies, ranging from the FBI to Health and Human Services, in order to provide local jurisdictions with a comprehensive plan to fight gangs. The director claims that the gang problem is big and becoming bigger. Thousands of gangs are operating around the country, with hundreds of thousands of members. Government sources, he claims, indicate that there has been a significant growth in gang membership over the past 20 years. So far, the government has not been able to do anything at either a state or national level to stem this growing tide of organized criminal activity. The NTFG would like you to be part of the team that provides state and local jurisdictions with a gang-control activity model, which, if implemented, would provide a cost-effective means of reducing both gang membership and gang activity.

·  Would you recommend that police employ antigang units that use tactics developed in the fight against organized crime families?

·  Would you recommend the redevelopment of deteriorated neighborhoods in which gangs flourish?

·  Would you try to educate kids about the dangers of gang membership?

·  Would you recommend a treatment protocol to help gang members?

·  Would you tell the director that gangs have always existed and there is probably not much the government can do to reduce their numbers?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

The National Gang Center (NGC) is a collaborative effort between the Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). For more information about this topic, visit their website ( http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/ ) or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, “Two MS-13 Street Gang Members Convicted in Federal Court on Racketeering, Murder and Firearms Charges,”  http://www.justice.gov/usao/nye/pr/2013/2013mar22.html  (accessed June 2013).

2. FBI, “Going Global on Gangs: New Partnership Targets MS-13,”  http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2007/october/ms13tag_101007  (accessed June 2013).

3. Paul Perrone and Meda Chesney-Lind, “Representations of Gangs and Delinquency: Wild in the Streets?” Social Justice 24:96–117 (1997).

4. Peggy Giordano, “The Wider Circle of Friends in Adolescence,” American Journal of Sociology 101:661–697 (1995).

5. Danielle Payne and Benjamin Cornwell, “Reconsidering Peer Influences on Delinquency: Do Less Proximate Contacts Matter?” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 23:127–149 (2007).

6. Annette La Greca and Hannah Moore Harrison, “Adolescent Peer Relations, Friendships, and Romantic Relationships: Do They Predict Social Anxiety and Depression?” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 34:49–61 (2005).

7. Delyse Hutchinson and Ronald Rapee, “Do Friends Share Similar Body Image and Eating Problems? The Role of Social Networks and Peer Influences in Early Adolescence,” Behaviour Research and Therapy 45:1557–1577 (2007).

8. Caterina Gouvis Roman, Meagan Cahill, Pamela Lachman, Samantha Lowry, Carlena Orosco, and Christopher McCarty, with Megan Denver and Juan Pedroza, Social Networks, Delinquency, and Gang Membership: Using a Neighborhood Framework to Examine the Influence of Network Composition and Structure in a Latino Community (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2012),  http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412519-Social-Networks-Delinquency-and-Gang-Membership.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

9. Brett Laursen, Christopher Hafen, Margaret Kerr, and Hakin Stattin, “Friend Influence over Adolescent Problem Behaviors as a Function of Relative Peer Acceptance: To Be Liked Is to Be Emulated,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 121:88–94 (2012).

10. John Coie and Shari Miller-Johnson, “Peer Factors in Early Offending Behavior,” in Rolf Loeber and David Farrington, eds., Child Delinquents (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001), pp. 191–210.

11. Judith Rich Harris, The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do (New York: Free Press, 1998).

12. Ibid., p. 463.

13. J. C. Barnes and Robert Morris, “Young Mothers, Delinquent Children: Assessing Mediating Factors among American Youth,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10:172–189 (2012).

14. Marvella Bowman, Hazel Prelow, and Scott Weaver, “Parenting Behaviors, Association with Deviant Peers, and Delinquency in African American Adolescents: A Mediated-Moderation Model,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36:517–527 (2007).

15. Harris, The Nurture Assumption, p. 463.

16. Jean Marie McGloin, “Delinquency Balance and Time Use: A Research Note,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49:109–121 (2012); Maury Nation and Craig Anne Heflinger, “Risk Factors for Serious Alcohol and Drug Use: The Role of Psychosocial Variables in Predicting the Frequency of Substance Use among Adolescents,” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 32:415–433 (2006).

17. Albert Reiss, “Co-Offending and Criminal Careers,” in Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, eds., Crime and Justice, vol. 10 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988).

18. Arpana Agrawal, Michael Lynskey, Kathleen Bucholz, Pamela Madden, and Andrew Heath, “Correlates of Cannabis Initiation in a Longitudinal Sample of Young Women: The Importance of Peer Influences,” Preventive Medicine 45:31–34 (2007).

19. Committee on the Science of Adolescence; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, “The Science of Adolescent Risk-Taking: Workshop Report 2010,”  http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12961.html  (accessed June 2013).

20. Kevin Beaver and John Paul Wright, “Biosocial Development and Delinquent Involvement,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 3:168–192 (2005); Richard Felson and Dana Haynie, “Pubertal Development, Social Factors, and Delinquency among Adolescent Boys,” Criminology 40:967–989 (2002).

21. Peggy Giordano, Robert Lonardo, Wendy Manning, and Monica Longmore, “Adolescent Romance and Delinquency: A Further Exploration of Hirschi’s ‘Cold and Brittle’ Relationships Hypothesis,” Criminology 48:910–946 (2010).

22. Bill McCarthy and Teresa Casey, “Love, Sex, and Crime: Adolescent Romantic Relationships and Offending,” American Sociological Review 73:944–969 (2008).

23. Jacob Young, J. C. Barnes, Ryan Meldrum, and Frank Weerman, “Assessing and Explaining Misperceptions of Peer Delinquency,” Criminology 49:599–630 (2011).

24. Terence Thornberry and Marvin Krohn, “Peers, Drug Use, and Delinquency,” in David Stoff, James Breiling, and Jack Maser, eds., Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1997), pp. 218–233; Thomas Dishion, Deborah Capaldi, Kathleen Spracklen, and Fuzhong Li, “Peer Ecology of Male Adolescent Drug Use,” Development and Psychopathology 7:803–824 (1995).

25. Daneen Deptula and Robert Cohen, “Aggressive, Rejected, and Delinquent Children and Adolescents: A Comparison of Their Friendships,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 9:75–104 (2004).

26. Mark Warr, “Age, Peers, and Delinquency,” Criminology 31:17–40 (1993).

27. Dana Haynie and D. Wayne Osgood, “Reconsidering Peers and Delinquency: How Do Peers Matter?” Social Forces 84:1110–1130 (2005).

28. Stephen W. Baron, “Self-Control, Social Consequences, and Criminal Behavior: Street Youth and the General Theory of Crime,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:403–425 (2003).

29. Sara Pedersen, Frank Vitaro, Edward Barker, and Anne Borge, “The Timing of Middle-Childhood Peer Rejection and Friendship: Linking Early Behavior to Early-Adolescent Adjustment,” Child Development 78:1037–1051 (2007).

30. Beth Hoffman, Peter Monge, Chih-Ping Chou, and Thomas Valente, “Perceived Peer Influence and Peer Selection on Adolescent Smoking,” Addictive Behaviors 32:1546–1554 (2007).

31. Timothy Brezina and Alex Piquero, “Moral Beliefs, Isolation from Peers, and Abstention from Delinquency,” Deviant Behavior 28:433–465 (2007).

32. Frank Weerman, “Delinquent Peers in Context: A Longitudinal Network Analysis of Selection and Influence Effects,” Criminology 49:253–286 (2011).

33. Well-known movie representations of gangs include The Wild Ones and Hell’s Angels on Wheels, which depict motorcycle gangs, and Saturday Night Fever, which focuses on neighborhood street toughs; see also David Dawley, A Nation of Lords (Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1973).

34. Walter Miller, Violence by Youth Gangs and Youth Groups as a Crime Problem in Major American Cities (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1975).

35. Ibid., p. 20.

36. Malcolm Klein, The American Street Gang: Its Nature, Prevalence, and Control (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 30.

37. Irving Spergel, The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).

38. Ibid., p. 3.

39. Christopher Adamson, “Defensive Localism in White and Black: A Comparative History of European-American and African American Youth Gangs,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 23:272–298 (2000).

40. Frederick Thrasher, The Gang (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927).

41. National Youth Gang Center,  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ  (accessed June 2013).

42. Malcolm Klein, ed., Juvenile Gangs in Context (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1967), pp. 1–12.

43. Ibid., p. 6.

44. Irving Spergel, Street Gang Work: Theory and Practice (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1966).

45. Miller, Violence by Youth Gangs, p. 2.

46. Marjorie Zatz, “Los Cholos: Legal Processing of Chicago Gang Members,” Social Problems 33:13–30 (1985).

47. Miller, Violence by Youth Gangs, pp. 1–2.

48. Ibid.

49. Felix Padilla, The Gang as an American Enterprise (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1992), p. 3.

50. Pamela Irving Jackson, “Crime, Youth Gangs, and Urban Transition: The Social Dislocations of Postindustrial Economic Development,” Justice Quarterly 8:379–897 (1991); Joan Moore, Going Down to the Barrio: Homeboys and Homegirls in Change (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), pp. 89–101.

51. Arlen Egley Jr., and James C. Howell, National Youth Gang Survey Analysis,  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Prevalence-of-Gang-Problems  (accessed June 2013). Data in this section come from this survey and other data from the National Gang Center (2013), and are cited as National Youth Gang Survey, 2010.

52. William Julius Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

53. Ibid.

54. David C. Pyrooz, “Structural Covariates of Gang Homicide in Large U.S. Cities,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, first published on August 17, 2011.

55. National Youth Gang Survey, 2010.

56. Cheryl Maxson, Gang Members on the Move, bulletin, Youth Gang Series (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998).

57. Ibid.

58. Jose Miguel Cruz, “Central American Maras: From Youth Street Gangs to Transnational Protection Rackets,” Global Crime 11:379–398 (2010).

59. M. Michaux Parker, “Globalization and Gang Growth: The Four Phenomena Affect,” Journal of Gang Research 19:33–49 (2012).

60. John Hagedorn, “Gangs,” in Karen Christianson and David Levinson, eds., The Encyclopedia of Community (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003), pp. 517–522.

61. John M. Hagedorn, “The Global Impact of Gangs,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 21:153–169 (2005).

62. Jeffrey Fagan, “The Social Organization of Drug Use and Drug Dealing among Urban Gangs,” Criminology 27:633–669 (1989).

63. Ibid.

64. Lewis Yablonsky, The Violent Gang (Baltimore: Penguin, 1966), p. 109.

65. James Diego Vigil, Barrio Gangs (Austin: Texas University Press, 1988), pp. 11–19.

66. Mark Warr, “Organization and Instigation in Delinquent Groups,” Criminology 34:11–37 (1996).

67. George W. Knox et al., Gang Prevention and Intervention: Preliminary Results from the 1995 Gang Research Task Force (Chicago: National Gang Crime Research Center, 1995), p. vii.

68. Ibid.

69. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged.

70. Ibid.

71. Hagedorn, “The Global Impact of Gangs.”

72. National Youth Gang Survey, 2010.

73. Mars Eghigian and Katherine Kirby, “Girls in Gangs: On the Rise in America,” Corrections Today 68:48–50 (2006).

74. Ibid.

75. Mark Fleisher and Jessie Krienert, “Life-Course Events, Social Networks, and the Emergence of Violence among Female Gang Members,” Journal of Community Psychology 32:607–622 (2004).

76. Karen Joe Laidler and Geoffrey Hunt, “Violence and Social Organization in Female Gangs,” Social Justice 24:148–187 (1997); Joan Moore, Going Down to the Barrio; Anne Campbell, The Girls in the Gang (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1984).

77. Karen Joe Laidler and Meda Chesney-Lind, “‘Just Every Mother’s Angel’: An Analysis of Gender and Ethnic Variations in Youth Gang Membership,” Gender and Society 9:408–430 (1995).

78. Jody Miller, One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs, and Gender (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).

79. Ibid.

80. Emilio Ulloa, Rachel Dyson, and Danita Wynes, “Inter-Partner Violence in the Context of Gangs: A Review,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 17:397–404 (2012).

81. Fleisher and Krienert, “Life-Course Events, Social Networks, and the Emergence of Violence among Female Gang Members.”

82. Joan Moore, James Diego Vigil, and Robert Garcia, “Residence and Territoriality in Chicano Gangs,” Social Problems 31:182–194 (1983).

83. Warr, “Organization and Instigation in Delinquent Groups.”

84. Malcolm Klein, “Impressions of Juvenile Gang Members,” Adolescence 3:59 (1968).

85. Scott Decker, Tim Bynum, and Deborah Weisel, “A Tale of Two Cities: Gangs and Organized Crime Groups,” Justice Quarterly 15:395–425 (1998).

86. Donald Lyddane, “Understanding Gangs and Gang Mentality: Acquiring Evidence of the Gang Conspiracy,” United States Attorneys’ Bulletin 54:1–15 (2006),  http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5403.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

87. National Youth Gang Survey, 2010.

88. Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis, Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2007),  http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/1961  (accessed June 2013).

89. Ibid.

90. The following description of ethnic gangs leans heavily on the material developed in National School Safety Center, Gangs in Schools: Breaking Up Is Hard to Do (Malibu, CA: National School Safety Center, Pepperdine University, 1988), pp. 11–23.

91. Spergel, The Youth Gang Problem, pp. 136–137.

92. Southeast Connecticut Gang Activities Group, “Brotherhood of the Struggle,” 2011,  http://www.segag.org/ganginfo/frbrothdst.html  (accessed July 2013).

93. Decker, Bynum, and Weisel, “A Tale of Two Cities.”

94. National Drug Intelligence Center, “National Gang Threat Assessment, 2009.”

95. US Attorney’s Office, District of South Carolina, “Bloods Street Gang Members and Associates Arrested Following the Return of a 134-Count Federal RICO Indictment,” July 11, 2012,  http://www.fbi.gov/columbia/press-releases/2012/bloods-street-gang-members-and-associates-arrested-following-the-return-of-a-134-count-federal-rico-indictment  (accessed June 2013).

96. Abigail Goldman, “What’s in a Name? Police Guard Trove of Gangster Monikers, Often the Only Names by Which Suspects Are Known,” Las Vegas Sun, April 7, 2008,  http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/07/whats-name/  (accessed June 2011).

97. Peter Hermann, “Nicknames among Gang Members Become More Sinister: Criminals Often Don’t Consider How a Nickname Will Sound in a Courtroom,” Baltimore Sun, July 13, 2010,  http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-07-13/news/bs-md-hermann-nicknames-crime-20100713_1_nicknames-gang-members-tattooed  (accessed June 2013).

98. Thomas Winfree Jr., Frances Bernat, and Finn-Aage Esbensen, “Hispanic and Anglo Gang Membership in Two Southwestern Cities,” Social Science Journal 38:105–118 (2001).

99. Arian Campo-Flores, “The Most Dangerous Gang in the United States,” Newsweek, March 28, 2006; Ricardo Pollack, “Gang Life Tempts Salvador Teens,” BBC News,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4201183.stm  (accessed June 2013).

100.  StreetGangs.com , “18th Street Gang in Los Angeles County,”  http://www.streetgangs.com/hispanic/18thstreet  (accessed July 2013).

101. James Diego Vigil and Steve Chong Yun, “Vietnamese Youth Gangs in Southern California,” in C. Ronald Huff, ed., Gangs in America (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990), pp. 146–163.

102. FBI, “National Gang Threat Assessment—Emerging Trends,” 2011,  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment  (accessed June 2013).

103. Anthony Braga, Jack McDevitt, and Glenn Pierce, “Understanding and Preventing Gang Violence: Problem Analysis and Response Development in Lowell, Massachusetts,” Police Quarterly 9:20–46 (2006).

104. Finn-Aage Esbensen, “Race and Gender Differences between Gang and Nongang Youths,” Justice Quarterly 15:505–526 (1998).

105. FBI, “National Gang Threat Assessment—Emerging Trends.”

106. Anti-Defamation League press release (February 7, 2006), “ADL Reports Resurgence of Racist Skinheads in U.S. and Launches New Online Racist Skinhead Project,”  http://www.adl.org/PresRele/NeoSk_82/4860_82.htm  (accessed June 2013).

107. Mark Totten, “Gays in the Gang,” Journal of Gang Research 19:1–24 (2012).

108. National Gang Center, “Are Today’s Youth Gangs Different from Gangs in the Past?”  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ  (accessed June 2013).

109. Darlene Wright and Kevin Fitzpatrick, “Violence and Minority Youth: The Effects of Risk and Asset Factors on Fighting among African American Children and Adolescents,” Adolescence 41:251–262 (2006); Terence Thornberry and James H. Burch, Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997).

110. G. David Curry, Scott Decker, and Arlen Egley Jr., “Gang Involvement and Delinquency in a Middle School Population,” Justice Quarterly 19:275–292 (2002).

111. Uberto Gatti, Richard Tremblay, Frank Vitaro, and Pierre McDuff, “Youth Gangs, Delinquency and Drug Use: A Test of the Selection, Facilitation, and Enhancement Hypotheses,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:1178–1190 (2005).

112. Malcolm Klein, Cheryl Maxson, and Lea Cunningham, “Crack, Street Gangs, and Violence,” Criminology 4:623–650 (1991).

113. Kevin Thompson, David Brownfield, and Ann Marie Sorenson, “Specialization Patterns of Gang and Nongang Offending: A Latent Structure Analysis,” Journal of Gang Research 3:25–35 (1996).

114. Beth Bjerregaard, “Gang Membership and Drug Involvement: Untangling the Complex Relationship,” Crime and Delinquency 56:3–34 (2010).

115. Geoffrey Hunt, Karen Joe Laidler, and Kristy Evans, “The Meaning and Gendered Culture of Getting High: Gang Girls and Drug Use Issues,” Contemporary Drug Problems 29:375 (2002).

116. Sara Battin, Karl Hill, Robert Abbott, Richard Catalano, and J. David Hawkins, “The Contribution of Gang Membership to Delinquency Beyond Delinquent Friends,” Criminology 36:93–116 (1998).

117. National Youth Gang Survey, 2010.

118. Terence P. Thornberry and James H. Burch, Gang Members and Delinquent Behavior; James C. Howell, “Youth Gang Drug Trafficking and Homicide: Policy and Program Implications,” Juvenile Justice Journal 4:3–5 (1997).

119. Terence Thornberry, Marvin Krohn, Alan Lizotte, Carolyn Smith, and Kimberly Tobin, Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003).

120. Chris Melde and Finn-Aage Esbensen, “Gangs and Violence: Disentangling the Impact of Gang Membership on the Level and Nature of Offending,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, first published online January 24, 2012.

121. Michael Vaughn, Matthew Howard, and Lisa Harper-Chang, “Do Prior Trauma and Victimization Predict Weapon Carrying among Delinquent Youth?” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 4:314–327 (2006).

122. Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, and Tobin, Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective.

123. Richard Spano and John Bolland, “Is the Nexus of Gang Membership, Exposure to Violence, and Violent Behavior a Key Determinant of First Time Gun Carrying for Urban Minority Youth?” Justice Quarterly 28:838–862 (2011).

124. National Youth Gang Survey, 2010.

125. James C. Howell, “The Impact of Gangs on Communities,” OJJDP, NYGC Bulletin 2:3 (August 2006).

126. Ibid.

127. James C. Howell, “Youth Gang Drug Trafficking and Homicide: Policy and Program Implications,” Juvenile Justice Journal 4:3–5 (1997).

128. Beth Bjerregaard and Alan Lizotte, “Gun Ownership and Gang Membership,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86:37–53 (1995).

129. Ibid.

130. Pamela Lattimore, Richard Linster, and John MacDonald, “Risk of Death among Serious Young Offenders,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:187–209 (1997).

131. Rachel Gordon, Benjamin Lahey, Eriko Kawai, Rolf Loeber, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, and David Farrington, “Antisocial Behavior and Youth Gang Membership,” Criminology 42:55–88 (2004).

132. Andrew Papachristos, “Murder by Structure: Dominance Relations and the Social Structure of Gang Homicide,” American Journal of Sociology 115:74–128 (2009).

133. Scott Decker, “Collective and Normative Features of Gang Violence,” Justice Quarterly 13:243–264 (1996).

134. Gini Sykes, 8 Ball Chicks: A Year in the Violent World of Girl Gangsters (New York: Doubleday, 1998), pp. 2–11.

135. H. Range Hutson, Deirdre Anglin, and Michael Pratts Jr., “Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los Angeles,” New England Journal of Medicine 330:324–327 (1994); Miller, Violence by Youth Gangs, pp. 2–26.

136. Malcolm Klein, Gang Cop: The Words and Ways of Officer Paco Domingo (Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press, 2004).

137. Ibid., p. 59.

138. Herbert Block and Arthur Niederhoffer, The Gang: A Study in Adolescent Behavior (New York: Philosophical Library, 1958).

139. Ibid., p. 113.

140. Knox et al., Gang Prevention and Intervention, p. 44.

141. James Diego Vigil, “Group Processes and Street Identity: Adolescent Chicano Gang Members,” Ethos 16:421–445 (1988).

142. James Diego Vigil and John Long, “Emic and Etic Perspectives on Gang Culture: The Chicano Case,” in C. Ronald Huff, ed., Gangs in America (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990), p. 66.

143. Albert Cohen, Delinquent Boys (New York: Free Press, 1955), pp. 1–19.

144. Irving Spergel, Racketville, Slumtown, and Haulburg: An Exploratory Study of Delinquent Subcultures (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964).

145. Malcolm Klein, Street Gangs and Street Workers (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1971), pp. 12–15.

146. Vigil, Barrio Gangs.

147. Vigil and Long, “Emic and Etic Perspectives on Gang Culture,” p. 61.

148. David Brownfield, Kevin Thompson, and Ann Marie Sorenson, “Correlates of Gang Membership: A Test of Strain, Social Learning, and Social Control,” Journal of Gang Research 4:11–22 (1997).

149. John Hagedorn, Jose Torres, and Greg Giglio, “Cocaine, Kicks, and Strain: Patterns of Substance Use in Milwaukee Gangs,” Contemporary Drug Problems 25:113–145 (1998).

150. Spergel, The Youth Gang Problem, pp. 4–5.

151. Ibid.

152. Jon Gunnar Bernburg, Marvin Krohn, and Craig Rivera, “Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:67–88 (2006).

153. Yablonsky, The Violent Gang, p. 237.

154. Ibid., pp. 239–241.

155. Klein, The American Street Gang.

156. Thornberry, Krohn, Lizotte, Smith, and Tobin, Gangs and Delinquency in Developmental Perspective.

157. Mercer Sullivan, Getting Paid: Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), pp. 244–245.

158. Finn-Aage Esbensen and David Huizinga, “Gangs, Drugs, and Delinquency in a Survey of Urban Youth,” Criminology 31:565–587 (1993); G. David Curry and Irving Spergel, “Gang Involvement and Delinquency among Hispanic and African American Adolescent Males,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 29:273–291 (1992).

159. Padilla, The Gang as an American Enterprise, p. 103.

160. Kathleen MacKenzie, Geoffrey Hunt, and Karen Joe-Laidler, “Youth Gangs and Drugs: The Case of Marijuana,” Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse 4:99–134 (2005).

161. Terence Thornberry, Marvin Krohn, Alan Lizotte, and Deborah Chard-Wierschem, “The Role of Juvenile Gangs in Facilitating Delinquent Behavior,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:55–87 (1993).

162. Spergel, The Youth Gang Problem, pp. 93–94.

163. Miller, One of the Guys.

164. Ibid., p. 93.

165. L. Thomas Winfree Jr., Teresa Vigil Backstrom, and G. Larry Mays, “Social Learning Theory, Self-Reported Delinquency, and Youth Gangs: A New Twist on a General Theory of Crime and Delinquency,” Youth and Society 26:147–177 (1994).

166. Karen Joe Laidler and Geoffrey Hunt, “Violence and Social Organization in Female Gangs,” Social Justice 24:148–187 (1997).

167. Chanequa Walker-Barnes and Craig A. Mason, “Delinquency and Substance Use among Gang-Involved Youth: The Moderating Role of Parenting Practices,” American Journal of Community Psychology 34:235–250 (2004).

168. Lyddane, “Understanding Gangs and Gang Mentality.”

169. Scott Decker and Janet Lauritsen, “Leaving the Gangs,” in C. Ronald Huff, ed., Gangs in America, 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002), pp. 51–67.

170. David C. Pyrooz, Scott Decker, and Vincent Webb, “The Ties that Bind: Desistance from Gangs,” Crime and Delinquency 56 (2010), published online September 8, 2010.

171. Jodi Lane and James Meeker, “Subcultural Diversity and the Fear of Crime and Gangs,” Crime and Delinquency 46:497–521 (2000).

172. Jim McDougal, “Civil Gang Injunctions,” National Gang Center Newsletter, 2013,  http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Content/Newsletters/NGC-Newsletter-2013-Winter.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

173. Angela K. Brown, “Cities Sue Gangs in Bid to Stop Violence,” USA Today,  http://www.usatoday.com/news/topstories/2007-07-29-3155555107_x.htm  (accessed June 2013).

174. People v. Englebrecht (2001), May 09 CA1/4 D033527.

175. McDougal, “Civil Gang Injunctions.”

176. Cheryl Maxson, Kristy Matsuda, and Karen Hennigan, “‘Deterrability’ among Gang and Nongang Juvenile Offenders: Are Gang Members More (or Less) Deterrable than Other Juvenile Offenders?” Crime and Delinquency 57:516–543 (2011).

177. Mike Tapia, Juvenile Arrest in America: Race, Social Class, and Gang Membership (El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2012).

178. Charles Katz and Vincent J. Webb, Police Response to Gangs: A Multi-Site Study (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, 2004).

179. United States Conference of Mayors, Best Practices of Community Policing in Gang Intervention and Gang Violence Prevention, 2006,  http://www.usmayors.org/bestpractices/community_policing_2006/gangbp_2006.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

180. Barry Krisberg, “Preventing and Controlling Violent Youth Crime: The State of the Art,” in Ira Schwartz, ed., Violent Juvenile Crime (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, n.d.).

181. For a revisionist view of gang delinquency, see Hedy Bookin-Weiner and Ruth Horowitz, “The End of the Youth Gang,” Criminology 21:585–602 (1983).

182. Quint Thurman, Andrew Giacomazzi, Michael Reisig, and David Mueller, “Community-Based Gang Prevention and Intervention: An Evaluation of the Neutral Zone,” Crime and Delinquency 42:279–296 (1996).

183. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Los Angeles County Gang Alternative Prevention Program: Evaluation Report,”  http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=3927  (accessed July 2013).

184. Ellen Thompson, “Intervention Effective to Cut Gang Crime, Study Says,” Stockton Record, July 19, 2007,  http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070719/A_NEWS/707190323/-1/A_COMM01  (accessed June 2013).

185. Best Practices To Address Community Gang Problems: OJJDP’s Comprehensive Gang Model (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Delinquency Prevention, 2010),  http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/231200.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

186. Mark Moore and Mark A. R. Kleiman, The Police and Drugs (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1989), p. 8.

187. Charles Katz and Vincent Webb, Policing Gangs in America (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

188. Michael Tapia, “Gang Membership and Race as Factors for Juvenile Arrest,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48:364–395 (2011).

189. Curry and Spergel, “Gang Involvement and Delinquency among Hispanic and African American Adolescent Males.”

190. Hagedorn, “Gangs, Neighborhoods, and Public Policy.”

191. Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis, Gang Wars: The Failure of Enforcement Tactics and the Need for Effective Public Safety Strategies (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2007),  http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/07-07_EXS_GangWars_GC-PS-AC-JJ.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

10: Schools and Delinquency

Chapter Outline

The School in Modern American Society

· Socialization and Status

· Educational Problems and Issues

· Economic Disadvantage and Educational Achievement

· Dropping Out

Academic Performance and Delinquency

· The Direction of School Failure and Delinquency

· Correlates of School Failure

Delinquency in the School

· Extent of School Crime

· Who Are the Victims of School Crime?

· School Shootings

· School Yard Bullying

· The Causes of School Crime

· Reducing School Crime

The Role of the School in Delinquency Prevention

· School-Based Prevention Programs

Legal Rights in the School

· The Right to Personal Privacy

· Free Speech

· School Prayer

· School Discipline

Learning Objectives

· 1 Discuss the role the educational experience plays in human development over the life course

· 2 Be familiar with the problems facing the educational system in the United States

· 3 Understand the hazards faced by children if they are dropouts

· 4 Express the association between school failure and delinquency

· 5 Examine the personal and social factors that have been related to school failure

· 6 Calculate the extent of school crime

· 7 List the factors that contribute to delinquency in schools

· 8 Evaluate the efforts school systems are making to reduce crime on campus

· 9 Recognize what is being done to improve school climate and increase educational standards

· 10 Analyze the legal rights of students

chapter features

focus on Delinquency: School Discipline, School Opportunities, and Minority Youth

Case profile: Ciara’s Story

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—prevention: Bullying Prevention Programs that Work

Professional spotlight: Kevin Quinn, School Resource Officer

cyber Delinquency: Free Speech on the Net

YOU MAY REMEMBER THE CASE IN 2013 when Chelsea Chaney, a former Georgia high school student, filed a lawsuit claiming that a school administrator, without her knowledge or permission, showed an image of her in a bikini to hundreds of local parents and students at a seminar addressing the danger of social media. The photo was taken on a family vacation when she was 17 years old. It shows her posing next to a cardboard cutout of rapper Snoop Dogg. Chaney had posted the photo on her Facebook page, believing that only Facebook friends would be able to see it. In the seminar at Starr Mill High School, which took place when Chaney was a student at the school and still a minor, the photo was displayed with a caption stating: “Once it’s there, it’s there to stay”; her name was displayed on the photo. Chaney later told the press, “I was embarrassed. I was horrified. It never crossed my mind that it would ever—that this would ever happen to me.” The school official allegedly failed to obtain—or, apparently, even try to obtain—Chaney’s or her parents’ permission. A school official did later apologize, in writing, explaining that the image had been “randomly chosen,” but the apology did not satisfy Chaney or her family. 1  As their attorney told the press, “Their idea that putting something on Facebook gives them a license to steal it and carte blanche to do with it what they did is wrong ethically, it’s wrong morally, and it’s absolutely wrong legally.” By using Chaney’s photo in this way, the lawsuit contends, the school district publicly branded the teenager as a “sexually promiscuous abuser of alcohol (or, in today’s vernacular, an alcoholic slut) who should be more careful about her Internet postings.” 2

The Chelsea Chaney case illustrates some of the many serious social problems facing the educational system. School officials must make daily decisions that balance the need to promote school security and safety with students’ rights to privacy. School officials may go overboard in their desire to create discipline and prevent school crime, something they may not have thought much about when they decided on a career in education! The Chaney case (like the N.N. case featured in  Chapter 5 ) shows that school officials may be at a loss when they try to control students who rely on the Internet to communicate. Overstepping the boundaries can cost them both embarrassment and money and undermine their credibility with students and parents.

These issues take on even greater importance because the school environment has been found to have a significant effect on both a child’s emotional well-being and future achievement. Some research efforts suggest that its effect may be even greater than the home environment. 3  Because so much of an adolescent’s time is spent in school, it would seem logical that some relationship exists between delinquent behavior and what is happening—or not happening—in classrooms. Yet while the school experience is so important, the nation’s educational system has been rocked in recent years with scandals and problems ranging from school shootings to educational failures, from budget cuts to the embarrassing revelation that teachers are having sexual affairs with underage minors and, as a result, being sentenced to long prison terms.

Numerous studies have confirmed that delinquency is related to academic achievement. Experts have concluded that many of the underlying problems of delinquency, as well as their prevention and control, are intimately connected with the nature and quality of the school experience. 4  Although opinions differ, most theorists agree that problems associated with the educational system bear some responsibility for the relatively high rate of juvenile crime.

In this chapter, we first explore how educational achievement and delinquency are related and what factors in the school experience appear to contribute to delinquent behavior. Next, we turn to delinquency in the school setting—vandalism, theft, violence, and so on. Finally, we look at the attempts made by schools to prevent delinquency.

The School in Modern American Society

The school plays a significant role in shaping the values of children. In contrast to earlier periods, when formal education was a privilege of the upper classes, the US system of compulsory public education has made schooling a legal obligation. Today, more than 90 percent of school-age children attend school, compared with only 7 percent in 1890.

In contrast to the earlier, agrarian days of US history, when most adolescents shared in the work of the family, today’s young people spend most of their time in school. The school has become the primary instrument of socialization, the “basic conduit through which the community and adult influences enter into the lives of adolescents.” 5

The US Department of Education ( http://www.ed.gov/ ) seeks to ensure equal access to education and promote educational excellence for all Americans. For more information about this topic, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Because young people spend a longer time in school, their adolescence is prolonged. As long as students are still dependent on their families and have not entered the work world, they are not considered adults. The responsibilities of adulthood come later to modern-day youths than to those in earlier generations, and some experts see this prolonged childhood as one factor contributing to the irresponsible and often irrational behavior of many juveniles who commit delinquent acts.

Socialization and Status

Another significant aspect of the educational experience is that children spend their school hours with their peers, and most of their activities after school take place with school friends. Young people rely increasingly on school friends and become less interested in adult role models. The norms of the peer culture are often at odds with those of adult society, and a pseudoculture with a distinct social system develops. Law-abiding behavior may not be among the values promoted in such an atmosphere. Kids enmeshed in this youth culture may admire bravery, defiance, and having fun much more than adults do.

The school has become a primary determinant of economic and social status. In this technological age, education is the key to a job that will mark its holder as “successful.” No longer can parents ensure the status of their children through social class alone. Educational achievement has become of equal, if not greater, importance as a determinant of economic success. This emphasis on the value of education is fostered by parents, the media, and the schools themselves. Regardless of their social or economic background, most children grow up believing education is the key to success. However, many youths do not meet acceptable standards of school achievement. Whether failure is measured by test scores, not being promoted, or dropping out, the incidence of school failure continues to be a major problem for US society.

The school itself has become an engine of social change and improvement. School desegregation efforts have heralded a new age of improved race relations, which in the long run may help reduce crime rates. African American youth educated in states where a higher proportion of their classmates are white experience significantly lower incarceration rates later as adults. The constructive effects of racial inclusiveness in the school setting have grown stronger over time, highlighting the need for further educational integration. 6

Educational Problems and Issues

A little more than a year ago, America woke up to some sobering educational news. It seems that for the first time, China participated in international standardized testing curriculum known as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a Paris-based group that includes the world’s major industrial powers.

More than 5,000 15-year-old students in Shanghai took the PISA tests in math, reading, and science. The results were most startling: The Chinese students outscored their counterparts in dozens of other countries, including the United States. Nor were the test takers handpicked from the city’s elite students to make China look good around the globe; they were in fact a representative cross-section of typical Shanghai students. 7

More troubling was the fact that the United States came in 23rd or 24th in most subjects. PISA scores are on a scale, with 500 as the average. Two-thirds of students in participating countries scored between 400 and 600. On the math test, students in Shanghai scored 600, in Singapore 562, in Germany 513, and in the United States 487. In reading, Shanghai students scored 556, Korea came in second with 539; the United States scored 500 and came in 17th. In science, Shanghai students scored 575, ahead of Finland (554); the United States scored 502—in 23rd place—about equal to Poland.

The results appeared to reflect the Chinese reverence for education. It is a culture that emphasizes teacher training and more time spent on studying than on extracurricular activities like sports. Chinese students spend less time than American students on athletics, music, and other activities not geared toward success in academic core subjects. Also, in recent years, teaching has become a valued occupation in China, and salaries have risen accordingly. In Shanghai, the authorities have undertaken important curricular reforms, and educators have been given more freedom to experiment. In contrast, budget cutbacks in the United States have resulted in teacher layoffs and reductions in special programs. It is difficult to convince students of the value of education when they see a ballplayer sign a $25 million annual contract, while teachers making $25,000 are considered “greedy” if they ask for a modest raise. 8

Despite the fact that the United States lags behind other nations, there has in fact been some improvement in reading, math, and science achievement during the past decade. For example, as  Figure 10.1  shows, today significantly more fourth-graders are considered proficient at math than they were in 1990, and the trend has been toward constant improvement. 9

figure 10.1: Trends in Math Achievement among Fourth-Graders

SOURCE: National Assessment of Educational Progress, National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education,  http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2011/summary.asp  (accessed June 2013).

While these findings are encouraging, some significant problems still remain; reading scores have not had a significant improvement during this time, and racial and ethnic differences in reading and math achievement have proven difficult to erase. 10

Economic Disadvantage and Educational Achievement

Not all American students fall that far behind international students. It is a sad fact that economically disadvantaged children enter school lagging behind their more advantaged peers in terms of the knowledge and social competencies that are widely recognized as enabling children to perform at even the most basic level. 11  They face substantial gaps in measures of reading and mathematics proficiency, in prosocial behaviors and behavior problems, and in readiness to learn. Many children are not familiar with basic rules of print or writing (e.g., knowing that English is read from left to right and top to bottom, or where a story ends); about one-third of children whose mothers have less than a high school education suffer educational deficiencies compared to only 8 percent for children whose mothers have a college degree or higher. Many children from disadvantaged backgrounds fail to meet grade-level expectations on core subjects. As a consequence they face higher rates of special education placement and grade repetition. 12

Minority Students

While minority students have made gains on many educational indicators over the past few decades, they still face greater obstacles than European American students. New data from a national survey of more than 72,000 schools, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), cover a range of issues, including college and career readiness, discipline, school finance, and student retention. The most recent found these disparities:

·  Students learning English (ELL) were 6 percent of the CRDC high school enrollment, but made up 12 percent of students retained in a grade.

·  Only 29 percent of high-minority high schools offered calculus, compared to 55 percent of schools with the lowest black and Hispanic enrollment.

·  Teachers in high-minority schools were paid $2,251 less per year than their colleagues teaching in low-minority schools in the same district. 13

·  Though black and Hispanic students made up 44 percent of the students in the survey, they were only 26 percent of the students in gifted and talented programs.

·  The data also showed that schools with a lot of black and Hispanic students were likely to have relatively inexperienced and low-paid teachers. On average, teachers in high-minority schools were paid less per year than their colleagues elsewhere.

One reason that minority students lag in educational achievement is that they are more likely to face student disciplinary actions than European Americans, a fact that is linked to multiple social problems, including dropping out and delinquency, and which may be responsible for what is known as the “school to jail link.” 14  The Focus on Delinquency feature addresses this problem in some detail.

FOCUS on delinquency: School Discipline, School Opportunities, and Minority Youth

In March 2012, the US Department of Education released a report containing data from a national survey of more than 72,000 schools serving 85 percent of the nation’s students in public schools, showing that minority students, especially boys, face much harsher discipline in public schools than other students. One in five African American boys and more than one in ten African American girls received an out-of-school suspension, and in sum, black students were three and a half times as likely to be suspended or expelled as white students. African American students, particularly males, are far more likely to be suspended or expelled from school than their peers. Black students make up 18 percent of the students in the sample, but 35 percent of the students suspended once, and 39 percent of the students expelled; over 70 percent of the students involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement were Hispanic or black. Black and Hispanic students—particularly those with disabilities—are also disproportionately subject to seclusion or restraints. Students with disabilities make up 12 percent of the student body, but 70 percent of those subject to physical restraints. Black students with disabilities constituted 21 percent of the total, but 44 percent of those with disabilities subject to mechanical restraints, like being strapped down. And while Hispanics made up 21 percent of the students without disabilities, they accounted for 42 percent of those without disabilities who were placed in seclusion. Many of the nation’s largest districts had very different disciplinary rates for students of different races. In Los Angeles, for example, black students made up 9 percent of those enrolled, but 26 percent of those suspended; in Chicago, they made up 45 percent of the students, but 76 percent of the suspensions.

Any form of institutional racial disparity is intolerable in contemporary society, and the fact that the differences uncovered by the US Department of Education still exist illustrates one of the most significant problems facing the American school system.

CRITICAL THINKING

Considering the disproportionate application of disciplinary actions, would you advocate the use of peer review process in schools, allowing students to participate in the decision-making process? If not, why not?

SOURCE: Department of Education, “New Data from US Department of Education Highlights Educational Inequities Around Teacher Experience, Discipline and High School Rigor,” March 6, 2012,  http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-data-us-department-education-highlights-educational-inequities-around-teache  (accessed June 2013).

Dropping Out

Every day, hundreds of thousands of youths are absent from school; many are absent without an excuse and deemed  truant . Some large cities report that unexcused absences can number in the thousands on certain days. Truancy can lead to school failure and  dropping out .

truant

Being out of school without permission.

dropping out

Leaving school before completing the required program of education.

Dropping out of high school has severe long-term financial and personal consequences. Dropouts are less likely to find jobs than their better educated peers, and they frequently experience considerably higher unemployment rates. 15

Dropouts also face personal problems. They report being in worse health than adults who completed high school. Dropouts make up disproportionately higher percentages of the nation’s prison and death row inmates. Among dropouts between the ages of 16 and 24, incarceration rates are 63 times higher than among college graduates. While there is no direct link between prison and the decision to leave high school early, dropouts are exposed to many of the same socioeconomic forces that are often linked to crime. 16  High school dropouts cost the economy hundreds of thousands of dollars over their lifetime in terms of lower tax contributions, higher reliance on Medicaid and Medicare, higher rates of criminal activity, and higher reliance on welfare. 17

In a few high schools—so-called  dropout factories —mostly in inner-city neighborhoods, the high school completion rate is 40 percent or less. There are still more than 1,700 of these failing schools in the United States. While they represent a small fraction of all public high schools in America, they account for about half of all high school dropouts each year.

dropout factory

High schools in which the number of seniors is 60 percent (or less) of the number of ninth-graders.

Despite national concern, the dropout rate remains stubbornly high, and improvements have been slow in coming. 18  Yet there are success stories: The number of “dropout factory” high schools has actually fallen in some cities such as Chicago and New York during the past decade. 19  There has also been a decline in the  status dropout rate , which is the percentage of an age group that is not enrolled in school and has not earned a high school credential (diploma or equivalent, such as a GED certificate). According to this measure, slightly less than 10 percent of 16- to 24-year-olds were out of school without a high school credential, a significant decline from the 15 percent who did not complete high school 40 years ago. Since 1972, status dropout rates for white, black, and Hispanic young adults have declined, with rates remaining lowest for whites and highest for Hispanics.

status dropout rate

The percentage of an age group that is not enrolled in school and has not earned a high school diploma or equivalent.

Why Do Kids Drop Out?

When surveyed, most dropouts say they left either because they did not like school or because they wanted to get a job. Kids who grow up fast, are involved in drug abuse or other risky behaviors, may drop out of school in order to pursue an adult lifestyle. 20  Other risk factors include low academic achievement, poor problem-solving ability, low self-esteem, difficulty getting along with teachers, dissatisfaction with school, and being too old for their grade level. 21  Some dropouts could not get along with teachers, had been expelled, or were under suspension. Almost half of all female dropouts left school because they were pregnant or had already given birth.

Poverty and family dysfunction increase the chances of dropping out among all racial and ethnic groups. Dropouts are more likely than graduates to have lived in single-parent families headed by parents who were educational underachievers themselves. Wealthier kids residing with high-income parents have a much greater chance of completing high school than their indigent peers. Each year, students living in low-income families are more than four times more likely to drop out than their peers from high-income families.

Some youths have no choice but to drop out. They are pushed out of school because they lack attention or have poor attendance records. Teachers label them “troublemakers,” and school administrators use suspensions, transfers, and other means to “convince” them that leaving school is their only option. Because minority students often come from circumstances that interfere with their attendance, they are more likely to be labeled “disobedient.” Race-based disciplinary practices may help sustain high minority dropout rates. Although the African American dropout rate has declined faster than the white dropout rate over the past three decades, minority students still drop out at a higher rate than white students. 22

In his thoughtful book Creating the Dropout, Sherman Dorn shows that graduation rates slowly but steadily rose during the twentieth century while regional, racial, and ethnic differences in graduation rates declined. 23  Nonetheless, Dorn argues that the relatively high dropout rate among minorities is the legacy of disciplinary policies instituted more than 40 years ago when educational administrators opposed to school desegregation employed a policy of race-based suspension and expulsion directed at convincing minority students to leave previously all-white high school districts. This legacy still affects contemporary school districts. Dorn believes that the dropout problem is a function of inequality of educational opportunity rather than the failure of individual students. The proportion of blacks who fail to graduate from high school remains high compared with the proportion of whites who fail to graduate because the educational system still fails to provide minority group members with the services and support they need.

Do Dropouts Commit More Crime after Leaving School?

Conventional wisdom is that dropouts commit a lot of crime and that dropping out causes kids to enter a delinquent way of life. After all, dropouts also make up disproportionately higher percentages of the nation’s prison and death row inmates. Despite such notions, existing research on the effects of dropping out is a mixed bag. While some research findings indicate that dropping out of school enhances the likelihood that kids will get involved in delinquency, other efforts have not uncovered a dropout effect. 24

There has been a national effort to reduce the dropout rate, a mission that takes on even greater importance considering the strides made by other nations, such as China. Jennifer Bucci, one of the Get On Track program’s class of 2010 GED graduates, reads her program with fellow students before the commencement ceremony on October 21, 2010, at the John Hay Campus in Cleveland. The Get On Track program was started by the Cleveland Municipal Court and brings social services together to help high school dropouts get their degrees.

It is possible that the reasons kids drop out influence the subsequent behavior. Those who drop out for economic or social reasons (e.g., they have a child) may be less likely to commit crimes than those who drop out because of behavioral problems. It’s possible that the social problems that cause dropping out also produce antisocial activity. Gary Sweeten and his associates found that kids who do leave school early tend to have a long history of academic failure and antisocial behaviors. Sweeten finds that the lifelong social problems that lead to dropping out also explain involvement in criminal activity after a student leaves school. 25

Of course, not all kids drop out, and some defy the odds and stay in school, as attested to by the Case Profile “Ciara’s Story.”

Academic Performance and Delinquency

Whether they drop out or not, kids who do poorly in school are at risk for delinquent behavior; students who are chronic underachievers in school are among the most likely to be delinquent. In fact, researchers find that school failure is a stronger predictor of delinquency than variables such as economic class membership, racial or ethnic background, or peer-group relations. Studies that compare the academic records of delinquents and nondelinquents—including their scores on standardized tests, failure rate, and other academic measures—have found that delinquents are often academically deficient, a condition that may lead to their leaving school and becoming involved in antisocial activities. 26  Children who report that they do not like school and do not do well in school are most likely to self-report delinquent acts. 27  In contrast, at-risk youths, even those with a history of abuse and mistreatment, who do well in school are often able to avoid delinquent involvement. 28

An association between academic failure and delinquency is commonly found among chronic offenders. Those leaving school without a diploma were more likely to become involved in chronic delinquency than were high school graduates. 29  Only 9 percent of the chronic offenders in Marvin Wolfgang’s Philadelphia Delinquency in a Birth Cohort study graduated from high school, compared with 74 percent of nonoffenders. 30  Chronic offenders also had more disciplinary actions than nonoffenders. 31

case profile: Ciara’s Story

CIARA lives in the East Harlem borough of New York City with her mother and three siblings. Her father is not involved with the family, so they struggle to make ends meet and rely on Ciara’s grandmother to provide much of the children’s care. From an early age Ciara had problems in school, both behaviorally and academically. Significantly behind her grade level in reading, regularly challenging her teachers and other adults, and being disruptive in class, Ciara was at great risk for dropping out of school and becoming involved in further delinquent behavior. The group of older troubled teens whom she considered to be her only friends set poor examples for behavior, causing more problems for Ciara. The one area where she seemed confident and happy was on the basketball court, where Ciara exhibited talent and a love for the game.

When her school started a mandatory after-school program, Ciara began attending Drum Power, a youth leadership program that provides young people with an opportunity to learn the techniques and cultural/historical significance of West African traditional, Afro-Cuban, and Afro-Brazilian drumming. The goal of the program is to build self-esteem and self-confidence through discovering the rewards of discipline, teamwork, creativity, responsibility, and self-respect. Being of African descent, Ciara was drawn to both the power of drums and the rhythms of African drumming. The process of learning traditional hand drumming requires discipline, commitment, and practice, and students learn that they can achieve their goals by employing their own positive energy and self-determination.

Ciara thrived in the program. Although she still posed many challenges to school staff and was at risk due to her living and community environment, she showed great interest, motivation, and success in the Drum Power program. She loved the drums and music, and she connected with her youth counselors running the program. Because Drum Power was based at the school, the program counselors could communicate on a daily basis with Ciara’s teachers and the school staff regarding her progress, and they were able to discuss any ongoing concerns. This provided immediate resolution when there were problems and ongoing accountability for Ciara. The program counselors also remained in close contact with her mother.

Participating in Drum Power for several years allowed Ciara to establish excellent relationships with her program counselors, who in turn provided great encouragement to Ciara, having a positive impact on her decisions and choices. Drumming was good for Ciara, and her interest in African music grew, but it was her relationships with the program counselors that made the most difference for her. She started to understand how her behavior and bad choices were affecting her life. Ciara learned the importance of self-control and setting priorities for herself daily. Seeing what a difference these things made for her, she could also begin to have a more positive vision for her life. Ciara’s mother became more involved with school and also became involved with the Drum Power professionals when requested. The support of the professionals at school and at the Drum Power program was helpful to Ciara’s mother, who had been struggling with her own set of issues, and now she was better able to encourage her daughter to be successful.

CRITICAL THINKING

Ciara eventually graduated from the program. She continued with her education and hopes to attend college upon graduation from high school. She stayed out of the juvenile justice system and was able to make significant changes in her life with the support of the counselors at Drum Power. Does this prove that the program is successful? Can you give other explanations for Ciara’s improved condition?

The relationship between school achievement and persistent offending is supported by surveys that indicate that less than 40 percent of incarcerated felons had 12 or more years of education, compared with about 80 percent of the general population. 32  In sum, the school experience can be a significant factor in shaping the direction of an adolescent’s life course.

The Direction of School Failure and Delinquency

Although there is general agreement that school failure and delinquency are related, some questions remain concerning the nature and direction of this relationship. There are actually three independent views on the association:

·  School failure is a direct cause of delinquent behavior. Children who fail at school soon feel frustrated and rejected. Believing they will never achieve success through conventional means, they seek like-minded companions and together engage in antisocial behaviors. Educational failure evokes negative responses from important people in the child’s life, including teachers, parents, and prospective employers. These reactions help solidify feelings of inadequacy and, in some cases, lead to a pattern of chronic delinquency.

·  School failure leads to emotional and psychological problems that are the actual cause of antisocial behavior. Academic failure reduces self-esteem, and reduced self-esteem is the actual cause of delinquency. Studies using a variety of measures of academic competence and self-esteem demonstrate that good students have a better attitude about themselves than poor students; low self-esteem has been found to contribute to delinquent behavior. 33  The association then runs from school failure to low self-concept to delinquency. Schools may mediate these effects by taking steps to improve the self-image of academically challenged children.

·  School failure and delinquency share a common cause. Both are caused by another outside condition, such as living in a poverty area or being socialized in a troubled family environment.

Correlates of School Failure

Despite disagreement over the direction the relationship takes, there is little argument that delinquent behavior is influenced by educational experiences. A number of factors have been linked to school failure; the most prominent are discussed in the next sections.

Personal Problems

Some kids have personal problems that they bring with them to school. Because of their deprived background and ragged socialization, some kids lack the verbal skills that are a prerequisite of educational success. 34  Others live in a dysfunctional family; a turbulent family life has been linked to academic underachievement.

Still others suffer psychological abnormality. The adolescent who both fails at school and engages in delinquency may be experiencing depression and other mental deficits that are associated both with their school failure and involvement in antisocial activities. 35  Personality structure may also be a key factor. Kids who have low self-control are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior and fail in school. An impulsive personality can cause both school failure and delinquency. 36

School failure may also be linked to learning disabilities or reading disabilities that might actually be treatable if the proper resources were available. 37

Social Class

During the 1950s, research by Albert Cohen indicated that delinquency was a phenomenon of working-class students who were poorly equipped to function in middle-class schools. Cohen referred to this phenomenon as a failure to live up to “middle-class measuring rods.” 38  Jackson Toby reinforced this concept, contending that the disadvantages lower-class children have in school (e.g., lack of verbal skills) are a result of their position in the social structure and that these disadvantages foster delinquency. 39  These views have been supported by the higher-than-average dropout rates among lower-class children.

To get more educational data, go to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) website ( http://nces.ed.gov/ ) or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

One reason why lower-class children may do poorly in school is that economic problems require them to take part-time jobs. Working while in school seems to lower commitment to educational achievement and is associated with higher levels of delinquent behavior. 40

A young student visits the library with his class during the school day at Polaris High School in Orem, Utah. Polaris is an innovative new high school seeing early success with students most at risk of failing to graduate in the Alpine School District. Polaris was created after school officials tried to find a better way to help students who have fallen behind in earning credits, whether because of pregnancy, family trouble, legal problems, health issues, or drug abuse.

Tracking

Most researchers have looked at academic  tracking —dividing students into groups according to ability and achievement level—as a contributor to school failure. Placement in a non-college track means consignment to educational oblivion without apparent purpose. Studies indicate that non-college–track students experience greater academic failure and progressive deterioration of achievement, participate less in extracurricular activities, have an increased tendency to drop out, and commit more delinquent acts.

tracking

Dividing students into groups according to their ability and achievement levels.

Some school officials begin tracking students in the lowest grade levels. Educators separate youths into groups that have innocuous names (“special enrichment program”), but may carry the taint of academic incompetence. High school students may be tracked within individual subjects based on ability. Classes may be labeled in descending order: advanced placement, academically enriched, average, basic, and remedial. It is common for students to have all their courses in only one or two tracks. 41

The effects of school labels accumulate over time. If students fail academically, they are often destined to fail again. Repeated instances of failure can help produce the career of the “misfit” or “dropout.” Using a tracking system keeps certain students from having any hope of achieving academic success, thereby causing lack of motivation, which may foster delinquent behavior.

Alienation

Student alienation has also been identified as a link between school failure and delinquency (see  Exhibit 10.1 ). Students who report they neither like school nor care about their teachers’ opinions are more likely to exhibit delinquent behaviors. 42  Alienation may be a function of students’ inability to see the relevance of what they are taught. The gap between their education and the real world leads some students to feel that the school experience is a waste of time. 43

exhibit 10.1: Sources of Student Alienation

·   School size. Schools are getting larger because smaller school districts have been consolidated into multi-jurisdictional district schools. In 1900, there were 150,000 school districts; today there are approximately 16,000. Larger schools are often impersonal, and relatively few students can find avenues for meaningful participation. Teachers and other school personnel do not have the opportunity to deal with early indications of academic or behavior problems and thus act to prevent delinquency.

·   Irrelevant curriculum. Some students may be unable to see the relevance or significance of what they are taught in school. The gap between their education and the real world leads them to feel that the school experience is little more than a waste of time.

·   Lack of payoff. Many students, particularly those from low-income families, believe that school has no payoff in terms of their future. Because the legitimate channel of education appears to be meaningless, illegitimate alternatives become increasingly more attractive for students who did not plan to attend college or to use their high school educations directly in their careers.

·   Middle- and upper-class bias. The preeminent role of the college preparatory curriculum and the second-class position of vocational and technical programs in many school systems alienate some lower-class students. Furthermore, methods of instruction as well as curriculum materials reflect middle-class mores, language, and customs and have little meaning for the disadvantaged child.

Many students, particularly those from low-income families, believe schooling has no payoff. Because this legitimate channel appears to be meaningless, delinquent acts become increasingly more attractive. This middle- and upper-class bias is evident in the preeminent role of the college preparatory curriculum in many school systems. Furthermore, both methods of instruction and curriculum materials reflect middle-class language and customs that have little meaning for the disadvantaged child.

In contrast, kids who form a bond to school also find that this commitment helps them resist delinquency-producing factors in the environment (e.g., antisocial peers). 44  Youths who report liking school and being involved in school activities are also less likely to engage in delinquent behaviors. 45  Involvement is especially beneficial in schools where students are treated fairly and where rules are laid out clearly. 46  Schools might lower delinquency rates if they can develop programs that counteract student alienation.

Delinquency in the School

In a pioneering study of school crime, Violent Schools–Safe Schools (published in 1977), 47  the federal government found that although teenagers spend only 25 percent of their time in school, 40 percent of the robberies and 36 percent of the physical attacks involving this age group occur there.

Since the Safe Schools study was published, crime has continued to be a significant problem in the nation’s schools. 48  Research still shows that a significant portion of all juvenile crime and victimization occurs during the school day. One recent effort by David Soule and his colleagues found that juvenile victimization and delinquency peak during school hours, while substance use peaks over the weekend. Though the most serious violent offenses do occur after school, the crimes that kids are most likely to get involved in, such as simple assault offenses, take place at school. 49

Extent of School Crime

The latest data (2011) from the National Center for Educational Statistics ( Figure 10.2 ) found that there were more than 1.2 million victimizations at school during the current year, including 648,600 thefts and 597,500 violent victimizations. The number of school crimes increased significantly from the prior year. The total crime victimization rate of students ages 12 to 18 at school increased from 35 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2010 to 49 victimizations per 1,000 students in 2011. Despite this recent uptick, as  Figure 10.2  shows, the rate of school crime on and off campus is far lower today than 20 years ago. 50

figure 10.2: Rate of Total Nonfatal Victimizations Against Students Ages 12–18 per 1,000 Students, by Type of Victimization and Location

SOURCE: National Center for Educational Statistics, “Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012,”  http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2012/figures/figure_02_1.asp  (accessed July 2013).

Teacher Attacks

Students are not the only victims of intimidation or violence in schools. Teachers are also subject to threats and physical attacks from students and school intruders. Surveys indicate that about 7 percent of teachers have been the victim of crimes. However, like student victimization, teachers are much less likely to be attacked today than a decade ago. A school’s location and makeup have a significant impact on the likelihood of teacher injury. Teachers in public schools in large cities are most at risk; those teaching in private schools in rural areas the least; male teachers are attacked more often than female teachers.

Who Are the Victims of School Crime?

School crime is not a random event, and some kids are targeted because of their personal status and behavior. Recent research by Marie Skubak Tillyer and her associates found that kids who take risks themselves may be the most likely target. Those who self-report criminal behavior and associate with delinquent peers are more likely to become victims in contrast to kids who are attached to school and peers, which seem to be protective factors against violent victimization at school. Tillyer’s findings suggest that risky behaviors do in fact increase students’ exposure to motivated offenders and heighten the likelihood of violent victimization. In addition, impulsivity significantly increases the risk of violent victimization; impulsive kids who lack self-control are the ones most often targeted by school crime. Kids with low self-control may be viewed by offenders as antagonistic or particularly suitable targets because of their impulsive behaviors. 51

The Tillyer research also found that involvement in after-school activities may increase victimization risk, a finding that challenges the commonly held belief that participation in after-school activities such as sports actually helps reduce delinquency in school. 52  Tillyer’s finding is supported by research conducted by Anthony Peguero, Ann Marie Popp, and Dixie Koo, who found students involved in academic extracurricular activities are more likely to be selected as suitable targets for violent victimization, because they are viewed as weak and vulnerable to victimization by motivated offenders. These students were targeted because they wanted to be upwardly mobile, something that was offensive to their less academically gifted attackers. 53

Tammy Aaberg said that after her son Justin hanged himself at age 15, she learned he had been bullied by other students. To stop bullying, some students have gone as far as filing lawsuits against school districts alleging that school administrators failed to provide adequate protection for gay and lesbian students.

School Shootings

Highly publicized incidents of fatal school shootings such as the Newtown, Connecticut, massacre have helped focus attention on school crime and violence. Upward of 10 percent of students report bringing weapons to school on a regular basis, and, knowing this, many of their peers report being afraid of school-based gun violence. 54

Who brings guns to schools? Many of these kids have a history of being abused and bullied; many perceive a lack of support from peers, parents, and teachers. 55  Kids who have been the victims of crime themselves and who hang with peers who carry weapons are the ones most likely to bring guns to school. 56  A troubled kid who has little social support but carries deadly weapons makes for an explosive situation.

Nature and Extent of Shootings

Social scientists are now conducting studies of these events in order to determine their trends and patterns. Research shows that most shooting incidents occur around the start of the school day, the lunch period, or the end of the school day. Commonly, a note, threat, or other action indicating risk for violence occurred prior to the event. Shooters were also likely to have expressed some form of suicidal behavior prior to the event and to report having been bullied by their peers. 57

Who Is the School Shooter?

The US Secret Service and the FBI have both developed a profile of school shootings and shooters. 58  Taken together, they found that most attacks were neither spontaneous nor impulsive. Shooters typically developed a plan of attack well in advance; more than half had considered the attack for at least two weeks and had a plan for at least two days.

Most school shooters (like Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter) acquired the weapon from their own home or from a relative. Despite feelings of persecution, many school shooters were honor roll students from good communities and affluent two-parent homes and had not had serious problems at school. Shooters are almost exclusively male and most are white.

Like Adam Lanza, the school shooters’ mental anguish was well known before the attack, and these kids had come to the attention of someone (school officials, police, fellow students) because of their bizarre and disturbing behavior before the attack took place. One student told more than 20 friends beforehand about his plans, which included killing students and planting bombs. Threats were communicated in more than three-fourths of the cases, and in more than half the incidents the attacker told more than one person. Some people knew detailed information, while others knew “something spectacular” was going to happen on a particular date. In less than one-fourth of the cases did the attacker make a direct threat to the target.

Shooters came from such a wide variety of backgrounds that no accurate or useful profile of at-risk kids could be developed. Some lived in intact families with strong ties to the community, while others were reared in foster homes with histories of neglect. Some had many friends and were considered popular. Drugs and alcohol seemed to have little involvement in school violence.

Many of the shooters had a history of feeling extremely depressed or desperate because they had been picked on or bullied. About three-fourths either threatened to kill themselves, made suicidal gestures, or tried to kill themselves before the attack; six of the students studied killed themselves during the incident. The most frequent motivation was revenge. More than three-fourths were known to hold a grievance, real or imagined, against the target or others. In most cases, this was the first violent act against the target. Two-thirds of the attackers described feeling persecuted, and in more than three-fourths of the incidents the attackers had difficulty coping with a major change in a significant relationship or a loss of status, such as a lost love or a humiliating failure. Not surprisingly, most shooters had experience with guns and weapons and had access to them at home.  Exhibit 10.2  describes some of the most important factors linked to extreme incidents of school violence.

School shootings have become a routine event on many school grounds. Here, two students watch police investigate a shooting at Martin Luther King Jr. High School in New York City. The incident involved a teenager who opened fire, seriously wounding two students.

exhibit 10.2: Factors Linked to School Violence

·   Social withdrawal. In some situations, gradual and eventually complete withdrawal from social contacts occurs. The withdrawal often stems from feelings of depression, rejection, persecution, unworthiness, and lack of confidence.

·   Excessive feelings of isolation and being alone. Research indicates that in some cases feelings of isolation and not having friends are associated with children who behave aggressively and violently.

·   Excessive feelings of rejection. Children who are troubled often are isolated from their mentally healthy peers. Some aggressive children who are rejected by nonaggressive peers seek aggressive friends who, in turn, reinforce their violent tendencies.

·   Being a victim of violence. Children who are victims of violence, including physical or sexual abuse in the community, at school, or at home, are sometimes at risk of becoming violent toward themselves or others.

·   Feelings of being picked on and persecuted. The youth who feels constantly picked on, teased, bullied, singled out for ridicule, and humiliated at home or at school may initially withdraw socially.

·   Low school interest and poor academic performance. In some situations—such as when the low achiever feels frustrated, unworthy, chastised, and denigrated—acting out and aggressive behaviors may occur.

·   Video games.  The diaries of the Columbine shooters, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, suggest addictive behavior with first-person-shooter video games. Although the level of their influence is controversial, violent video games can have a detrimental impact on vulnerable adolescents. While this does not mean that playing such games leads to homicidal acts, doing so can serve as a facilitator for impressionable adolescents who may not see any other outlet for their psychological pain.

·   Expression of violence in writings and drawings. An overrepresentation of violence in writings and drawings that is consistently directed at specific individuals (family members, peers, other adults) over time may signal emotional problems and the potential for violence.

·   Uncontrolled anger. Patterns of impulsive and chronic hitting, intimidating, and bullying behaviors, if left unattended, may later escalate into more serious behaviors.

·   History of discipline problems. Chronic behavior and disciplinary problems, both in school and at home, may suggest that underlying emotional needs are not being met.

·   History of violent and aggressive behavior. Unless provided with support and counseling, a youth who has a history of aggressive or violent behavior is likely to repeat those behaviors. Similarly, youths who engage in overt behaviors such as bullying, generalized aggression, and defiance, and covert behaviors such as stealing, vandalism, lying, cheating, and fire setting also are at risk for more serious aggressive behavior.

·   Membership in hate groups. Belonging to a hate group and also the willingness to victimize individuals with disabilities or health problems are seen as precursors to violence.

·   Drug use and alcohol use. Apart from being unhealthy behaviors, drug use and alcohol use reduce self-control and expose children and youth to violence, either as perpetrators or victims or both.

·   Inappropriate access to, possession of, and use of firearms. Children and youth who inappropriately possess or have access to firearms can have an increased risk for violence or other emotional problems.

·   Serious threats of violence. Recent incidents across the country clearly indicate that threats to commit violence against oneself or others should be taken very seriously. Steps must be taken to understand the nature of these threats and to prevent them from being carried out.

SOURCES: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Understanding School Violence, 2013,”  http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/school_violence_fact_sheet-a.pdf  (accessed June 2013); Brandi Booth, Vincent B. Van Hasselt, and Gregory M. Vecchi, “Addressing School Violence,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 2011,  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/may_2011/school_violence  (accessed June 2013).

School Yard Bullying

The profile of the school shooter focused attention on school yard bullying because in many cases feelings of persecution and harassment is what set the shooter on his deadly rampage. Experts define  bullying  among children as repeated, negative acts committed by one or more children against another. These negative acts may be physical or verbal in nature—for example, hitting or kicking, teasing, or taunting—or they may involve indirect actions such as manipulating friendships or purposely excluding other children from activities. Implicit in this definition is an imbalance in real or perceived power between the bully and victim. 59

bullying

Repeated, negative acts committed by one or more children against another; the acts may be physical or verbal.

National data indicate that in a single year about one-quarter of all public schools report that bullying occurred among students on a daily or weekly basis, and almost 10 percent reported widespread disorder in classrooms on a daily or weekly basis. Six percent of students ages 12 to 18 report being cyberbullied, and about 3 percent reported being subject to harassing text messages; girls are twice as likely to be subject to harassing text messages as boys. It may come as no surprise that 30 to 50 percent of gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people, a group not known for violent retaliation, experience harassment in an educational setting. 60

Studies of bullying suggest that there are short- and long-term consequences for both the perpetrators and the victims of bullying. 61  Students who are chronic victims of bullying experience more physical and psychological problems than their peers who are not harassed by other children, and they tend not to grow out of the role of victim. Young people mistreated by peers may not want to be in school and may thereby miss out on the benefits of educational advancement and the social benefits of being connected to the school environment. On a more serious note, there is evidence linking bullying to suicide. 62

Bullying is rarely a one-shot deal. Longitudinal studies have found that victims of bullying in early grades also reported being bullied several years later. Studies also suggest that chronically victimized students may, as adults, be at increased risk for depression, poor self-esteem, and other mental health problems, including schizophrenia. 63

Who Become Bullies?

There are a number of views on this issue. Many bullies were victims themselves. Being bullied in early childhood is a critical risk factor in the development of future problems. Using data collected from a sample of 4,400 6th-grade through 12th-grade students from 33 schools, Sameer Hinduja and Justin Patchin found that bullies were influenced by their perceptions of peer behavior and adult supervision; bullies believe that their friends approve and engage in bullying themselves. At the same time, bullies did not believe that adults would punish them for their aggressive behavior. 64  This research indicates that bullying might be prevented if adults were willing to take a strong stand against the perpetrators rather than say things like “boys will be boys,” or “let them work it out among themselves.”

According to a recent book by sociologist Jessie Klein, boys who bully are motivated by a need to prove their masculinity. Terrorizing others is a contrivance that allows them to do so in the easiest way possible. Acting the bully allows them to express anger and rage—the only acceptable masculine emotions—while hiding emotions such as caring or sensitivity that they consider weak or feminine. Boys, and some girls for that matter, obtain social status by displaying aggression and a willingness to demonstrate power at another’s expense. Some bullying is directed at the opposite sex. Klein claims that boys learn they can assert manhood not only by being popular with girls but also by wielding power over them physically, emotionally, and sexually. What develops is  gender policing , pressure to conform to gender expectations. Students tend to become members of the “gender police,” correcting their own and one another’s behaviors, attitudes, and dress according to their perceived expectations for proper gender performance. By participating in gender policing, and targeting students they perceive to be failing in the task of meeting masculinity norms, bullies can elevate their social status. 65

gender policing

Pressure to conform to gender expectations.

Not all experts agree with Klein. Research by Norman White and Rolf Loeber found that bullies had a long history of antisocial behaviors that precedes their school experiences. 66  Bullies rarely stop their antisocial behavior at the school yard gate, and bullying may be a critical risk factor in the development of future problems with violence and delinquency. Bullies are more likely to carry weapons in and out of school and get involved with substance abuse. And in addition to threatening other children, bullies are several times more likely than their nonbullying peers to commit antisocial acts, including vandalism, fighting, theft, drunkenness, and truancy, and to have an arrest by young adulthood. So whether bullying is a social phenomenon or a matter of general psychological malaise is still being debated.

Can Bullying Be Stopped?

Recent research shows that a student’s exposure to motivated bullies and the school’s lack of guardianship efforts were associated with the student’s risk of experiencing bullying victimization. 67  Consequently, experts suggest the following measures can help stop bullying:

·  Increase student engagement

·  Model caring behavior for students

·  Offer mentoring programs

·  Provide students with opportunities for service learning as a means of improving school engagement

·  Address the difficult transition between elementary and middle school (from a single classroom teacher to teams of teachers with periods and class changes in a large school)

·  Start prevention programs early

·  Resist the temptation to use prefabricated curricula that are not aligned to local conditions 68

Clearly, schools that make an effort to protect kids from their more aggressive classmates can help lower the incidence of school yard bullying. The Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature reviews two model programs that seem to help in reducing the bullying problem.

The Causes of School Crime

What are the suspected causes of school violence? Research indicates that they may be found at the individual, school, and community levels.

Individual-Level Causes

Kids who feel isolated and alone, with little parental attention, may be the most prone to alienation and substance abuse. 69  The level of student drinking and substance abuse may increase violent crime rates. As substance abuse increases among the student body, so too may school violence rates. 70  Because heavy drinking reduces cognitive ability, information processing skills, and the ability to process and react to verbal and nonverbal behavior, a student argument may quickly turn into a full-scale battle. 71

School-Level Causes

Schools with high-achieving students, a drug-free environment, strong discipline, and involved parents have fewer behavioral problems in the student body. 72  Conversely, schools whose student body contains large numbers of students with emotional and psychological problems also have high rates of crime and violence.

Another factor related to delinquency is school climate—the quality and character of school life. 73  Schools with a high proportion of students below grade level in reading, with many students from families on welfare, and located in a community with high unemployment, crime, and poverty rates, are also at risk for delinquency. 74  Schools that have clear and firm disciplinary practices, such as expulsion for serious breaches of school rules, are more likely to be able to convince students that misbehavior will not be tolerated. 75

In general, researchers find that several characteristics make schools more conducive to violent student behavior:

·  Violence is more prevalent in large schools as compared to smaller ones. Eighty-nine percent of the large schools surveyed admitted to one or more criminal incidents in a year compared to only 38 percent of the smaller schools. Given a larger student population, exposure to violent acts on the school campus is greater, thereby leading to a larger number of incidents.

·  Schools located in a city are more likely to experience criminal behaviors and violence than are rural schools.

·  The physical condition of the school building can influence students’ motivation, attitude, and behavior. Buildings that have uncomfortable temperatures, are polluted, have a large amount of graffiti, and are in need of repairs have higher incidences of fighting and other forms of violence. The physical learning atmosphere affects daily conduct. 76

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Prevention: Bullying Prevention Programs that Work

A number of programs developed abroad have shown promise to prevent bullying. Two of the best known are the Olweus and KiVa models.

The Olweus Program

The first and best-known program to reduce bullying among schoolchildren was launched by Dan Olweus in Norway and Sweden in the early 1980s. Prompted by the suicides of several severely victimized children, Norway supported the development and implementation of a comprehensive program to address bullying among children in school. The program involved interventions at multiple levels:

·  Schoolwide interventions. A survey of bullying problems at each school, increased supervision, schoolwide assemblies, and teacher in-service training to raise the awareness of children and school staff regarding bullying.

·  Classroom-level interventions. The establishment of classroom rules against bullying, regular class meetings to discuss bullying at school, and meetings with all parents.

·  Individual-level interventions. Discussions with students to identify bullies and victims.

A number of research studies have found the program to be highly effective in reducing bullying and other antisocial behavior among students in primary and junior high schools. In some studies, within two years of implementation, both boys and girls report that bullying has decreased by half. These changes in behavior were more pronounced the longer the program was in effect. Moreover, students reported significant decreases in rates of truancy, vandalism, and theft, and indicated that their school’s climate was significantly more positive as a result of the program. Not surprisingly, those schools that had implemented more of the program’s components experienced the most marked changes in behavior.

The core components of the Olweus antibullying program have been adapted for use in several other cultures, including Canada, England, and the United States, and the results have been similar: schools that were more active in implementing the program observed the most marked changes in reported behaviors. Maria Ttofi and her associates recently conducted a meta-analysis of 59 studies testing the effectiveness of bullying prevention programs around the world. They found that while many were successful, the Olweus system worked best.

The KiVa Antibullying Program

Created in Finland, KiVa is a school-based program that uses social-cognitive theory as a framework for understanding social behavior. KiVa predicts that changes in group behaviors can reduce bullying by reducing the rewards of bullying.

The program is delivered to all students in grades 1, 4, and 7. It was designed for national use in the Finnish comprehensive schools, and the goal is to reduce school bullying and victimization. The central aims of the program are to:

·  Raise awareness of the role that a group plays in maintaining bullying

·  Increase empathy toward victims

·  Promote strategies to support the victim and to support children’s self-efficacy to use those strategies

·  Increase children’s skills in coping when they are victimized

The program is a whole-school intervention, meaning that it uses a multilayered approach to address individual-, classroom-, and school-level factors. The curriculum consists of 10 lessons that are delivered over 20 hours by classroom teachers. The students engage in discussions, group work, and role-playing exercises. They also watch short films about bullying. Each lesson is constructed around a central theme, and one rule is associated with that theme; after the lesson is delivered, the class adopts that rule as a class rule. At the end of the year, all the rules are combined into a contract, which all students then sign.

A program manual provides guidelines to the teachers on how much time should be devoted to each theme. Schools have the flexibility to decide how to organize the school year around the themes. Manuals and curricula are developmentally targeted, with versions available for grades 1–3, 4–6, and 7–9.

For primary school children, an antibullying computer game has been developed that students can play during and between the KiVa lessons. For secondary students, a virtual learning environment, “KiVa Street,” has been developed; on KiVa Street, students can access information about bullying from a “library,” or they can go to the “movie theater” to watch short films about bullying.

The program actively engages the school and parents. For recess, special vests are given to the playground helpers to enhance their visibility and remind students that the school takes bullying seriously. Materials are also posted around the school that promote antibullying messages. A PowerPoint presentation has been developed that schools can use to introduce the program to school staff and parents, and parents receive a guide that includes information about and advice on dealing with bullying.

In addition to prevention messages, teams are in place to deal with identified bullying cases. The three-person team meets with the classroom teacher to discuss the identified case. Then one or two team members meet with the victim (or victims) and the bully in a series of sessions.

CRITICAL THINKING

Should school yard bullies be expelled from school? Would such a measure make a bad situation worse? For example, might expelled bullies shift their aggressive behavior from the school yard to the community?

SOURCES: Dan Olweus, “A Useful Evaluation Design, and Effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program,” Psychology, Crime and Law 11:389–402 (2005); Dan Olweus, “Victimization by Peers: Antecedents and Long-Term Outcomes,” in K. H. Rubin and J. B. Asendorf, eds., Social Withdrawal, Inhibitions, and Shyness (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993), pp. 315–341; OJJDP, KiVa Antibullying Program,  http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/KiVa%20Antibullying%20Program-MPGProgramDetail-952.aspx  (accessed June 2013).

Community-Level Causes

Crime in schools reflects the patterns of antisocial behavior that exist in the surrounding neighborhood. 77  Schools in high-crime a reas experience more crime than schools in safer areas. Students who report being afraid in school are actually more afraid of being in city parks, streets, or the subway. Because of this fear, students in high-crime areas may carry weapons for self-protection as they go from their homes to school. 78

Schools experiencing crime and drug abuse are most likely to be found in socially disorganized neighborhoods with a high proportion of students below grade level in reading, with many students from families on welfare, and with high unemployment and poverty rates. 79  Neighborhoods with high population density and transient populations also have problem-prone schools. 80  In contrast, schools located in more stable areas, with high-achieving students, drug-free environments, and involved parents, have fewer behavioral problems within the student body. 81

Community influences may undermine school stability and climate. 82  Poverty in a school’s surrounding area influences the social characteristics of students. They may lack the readiness and interest to learn when compared with students from more affluent neighborhoods. Poor areas may find it difficult to hire and retain the most qualified faculty and/or provide students with the most up-to-date equipment and books. Because poor communities have lower tax bases, they are handcuffed when they want to provide remedial programs for students with learning issues, or conversely, enrichment programs for the gifted. Finally, parents and other students have neither the time nor the resources to become involved in school activities or participate in governance. These factors may eventually undermine school climate and destabilize the educational environment, which leads to school crime and disorder.

School or Community?

Does community violence influence school violence or vice versa? Research by Rod Brunson and Jody Miller found that school and community violence actually influence one another. When they interviewed boy students in a disadvantaged urban community in St. Louis, Missouri, they found that most had been exposed to violence as perpetrators, victims, and/or witnesses. The more serious violence occurred in the neighborhood, as opposed to school contexts—punching and slapping occurred in school; getting shot or stabbed occurred in neighborhoods.

The youths interviewed by Brunson and Miller noted that violence often started with spontaneous conflicts begun in the community, which then migrated to the school. A great many of these problems revolved around gang membership, a factor that had a significant impact on violence both in the school and the community. Young men’s gang affiliations, or even their neighborhoods’ reputations, could carry over into school and cause conflicts. Tensions would escalate during school hours through further instigation, and then violent resolutions would play out just after school ended. The school experience amplified gang conflicts: while rival gang members could avoid each other in the community, they were forced to be in close proximity at school. Gang rivalry caused by a particular violent incident or long-standing feud would then fuel conflicts at school. Kids were bored at school; looking for excitement, they would spread rumors about one another, instigating conflicts and then “amping up” those conflicts in order to see fights. Once a fight began, bystanders tried to egg on the combatants and turn it into a full-scale brawl.

In sum, the factors that produced violence in the school and neighborhood were often intertwined. The fact that school brings together rival gang members and students from across neighborhoods, who would not interact normally, may contribute to violence. Conversely, some conflicts that begin at school are intentionally postponed until after school ends. So the most serious incidents of school-related violence may take place beyond the school grounds and immediately following school hours, yet are actually tied to the school setting and incidents that occur during the school day. 83

Reducing School Crime

Schools around the country have mounted a campaign to reduce the incidence of delinquency on campus. Nearly all states have developed some sort of crime-free, weapon-free, or safe-school zone statute. Most have defined these zones to include school transportation and school-sponsored functions. Schools are also cooperating with court officials and probation officers to share information and monitor students who have criminal records. School districts are formulating crisis prevention and intervention policies and are directing individual schools to develop safe-school plans.

Some schools have instituted strict controls over student activity—for example, making locker searches, preventing students from having lunch off campus, and using patrols to monitor drug use. According to one national survey, a majority of schools have adopted a  zero tolerance policy  that mandates predetermined punishments for specific offenses, most often possession of drugs, weapons, and tobacco, and also for engaging in violent behaviors. 84

zero tolerance policy

Mandating that action be taken for the slightest infraction of a school or criminal code violation.

School Security Efforts

Almost every school attempts to restrict entry of dangerous persons by having visitors sign in before entering, and most close the campus for lunch. Schools have attempted to ensure the physical safety of students and staff by using mechanical security devices such as surveillance cameras, metal detectors, and electronic barriers to keep out intruders, and have also employed roving security guards. 85  Security measures include the following:

·  Access control. Most schools control access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors. About one-third of schools control access to school grounds with locked or monitored gates.

·  Lighting. Some administrators keep buildings dark at night, believing that brightly illuminated schools give the buildings too high a profile and attract vandals who might not have bothered with the facility, or even noticed it, if the premises were not illuminated.

·  Picture IDs. Many schools require faculty or staff to wear picture IDs; a few require students to wear similar identification.

·  Book bags. Some schools require transparent book bags or ban book bags altogether.

·  Random checks. Some schools use random metal detector checks, random dog sniffs, and random sweeps for contraband.

·  Security cameras. About half of all schools use one or more security cameras to monitor the school. 86

Employing Law Enforcement

Some districts have gone so far as to infiltrate undercover detectives on school grounds. These detectives attend classes, mingle with students, contact drug dealers, make buys, and arrest campus dealers. 87  Other cities, like New York, maintain a significant uniformed police presence within the educational system. The New York City Police Department School Safety Division is one of the largest law enforcement agencies in New York City and the United States with approximately 5,000 “school safety agents” who are designated as New York City Special Patrolmen, giving them the right to make warrantless arrests, carry and use handcuffs, and use physical and deadly force. 88  They also carry out special programs to reduce school crime. 89  Another approach is to assign a police officer known as a school resource officer to work on campus. The Professional Spotlight highlights the career of one such school-based police officer.

PROFESSIONAL spotlight: Kevin Quinn

KEVIN QUINN works in the largest high school in the city and has found that a school resource officer (SRO) officer can make a difference in the lives of kids.

What does he find most rewarding about the job? Watching the kids grow up into young adults and then graduate, knowing that he had some small hand in helping them achieve that goal, whether they realize it or not. He has seen kids walk across the graduation stage whom he thought would never finish high school, even some whom he had to arrest. He is pleased when they thank him on graduation day, saying the arrest was the moment where they decided to turn their life around. He has also helped some students get out of abusive dating relationships. Quinn says the most interesting part of the job is seeing the educational system from the inside. Being a part of the administration team and attending the meetings has given him insight into what really goes on behind the scenes in schools and why school administrators do the things they do.

While Quinn does not follow a regular routine, there are some tasks that occur on a daily basis. Since he is the only police officer on the campus and it spans more than 80 acres, he is the one responsible for taking care of any incidents that require law enforcement intervention. This ranges from petty thefts on campus to drug possession and any other incidents that are disclosed by students. He also assists the administration with keeping the school crisis plan updated and scheduling emergency response drills throughout the year.

Quinn believes that his biggest challenge is trying to get law enforcement officers and education professionals to work together to meet the same goals. Since the professions are inherently different, sometimes there is a conflict between the two, but at the end of the day they are trying to reach the same end result. This is where having trainings that cover SRO/administration relationships are critical to ensure both educators and police officers learn how to cooperate with each other for the good of the school community.

School Resource Officer, Chandler, Arizona, Police Department

Improving the School Climate

Some critics complain that even when security methods are effective, they reduce morale of the staff and students. Tighter security may reduce acts of crime and violence in school, only to displace them to the community. Similarly, expelling or suspending troublemakers puts them on the street with nothing to do so that, in the end, lowering the level of crime in schools may not reduce the total amount of crime committed by young people. 90  A more realistic approach might involve early identification of at-risk students and exposing them to prosocial skills rather than threatening them with consequence-based punishments. 91  In addition to controlling gangs and drugs in the school, administrators who apply school rules evenly and increase the certainty of punishment for breaking school rules can create the multifaceted approach needed to provide a safer school environment. 92

Another approach to improving the school climate is to increase educational standards. Programs have been designed to improve the standards of the teaching staff and administrators and the educational climate in the school, increase the relevance of the curriculum, and provide law-related education classes. Efforts to improve school climate should be encouraged. Recent research efforts have found preliminary support for the link between school climate and delinquency. Schools that encourage order, organization, and student bonding may also experience a decline in disorder and crime. 93

Employing Social Programs

Controlling school crime is ultimately linked to the community and family conditions. When communities undergo such changes as increases in unemployment and the number of single-parent households, both school disruption and community crime rates may rise. 94  The school environment can be made safer only if community issues are addressed—for example, by taking steps to keep intruders out of school buildings, putting pressure on local police to develop community safety programs, increasing correctional services, strengthening laws on school safety, and making parents bear greater responsibility for their children’s behavior. Schools must also use the resources of the community when controlling school crime. Most school districts refer problem students to social services outside the school, including outside referrals for students with substance abuse problems; most offer drug education within the school.

Some schools now employ safety and/or school resource officers to patrol hallways in an effort to increase school security. In this image taken from a Greenwood (Mississippi) High School security videotape, police officer Casey Wiggins, four months into his job, is seen holding a gun on an unarmed teen after the officer had been knocked to the ground.

The Role of the School in Delinquency Prevention

Numerous organizations and groups have called for reforming the educational system to make it more responsive to the needs of students. Educational leaders now recognize that children undergo enormous pressures while in school that can lead to emotional and social problems. At one extreme are the pressures to succeed academically; at the other are the crime and substance abuse students face on school grounds. It is difficult to talk of achieving academic excellence in a deteriorated school dominated by gang members.

One way of improving schools and reducing delinquency is through sponsored educational reform. The cornerstone of the Bush administration’s policy was the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110). This act authorizes federal programs aimed at improving America’s primary and secondary schools by increasing the accountability for states, school districts, and schools and also providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. 95  NCLB increases focus on reading and relies on outcome-based education or the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students. 96  Supplementing NCLB is Race to the Top, a US Department of Education program designed to spur reforms in state and local K–12 education. It provides incentives to states to implement large-scale reforms that result in improved student achievement, narrowed achievement gaps, and increased graduation and college enrollment rates. 97

School-Based Prevention Programs

Education officials have instituted numerous programs to make schools more effective instruments of delinquency prevention. 98  Some of the most prevalent strategies are as follows:

·  Cognitive. Increase students’ awareness about the dangers of drug abuse and delinquency.

·  Affective. Improve students’ psychological assets and self-image to give them the resources to resist antisocial behavior.

·  Behavioral. Train students in techniques to resist peer pressure.

·  Environmental. Establish school management and disciplinary programs that deter crime, such as locker searches.

·  Therapeutic. Treat youths who have already manifested problems.

More specific suggestions include creating special classes or schools with individualized programs that foster success for nonadjusting students. Efforts can be made to help students deal constructively with academic failure when it does occur.

More personalized student-teacher relationships have been recommended. This effort to provide young people with a caring, accepting adult role model will, it is hoped, strengthen the controls against delinquency. Counselors acting as liaisons between the family and the school might also be effective in preventing delinquency. These counselors try to ensure cooperation between the parents and the school and to secure needed services for troubled students. Some programs that help families and schools develop conflict-avoidance skills have proven effective in reducing violence levels and helping restrict disciplinary measures such as suspensions and expulsions. 99

Experiments have been proposed to integrate job training and experience with classroom instruction, allowing students to see education as a relevant prelude to their careers. Job training programs emphasize public service, encouraging students to gain a sense of attachment to their communities.

Because three out of four mothers with school-age children are employed, and two-thirds of them work full time, there is a growing need for after-school programs. Today, after-school options include child care centers, tutoring programs at school, dance groups, basketball leagues, and drop-in clubs. State and federal budgets for education, public safety, crime prevention, and child care provide some funding for after-school programs. Research shows that younger children (ages 5 to 9) and those in low-income neighborhoods gain the most from after-school programs, showing improved work habits, behavior with peers and adults, and performance in school. Young teens who attend after-school activities achieve higher grades in school and engage in less risky behavior. These findings must be interpreted with caution. Because after-school programs are voluntary, participants may be the more motivated youngsters in a given population and the least likely to engage in antisocial behavior. 100

Legal Rights in the School

The actions of education officials often run into opposition from the courts, which are concerned with maintaining the legal rights of minors. The US Supreme Court has sought to balance the civil liberties of students with the school’s mandate to provide a safe environment. Three of the main issues involved are privacy, free speech in school, and school discipline.

The Right to Personal Privacy

One major issue is the right of school officials to search students and their possessions on school grounds. Drug abuse, theft, assault and battery, and racial conflicts in schools have increased the need to take action against troublemakers. School administrators have questioned students about their illegal activities, conducted searches of students’ persons and possessions, and reported suspicious behavior to the police.

In 1984, in  New Jersey v. T.L.O . , the Supreme Court helped clarify a vexing problem: whether the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to school officials as well as to police officers. 101

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The Fourth Amendment controls on search and seizure apply to school officials as well as police.

In this case, the Court found that students are in fact constitutionally protected from illegal searches but that school officials are not bound by the same restrictions as law enforcement agents. In the world outside of school, police need “probable cause” before they can conduct a search, but educators can legally search students when there are reasonable grounds to believe the students have violated the law or broken school rules. In creating this distinction, the Court recognized the needs of school officials to preserve an environment conducive to education and to secure the safety of students.

Limiting Searches

But how far can school officials go in their student searches? Are there limits to the freedom they have to preserve a safe school environment? The Court clarified this issue in  Safford Unified School District v. Redding , a 2009 case that drew national headlines. Savana Redding was a 13-year-old eighth-grade honors student at Safford Middle School, located about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona, when on October 3, 2003, she was taken out of class by the school’s vice principal. It seems that one of Redding’s classmates had been caught possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen (400 mg—the strength of two Advils) and when asked where she got the pills she blamed Redding, who had no history of disciplinary issues or drug abuse.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding

School searches must be reasonable and, considering the circumstances of the case, not overly intrusive.

Though Redding claimed she had no knowledge of the pills, she was subjected to a strip search by the school nurse and another female employee because the school has a zero tolerance policy for all over-the-counter medication (which students could not possess without prior written permission). During the search, Redding was forced to strip to her underwear, and her bra and underpants were pulled away from her body. No drugs were found. She later told authorities, “The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had. I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

After a trial court ruled that the search was legal, Redding sought help from the American Civil Liberties Union, whose attorneys brought an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court. Here the judges ruled that the search was “traumatizing” and illegal, stating that “common sense informs us that directing a 13-year-old girl to remove her clothes, partially revealing her breasts and pelvic area, for allegedly possessing ibuprofen… was excessively intrusive.” It further went on to say, “The overzealousness of school administrators in efforts to protect students has the tragic impact of traumatizing those they claim to serve. And all this to find prescription-strength ibuprofen.” Rather than let the appellate court decision stand, the school district appealed the case to the US Supreme Court, complaining that restrictions on conducting student searches would cast a “roadblock to the kind of swift and effective response that is too often needed to protect the very safety of students, particularly from the threats posed by drugs and weapons.” 102  On June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court held that Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights were indeed violated by the search. 103  With Justice Souter writing for the majority, the Court agreed that search measures used by school officials to root out contraband must be “reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” In Redding’s case, school officials did not have sufficient suspicion to extend the search to her underwear. In a separate opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that the strip search was unconstitutional and that the school administrators should be held personally liable for damages: “It does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.” (His opinion was in response to the majority’s ruling that school officials could not be held personally liable because the law was unclear before the Safford decision.) The only justice to disagree with the main finding was Clarence Thomas, who concluded that the judiciary should not meddle with decisions of school administrators that are intended to be in the interest of school safety.

Limiting Interrogations

In addition to searches, the Supreme Court, in  J.D.B. v. North Carolina , has also addressed the issue of questioning of students on school grounds. In this case, police stopped and questioned petitioner J.D.B., a 13-year-old seventh-grade student, upon seeing him near the site of two home break-ins. Five days later, after a digital camera matching one of the stolen items was found at J.D.B.’s school and seen in his possession, an investigator went to the school and had J.D.B. taken from his classroom to a closed-door conference room. Police and school administrators questioned him for at least 30 minutes about the crime without first warning him about his right to remain silent (i.e., they did not give him a Miranda warning), nor did they give him the opportunity to call his grandmother, his legal guardian, or tell him he was free to leave the room. He confessed after officials urged him to tell the truth and told him about the prospect of juvenile detention. After he confessed, investigators advised him that he could refuse to answer questions and was free to leave. Asked whether he understood, J.D.B. nodded and provided further detail and wrote a statement. When later petitioned to juvenile court, his attorney pointed out that J.D.B. had been interrogated in a custodial setting without being afforded Miranda warnings and that his statements were involuntary. He was adjudicated delinquent, a finding affirmed by the North Carolina appellate courts, who found that he was not in custody when interrogated so Miranda need not apply. However, the Supreme Court reversed this finding, stating that a child’s age must be considered during an interrogation. Unlike an adult, an underage student taken from a classroom and interrogated by police on school grounds might consider themselves in custody and feel coerced into confessing. Age, the Court ruled, must be considered when determining whether a person’s statements to police were freely given or illegally induced. 104

J.D.B. v. North Carolina

A suspect’s age must be considered in determining whether a confession was freely given and whether they believed they were in custody.

Drug Testing

Another critical issue involving privacy is the drug testing of students. In 1995, the Supreme Court extended schools’ authority to search by legalizing a random drug-testing policy for student athletes. The Supreme Court’s decision in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton expanded the power of educators to ensure safe learning environments. 105  The testing was allowed because drugs are a serious threat to public safety and to the rights of children to receive a decent and safe education. In a subsequent case,  Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls et al . , the court extended the right to test for drugs to all students, ruling that such a policy was a reasonable means of furthering the school district’s important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the students’ rights to privacy or their due process rights. The Court concluded that the means used to enforce a drug search policy in both cases was not overly invasive or an intrusion on the students’ privacy. Under the policy, a faculty monitor would wait outside a closed restroom stall for the student to produce a sample and must listen for the normal sounds of urination to guard against tampered specimens and ensure an accurate chain of custody. The policy requires that test results be kept in confidential files separate from a student’s other records and released to school personnel only on a “need to know” basis. Moreover, the test results are not turned over to any law enforcement authority. Nor do the test results lead to the imposition of discipline or have any academic consequences. Rather, the only consequence of a failed drug test is to limit the student’s privilege of participating in extracurricular activities. 106

Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls et al.

Drug testing of students by school officials, if done in a reasonable fashion, is a legitimate exercise of school authority.

Academic Privacy

Students have the right to expect that their records will be kept private. Although state laws govern the disclosure of information from juvenile court records, a 1974 federal law—the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)—restricts disclosure of information from a student’s education records without parental consent. 107  The act defines an education record to include all rec ords, files, and other materials, such as photographs, containing information related to a student that an education agency maintains. In 1994, Congress passed the Improving America’s Schools Act, which allowed educational systems to disclose education records under these circumstances: (1) state law authorizes the disclosure, (2) the disclosure is to a juvenile justice agency, (3) the disclosure relates to the justice system’s ability to provide preadjudication services to a student, and (4) state or local officials certify in writing that the institution or individual receiving the information has agreed not to disclose it to a third party other than another juvenile justice system agency. 108

Free Speech

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution. This right has been divided into two categories as it affects children in schools: passive and active speech.  Passive speech  is a form of expression not associated with actually speaking words; examples include wearing armbands or political protest buttons. In contrast,  active speech  involves actually speaking or taking some other physical action such as parading with a banner.

passive speech

A form of expression protected by the First Amendment but not associated with actually speaking words; examples include wearing symbols or protest messages on buttons or signs.

active speech

A form of expression that involves speaking or taking some other physical action such as parading with a banner.

The most important Supreme Court decision concerning a student’s right to passive speech was in 1969 in the case of  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District . 109  This case involved the right to wear black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam. Three high school students, ages 16, 15, and 13, were suspended for wearing the armbands in school. The decision is significant because it recognizes the child’s right to free speech in a public school system. Justice Abe Fortas stated in his majority opinion, “Young people do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.” 110  Tinker established two things: (1) A child is entitled to free speech in school under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and (2) the test used to determine whether the child has gone beyond proper speech is whether he or she materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Students have freedom of speech unless it disrupts the operation of the school.

The concept of active speech was at issue again in the 1986 case  Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser . 111  This case upheld a school system’s right to suspend or otherwise discipline a student who uses obscene or profane language and gesture. Matthew Fraser, a Bethel high school student, used sexual metaphors in making a speech nominating a friend for student office. His statement included these remarks:

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser

A school has the right to control lewd and offensive speech that undermines the educational mission.

· I know a man who is firm—he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm—but most… of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.

Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he’ll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn’t attack things in spurts—he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally—he succeeds.

Jeff is a man who will go to the very end—even the climax—for each and every one of you.

So vote for Jeff for A.S.B. vice-president—he’ll never come between you and the best our high school can be.

The Court found that a school has the right to control lewd and offensive speech that undermines the educational mission. The Court drew a distinction between the sexual content of Fraser’s remarks and the political nature of Tinker’s armband. It ruled that the pervasive sexual innuendo of Fraser’s speech interfered with the school’s mission to implant “the shared values of a civilized social order” in the student body.

In a 1988 case,  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , the Court extended the right of school officials to censor “active speech” when it ruled that the principal could censor articles in a student publication. 112  In this case, students had written about their personal experiences with pregnancy and parental divorce. The majority ruled that censorship was justified in this case because school-sponsored publications, activities, and productions were part of the curriculum and therefore designed to impart knowledge. Control over such school-supported activities could be differentiated from the action the Tinkers initiated on their own accord. In a dissent, Justice William J. Brennan accused school officials of favoring “thought control.”

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

School officials have the right to censor “active speech”—for example, controlling the content of articles in a student publication.

Off-Campus Speech

In addition to speech on campus, students have been disciplined for their off-campus activities, such as posting messages on their Internet web pages that school officials consider defamatory. 113  What rights do students have to express themselves away from school grounds? It depends on the circumstances. In what has come to be known as the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case, the Supreme Court in  Morse v. Frederick  ruled that school officials can control student speech at off-campus events. In 2002, Joseph Frederick unveiled a 14-foot paper sign on a public sidewalk outside his high school in Juneau, Alaska, that linked marijuana smoking and Jesus. The school principal confiscated it and suspended Frederick. He sued, and his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices concluded that Frederick’s free speech rights were not violated because it was reasonable to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use, and had the principal failed to act it would send a powerful message to the students that the school condoned pro-drug messages. 114  However, as the Cyber Delinquency feature shows, there are limits to school censorship of off-campus speech, especially in the cyber age.

Morse v. Frederick

School officials can control student speech at off-campus events.

School Prayer

One of the most divisive issues involving free speech is school prayer. While some religious-minded administrators, parents, and students want to have prayer sessions in schools or have religious convocations, others view the practice both as a violation of the principle of separation of church and state and as an infringement on the First Amendment caution against creating a state-approved religion. The 2000 case of  Santa Fe Independent School District, Petitioner v. Jane Doe  helps clarify the issue. 115

Santa Fe Independent School District, Petitioner v. Jane Doe

Student-led prayers at a school football game are inappropriate and are in violation of the First Amendment separation of church and state.

Before 1995, the Santa Fe High School student who occupied the school’s elective office of student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each varsity football game for the entire season. After the practice was challenged in federal district court, the school district adopted a different policy that permitted, but did not require, prayer initiated and led by a student at all home games. The district court entered an order modifying that policy to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. However, a federal appellate court held that, even as modified, the football prayer policy was invalid. This decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ruled that prayers led by an elected student undermine the protection of minority viewpoints. Such a system encourages divisiveness along religious lines and threatens the students not desiring to participate in a religious exercise.

Though the Santa Fe case severely limits school-sanctioned prayer at public events, the Court has not totally ruled out the role of religion in schools. In its ruling in Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001), the Supreme Court required an upstate New York school district to provide space for an after-school Bible club for elementary students. 116  The Court ruled that it was a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech clause to deny the club access to the school’s space on the ground that the club was religious in nature; the school routinely let secular groups use its space. The Court reasoned that because the club’s meetings were to be held after school hours, not sponsored by the school, and open to any student who obtained parental consent, it could not be perceived that the school was endorsing the club or that students might feel coerced to participate in its activities. In 2001, the Court let stand a Virginia statute that mandates that each school division in the state establish in its classrooms a “moment of silence” so that “each pupil may, in the exercise of his or her individual choice, meditate, pray, or engage in any other silent activity which does not interfere with, distract, or impede other pupils in the like exercise of individual choice.” 117  The Court refused to hear an appeal filed by several Virginia students and their parents, which contended that a “moment of silence” establishes religion in violation of the First Amendment. 118  In its most recent statement on the separation of church and state, the Court refused to hear a case brought by a California father contesting the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance because it contains the phrase “under God.” 119  Though the Court dismissed the case on a technical issue, some of the justices felt the issue should have been dealt with and dismissed. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in his opinion:

CYBER delinquency: Free Speech on the Net

Free speech has become a significant issue in the educational system because the cyber age provides numerous opportunities for students to test its limits, whether it be through personal websites, Twitter messages, texts and emails that are quickly spread among the student body, or YouTube postings that show secretly made recordings of teachers in unflattering poses. While the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this issue, a number of cases have gone to state and federal courts. One of these took place in Pennsylvania, when a federal court ruled in two cases involving off-campus speech. In the first, high school senior Justin Layshock sued Mercer County’s Hermitage School District after he was suspended for 10 days for creating what he called a “parody profile” of his school principal. The MySpace page largely consisted of jokes about the principal’s size and weight. On appeal, the Third Circuit Court ruled the suspension violated Justin’s right to freedom of speech, finding that self-expression “that originated outside of the schoolhouse, did not disturb the school environment and was not related to any school-sponsored event” could not be punished. In the second case, J.S., an eighth-grader, sued the Blue Mountain School District after she was suspended for 10 days for creating a fake Internet profile of her school principal. Her profile did not list the principal’s name, but contained his picture and a narrative that stated he was a pedophile and a sex addict. The court noted that legal precedent has already been set that so long as the online content created by a student on their own time, using their own resources, is not disruptive to the learning environment, they cannot be disciplined. But if the content disrupts the learning environment, it becomes a “school issue” and is subject to disciplinary action. The court left the door open to controlling students who publish off-campus material that is disruptive, saying, “We decline to say that simply because the disruption to the learning environment originates from a computer located off campus, the school should be left powerless to discipline the student.”

In another case that got national attention, Katherine Evans, a Florida high school senior and honor student, repeatedly clashed with Sarah Phelps, her English teacher. To vent her frustration, she created a Facebook page titled “Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I’ve ever had” and invited past and current students of Phelps to post their own comments. Two months later, Evans was suspended from school even though she had voluntarily taken down the Facebook page after two days. She sued, supported by the Florida ACLU, claiming her First Amendment rights had been violated. In 2011, she reached a settlement with the school district in which her suspension was wiped from her school record, and $15,000 in attorneys’ fees and $1 in damages were awarded. Her attorneys described the settlement as a victory for free-speech rights.

The clash between a student’s right to free speech and the school’s ability to maintain security and discipline has not been settled and will continue to grow as the cyber age provides new venues of expression.

Alex, 14, poses with her parents and a screen shot of the phony Facebook account that was set up in her name. Alex’s family later filed a libel lawsuit claiming two classmates humiliated her by using a doctored photo to set up the phony Facebook account in her name, and then stacking the page with phony comments claiming she was sexually active, racist, and involved in drugs.

CRITICAL THINKING

Considering the spate of cyberbullying and other online harassment incidents, would you advocate stricter controls of the Internet? Or does the First Amendment’s right to free speech trump such regulation, even if the aim is to reduce social harm?

SOURCES: Layshock v. Hermitage School District, No. 07-4465 2008 (2010),  http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/074465p1.pdf  (accessed July 2013); Nathan Crabbe, “UF Student Settles Suit over Facebook Comments,” Gainesville Sun, January 1, 2011,  http://smartboard.blogs.gainesville.com/2011/01/uf-student-settles-facebook-sui/  (accessed July 2013).

To give the parent of such a child a sort of “heckler’s veto” over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase “under God,” is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance. 120

School Discipline

Most states have statutes permitting teachers to use corporal punishment to discipline students in public school systems. Under the concept of  in loco parentis , discipline is one of the assumed parental duties given to the school system. In two decisions, the Supreme Court upheld the school’s right to use corporal punishment. In the 1975 case of Baker v. Owen, the Court stated:

in loco parentis

Latin for “in place of parents” or “instead of a parent.” Used to signify that parents have given a person or institution all the rights to behave, act, and be and act as a parent.

We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment embraces the right of parents generally to control the means and discipline of their children, but that the state has a countervailing interest in the maintenance of order in the schools… sufficient to sustain the right of teachers, and school officials must accord to students minimal due process in the course of inflicting such punishment. 121

In 1977, the Supreme Court again spoke on the issue of corporal punishment in school systems in the case of  Ingraham v. Wright , which upheld the right of teachers to use corporal punishment. 122  In this case, students James Ingraham and Roosevelt Andrews sustained injuries as a result of paddling at the Charles Drew Junior High School in Dade County, Florida. The legal problems raised in the case were (a) whether corporal punishment by teachers was a violation in this case of the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment and (b) whether the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required that the students receive proper notice and a hearing before receiving corporal punishment. The Court held that neither the Eighth Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment was violated in this case. Even though Ingraham suffered hematomas on his buttocks as a result of 20 blows with a wooden paddle and Andrews was hurt on the arm, the Supreme Court ruled that such punishment was not a constitutional violation. The Court established the standard that only reasonable discipline is allowed in school systems, but it accepted the degree of punishment administered in this case. The key principle in Ingraham is that the reasonableness standard that the Court articulated represents the judicial attitude that the scope of the school’s right to discipline a child is by no means more restrictive than the rights of the child’s own parents to impose corporal punishment.

Ingraham v. Wright

Corporal punishment in schools is legally permissible.

Despite the Ingraham decision, the use of corporal punishment remains controversial. According to a recent study conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, almost a quarter of a million US public school children are now being subjected to corporal punishment each school year, and a disproportionate number of them are students with mental or physical disabilities. The research found that students with disabilities made up about 19 percent of students who suffered corporal punishment at school, although they constituted just 14 percent of the total nationwide student population. More than 40,000 students with disabilities are subjected to corporal punishment in US schools each year, and this tally probably undercounts the actual rate of physical discipline, since not all instances are reported or recorded. The report found that some students were punished for conduct related to their disabilities: students with Tourette syndrome were paddled for exhibiting involuntary tics; students with autism were punished for repetitive behaviors such as rocking. Corporal punishment, opponents charge, may harm kids with disabilities, leading to a worsening of their conditions. For instance, some parents reported that students with autism became violent toward themselves or others following corporal punishment. 123  Today 24 states still use physical punishment in schools.

SUMMARY

· 1 Discuss the role the educational experience plays in human development over the life course

·  The school environment has been found to have a significant effect on a child’s emotional well-being.

·  The school has become a primary determinant of economic and social status.

·  The school itself has become an engine of social change and improvement.

· 2 Be familiar with the problems facing the educational system in the United States

·  The role schools play in adolescent development is underscored by the problems faced by the US education system.

·  Cross-national surveys that compare academic achievement show that the United States trails in critical academic areas.

·  High school students in the United States are consistently outperformed by those from Asian and some European countries on international assessments of mathematics and science.

·  Many children are at risk for educational problems, school failure, and delinquency.

· 3 Understand the hazards faced by children if they are dropouts

·  Though dropout rates have been in decline, leaving school early is still a national problem.

·  Minority students are at greater risk to drop out than white students. One reason is that they often face harsher disciplinary action from school officials.

·  Dropouts are more likely than graduates to get involved in antisocial behavior.

·  Dropouts earn significantly less than graduates over the life course.

·  They have more health problems and cost society more than graduates.

· 4 Express the association between school failure and delinquency

·  Kids who do poorly in school are at risk for delinquent behavior.

·  School failure is a stronger predictor of delinquency than variables such as economic class membership, racial or ethnic background, or peer-group relations.

·  An association between academic failure and delinquency is commonly found among chronic offenders.

· 5 Examine the personal and social factors that have been related to school failure

·  School failure may also be linked to learning disabilities or reading disabilities that might be treatable if the proper resources were available.

·  Most researchers have looked at academic tracking—dividing students into groups according to ability and achievement level—as a contributor to school failure.

·  Student alienation has also been identified as a link between school failure and delinquency. Students who report they neither like school nor care about their teachers’ opinions are more likely to exhibit delinquent behaviors.

·  Many students, particularly those from low-income families, believe that school has no payoff in terms of their future.

· 6 Calculate the extent of school crime

·  In its pioneering study of school crime, Violent Schools–Safe Schools (1977), the federal government found that there was a significant amount of delinquency in schools.

·  More than one million delinquent acts occur at school each year.

·  Kids are more likely to be victimized at school than in the community.

·  Teachers are also subject to threats and physical attacks from students and school intruders.

· 7 List the factors that contribute to delinquency in schools

·  Kids who feel isolated and alone with little parental attention may be the most prone to alienation and substance abuse.

·  The level of student drinking and substance abuse may increase violent crime rates.

·  Violence is more prevalent in large schools as compared to smaller ones.

·  Schools located in a city are more likely to experience criminal behaviors and violence than rural schools.

·  The physical condition of the school building can influence students’ motivation, attitude, and behavior.

·  There is also evidence that crime in schools reflects the patterns of antisocial behavior that exist in the surrounding neighborhood.

· 8 Evaluate the efforts school systems are making to reduce crime on campus

·  Nearly all states have developed some sort of crime-free, weapon-free, or safe-school zone statute.

·  Almost every school attempts to restrict entry of dangerous persons by having visitors sign in before entering, and most close the campus for lunch.

·  Most schools control access to school buildings by locking or monitoring doors.

·  Schools use random metal detector checks and one or more security cameras to monitor the school.

·  Schools that have experienced behavioral problems are now employing uniformed police officers on school grounds, typically called school resource officers.

·  Some districts have gone so far as to employ undercover detectives on school grounds.

· 9 Recognize what is being done to improve school climate and increase educational standards

·  Numerous organizations and groups have called for reforming the educational system to make it more responsive to the needs of students.

·  The federal government has sponsored programs to get local schools to improve their standards and narrow racial gaps in achievement.

·  Students’ awareness about the dangers of drug abuse and delinquency is being improved.

·  Students are being trained in techniques to resist peer pressure.

·  School management and disciplinary programs are being set up that deter crime, such as locker search.

· 10 Analyze the legal rights of students

·  The US Supreme Court has sought to balance the civil liberties of students with the school’s mandate to provide a safe environment.

·  Educators can legally search students when there are reasonable grounds to believe the students have violated the law or broken school rules.

·  The Supreme Court has expanded the power of educators to ensure safe learning environments through drug testing of students.

·  The Court has also established that a child is entitled to free speech in school under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, However, the Court ruled that a principal could censor articles in a student publication. School prayer is a controversial free speech issue; the Court has severely limited prayer but allows a moment of silence.

·  Most states have statutes permitting teachers to use corporal punishment to discipline students in public school systems.

KEY TERMS

truant,  p. 367

dropping out,  p. 367

dropout factory,  p. 367

status dropout rate,  p. 368

tracking,  p. 372

bullying,  p. 377

gender policing,  p. 378

zero tolerance policy,  p. 382

New Jersey v. T.L.O.,  p. 386

Safford Unified School District v. Redding,  p. 386

J.D.B. v. North Carolina,  p. 387

Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls et al.,  p. 387

passive speech,  p. 388

active speech,  p. 388

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,  p. 388

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser,  p. 388

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier,  p. 389

Morse v. Frederick,  p. 389

Santa Fe Independent School District, Petitioner v. Jane Doe,  p. 389

in loco parentis,  p. 391

Ingraham v. Wright,  p. 391

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Was there a delinquency problem in your high school? If so, how was it dealt with?

2.

Should disobedient youths be suspended from school? Does this solution hurt or help?

3.

What can be done to improve the delinquency prevention capabilities of schools?

4.

Is school failure responsible for delinquency, or are delinquents simply school failures?

5.

Should teachers be allowed to physically punish unruly students?

VIEWPOINT

You are the principal of a suburban high school. It seems that one of your students, Steve Jones, has had a long-running feud with Mr. Metcalf, an English teacher whom he blames for unfairly giving him a low grade and for being too strict with other students. Steve set up a home-based website that posted insulting images of Metcalf and contained messages describing him in unflattering terms (“a slob who doesn’t bathe often enough,” for example). He posted a photo of the teacher with the caption “Public Enemy Number One.” Word of the website has gotten around school, and although students think it’s funny and cool, the faculty is outraged. You bring Steve into your office and ask him to take down the site, explaining that its existence has had a negative effect on school discipline and morale. He refuses, arguing that the site is home-based and you have no right to ask for its removal.

Besides, he claims, it is just in fun and not really hurting anyone.

School administrators are asked to make these kinds of decisions every day, and the wrong choice can prove costly. You are aware that a case very similar to this one resulted in a $30,000 settlement in a damage claim against a school system when the principal suspended a student for posting an insulting website and the student later sued for violating his right to free speech.

·  Would you suspend Steve if he refuses your request to take down the site?

·  Would you allow him to leave it posted and try to placate Mr. Metcalf?

·  What would you do if Mr. Metcalf had posted a site ridiculing students and making fun of their academic abilities?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

There are a number of important resources for educational law on the Internet. Check out the Education Law Association ( https://educationlaw.org/ ), the Educational Resource Information Center ( http://www.eric.ed.gov/ ), and the Education Law Center ( http://www.edlawcenter.org/ ). You can also access these sites by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com  and using the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Daily Mail, “Woman Sues School for $2m After It Used Bikini-Clad Picture of Her from Her Private Facebook Page to Illustrate the Dangers of Social Media,” June 21, 2013,  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346046/Chelsea-Chaney-sues-school-2m-Facebook-bikini-photo-used-dangers-social-media-seminar.html  (accessed July 2013); Fox 30 News, “Student Bikini Photo Leads to $2M lawsuit,”  http://www.fox30jax.com/mostpopular/story/Student-bikini-photo-leads-to-2M-lawsuit/dGCeVI77lEW3Ledr2NEo6A.cspx  (accessed July 2013).

2. Tyler Kingkade, “Chelsea Chaney Sues Georgia School District for Using Facebook Photo of Her in a Bikini,” Huffington Post, June 24, 2013,  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/chelsea-chaney-facebook-bikini-photo_n_3487554.html  (accessed July 2013).

3. Roslyn Caldwell, Susan Sturges, and Clayton Silver, “Home versus School Environments and Their Influences on the Affective and Behavioral States of African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of Child and Family Studies 16:119–132 (2007).

4. Alexander Vazsonyi and Lloyd Pickering, “The Importance of Family and School Domains in Adolescent Deviance: African American and Caucasian Youth,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 32:115–129 (2003).

5. Kenneth Polk and Walter E. Schafer, eds., Schools and Delinquency (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1972), p 13.

6. Gary LaFree and Richard Arum, “The Impact of Racially Inclusive Schooling on Adult Incarceration Rates among U.S. Cohorts of African Americans and Whites Since 1930,” Criminology 44:73–103 (2006).

7. Sam Dillon, “Top Test Scores from Shanghai Stun Educators,” New York Times, December 7, 2010,  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html  (accessed June 2013).

8. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),  http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/  (accessed June 2013).

9. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP),  http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/  (accessed June 2013).

10. National Center for Educational Statistics, “Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities,”  http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010015/  (accessed June 2013).

11. Lynn Karoly, M. Rebecca Kilburn, and Jill Cannon, Early Childhood Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2005).

12. Ibid.

13. US Department of Education, “New Data from U.S. Department of Education Highlights Educational Inequities Around Teacher Experience, Discipline and High School Rigor,” March 6, 2012,  http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/new-data-us-department-education-highlights-educational-inequities-around-teache  (accessed June 2013).

14. Michael Rocques and Raymond Paternoster, “Understanding the Antecedents of the ‘School-to-Jail’ Link: The Relationship Between Race and School Discipline,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Spring 101:633–665 (2011).

15. Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University and the Chicago Alternative Schools Network, “Left Behind in America: The Nation’s Dropout Crisis,” April 2009,  http://iris.lib.neu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=clms_pub  (accessed June 2013).

16. Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada, Joseph McLaughlin, with Sheila Palma, “The Consequences of Dropping Out of High School,” Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, October 2009,  http://www.northeastern.edu/clms/wp-content/uploads/The_Consequences_of_Dropping_Out_of_High_School.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

17. Chris Chapman, Jennifer Laird, and Angelina Kewal Ramani, “Trends in High School Dropout and Completion Rates in the United States: 1972–2008 Compendium Report,” National Center for Education Statistics, December 2010,  http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/dropout08  (accessed June 2013).

18. America’s Promise Alliance, “Building a Grad Nation: Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic,” November 30, 2010,  http://www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Grad-Nation/-Building-a-Grad-Nation.aspx  (accessed June 2013).

19.  Ed.gov , “Secretary Arne Duncan’s Remarks at the Release of America’s Promise Alliance Report, ‘Building a Grad Nation,’” November 30, 2010,  http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-release-america%E2%80%99s-promise-alliance-report-%E2%80%9Cbuilding-gra  (accessed June 2013).

20. Joseph Gasper, Drugs Use and Delinquency: Causes of Dropping Out of High School? (El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2012).

21. Spencer Rathus, Voyages in Childhood (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2004).

22. Heather Ann Thompson, “Criminalizing Kids: The Overlooked Reason for Failing Schools,” Dissent 58:23–27 (2011).

23. Sherman Dorn, Creating the Dropout (New York: Praeger, 1996).

24. G. Roger Jarjoura, “Does Dropping Out of School Enhance Delinquent Involvement? Results from a Large-Scale National Probability Sample,” Criminology 31:149–172 (1993).

25. Gary Sweeten, Shawn D. Bushway, and Raymond Paternoster, “Does Dropping Out of School Mean Dropping into Delinquency?” Criminology 47:47–91 (2009).

26. Eugene Maguin and Rolf Loeber, “Academic Performance and Delinquency,” in Michael Tonry, ed., Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 20 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 145–264.

27. Terence Thornberry, Alan Lizotte, Marvin Krohn, Margaret Farnworth, and Sung Joon Jang, “Testing Interactional Theory: An Examination of Reciprocal Causal Relationships among Family, School, and Delinquency,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 82:3–35 (1991).

28. Kimberly Bender, “The Mediating Effect of School Engagement in the Relationship between Youth Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency,” Children and Schools 34:37–48 (2012).

29. Lyle Shannon, Assessing the Relationship of Adult Criminal Careers to Juvenile Careers: A Summary (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1982).

30. Marvin Wolfgang, Robert Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin, Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972).

31. Ibid., p 94.

32. Caroline Wolf Harlow, Education and Correctional Populations (Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003).

33. Brent Donnellan, Kali H. Trzesniewski, Richard W. Robins, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Avshalom Caspi, “Low Self-Esteem Is Related to Aggression, Antisocial Behavior, and Delinquency,” Psychological Science 16:328–335 (2005); Martin Gold, “School Experiences, Self-Esteem, and Delinquent Behavior: A Theory for Alternative Schools,” Crime and Delinquency 24:294–295 (1978).

34. Paul Bellair and Thomas McNulty, “Beyond the Bell Curve: Community Disadvantage and the Explanation of Black-White Differences in Adolescent Violence,” Criminology 43:1135–1168 (2005).

35. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, A General Theory of Crime (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990).

36. Richard Felson and Jeremy Staff, “Explaining the Academic Performance–Delinquency Relationship,” Criminology 44:299–320 (2006).

37. John Shelley-Tremblay, Natalie O’Brien, and Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, “Reading Disability in Adjudicated Youth: Prevalence Rates, Current Models, Traditional and Innovative Treatments,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 12:376–392 (2007).

38. Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys (New York: Free Press, 1955).

39. Jackson Toby, “Orientation to Education as a Factor in the School Maladjustment of Lower-Class Children,” Social Forces 35:259–266 (1957).

40. John Paul Wright, Francis Cullen, and Nicolas Williams, “Working While in School and Delinquent Involvement: Implications for Social Policy,” Crime and Delinquency 43:203–221 (1997).

41. Jeannie Oakes, Keeping Track: How Schools Structure Inequality (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), p 48.

42. Travis Hirschi, Causes of Delinquency (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), pp. 113–124, 132.

43. Learning into the 21st Century, Report of Forum 5 (Washington, DC: White House Conference on Children, 1970).

44. Jane Sprott, Jennifer Jenkins, and Anthony Doob, “The Importance of School: Protecting At-Risk Youth from Early Offending,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 3:59–77 (2005); Patricia Jenkins, “School Delinquency and the School Social Bond,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34:337–367 (1997).

45. Richard Lawrence, “Parents, Peers, School and Delinquency,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Boston, November 1995.

46. Gary Gottfredson, Denise Gottfredson, Allison Payne, and Nisha Gottfredson, “School Climate Predictors of School Disorder: Results from a National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42:412–444 (2005).

47. National Institute of Education, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Violent Schools–Safe Schools: The Safe Schools Study Report to the Congress, vol. 1 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1977).

48. Data in these sections provided by National Center for Education Statistics, Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2010,  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs10.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

49. David A. Soule, Denise C. Gottfredson, and Erin Bauer, “It’s 3 pm: Do You Know Where Your Child Is? A Study on the Timing of Juvenile Victimization and Delinquency,” Justice Quarterly 25:623–646 (2008).

50. National Center for Educational Statistics, “Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012,”  http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2012/  (accessed July 2013).

51. Marie Skubak Tillyer, Bonnie S. Fisher, and Pamela Wilcox, “The Effects of School Crime Prevention on Students’ Violent Victimization, Risk Perception, and Fear of Crime: A Multilevel Opportunity Perspective,” Justice Quarterly 28:249–277 (2011).

52. Philip Veliz and Sohaila Shakib, “Interscholastic Sports Participation and School Based Delinquency,” Sociological Spectrum 32:558–580 (2012).

53. Anthony Peguero, Ann Marie Popp, and Dixie J. Koo, “Race, Ethnicity, and School-Based Adolescent Victimization,” Crime and Delinquency, first published online February 28, 2011.

54. Ben Brown and William Reed Benedict, “Bullets, Blades, and Being Afraid in Hispanic High Schools: An Exploratory Study of the Presence of Weapons and Fear of Weapon-Associated Victimization among High School Students in a Border Town,” Crime and Delinquency 50: 372–395 (2004).

55. Christine Kerres Malecki and Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray, “Carrying a Weapon to School and Perceptions of Social Support in an Urban Middle School,” Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 11:169–178 (2003).

56. Pamela Wilcox and Richard Clayton, “A Multilevel Analysis of School-Based Weapon Possession,” Justice Quarterly 18:509–542 (2001).

57. Mark Anderson, Joanne Kaufman, Thomas Simon, Lisa Barrios, Len Paulozzi, George Ryan, Rodney Hammond, William Modzeleski, Thomas Feucht, Lloyd Potter, and the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study Group, “School-Associated Violent Deaths in the United States, 1994–1999,” Journal of the American Medical Association 286: 2695–2702 (2001).

58. Bryan Vossekuil, Marisa Reddy, Robert Fein, Randy Borum, and William Modzeleski, Safe School Initiative: An Interim Report on the Prevention of Targeted Violence in Schools (Washington, DC: United States Secret Service, 2000); Mary Ellen O’Toole, “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective, Federal Bureau of Investigation,”  http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter  (accessed June 2013).

59. American Psychological Association, “Bullying,”  http://www.apa.org/topics/bullying/  (accessed June 2013); American Educational Research Association (AERA), Prevention of Bullying in Schools, Colleges, and Universities: Research Report and Recommendations (Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 2013),  http://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/News%20Release/Prevention%20of%20Bullying%20in%20Schools,%20Colleges%20and%20Universities.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

60. Kate Gross, “Homophobic Bullying and Schools—Responding to the Challenge,” Youth Studies Australia 25:60 (2006).

61. Jane Ireland and Rachel Monaghan, “Behaviors Indicative of Bullying among Young and Juvenile Male Offenders: A Study of Perpetrator and Victim Characteristics,” Aggressive Behavior 32:172–180 (2006).

62. Young Shin Kim and Bennett Leventhal, “Bullying and Suicide: A Review,” International Journal of Adolescent Medical Health 20:133–154 (2008).

63. T. Joscelyne and S. Holttum, “Children’s Explanations of Aggressive Incidents at School within an Attribution Framework,” Child and Adolescent Mental Health 11:104–110 (2006).

64. Sameer Hinduja and Justin W. Patchin, “Social Influences on Cyberbullying Behaviors among Middle and High School Students,”Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42:711–722 (2013).

65. Jessie Klein, School Shootings and the Crisis of Bullying in America’s Schools (New York: New York University Press, 2012).

66. Norman A. White and Rolf Loeber, “Bullying and Special Education as Predictors of Serious Delinquency,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 45:380–397 (2008).

67. Ann Marie Popp, “The Effects of Exposure, Proximity, and Capable Guardians on the Risk of Bullying Victimization,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, first published online February 23, 2012.

68. Ken Seeley, Martin L. Tombari, Laurie J. Bennett, and Jason B. Dunkle, “Bullying in Schools: An Overview,” OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, December 2011,  http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/234205.pdf  (accessed June 2013).

69. Lisa Hutchinson Wallace and David May, “The Impact of Parental Attachment and Feelings of Isolation on Adolescent Fear of Crime at School,” Adolescence 40:457–474 (2005).

70. Robert Brewer and Monica Swahn, “Binge Drinking and Violence,” Journal of the American Medical Association 294:16–20 (2005).

71. Tomika Stevens, Kenneth Ruggiero, Dean Kilpatrick, Heidi Resnick, and Benjamin Saunders, “Variables Differentiating Singly and Multiply Victimized Youth: Results from the National Survey of Adolescents and Implications for Secondary Prevention,” Child Maltreatment 10:211–223 (2005); James Collins and Pamela Messerschmidt, “Epidemiology of Alcohol-Related Violence,” Alcohol Health and Research World 17:93–100 (1993).

72. Nancy Weishew and Samuel Peng, “Variables Predicting Students’ Problem Behaviors,” Journal of Educational Research 87:5–17 (1993).

73. Celia Lo, Young Kim, Thomas Allen, Andreqa Allen, Allison Minugh, and Nicoletta Lomuto, “The Impact of School Environment and Grade Level on Student Delinquency: A Multilevel Modeling Approach,” Crime and Delinquency 5:622–657 (2011).

74. Rami Benbenishty and Ron Avi Astor, School Violence in Context: Culture, Neighborhood, Family, School and Gender (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).

75. David Maimon, Olena Antonaccio, and Michael French, “Severe Sanctions, Easy Choice? Investigating the Role of School Sanctions in Preventing Adolescent Violent Offending,” Criminology 50:495–524 (2012).

76. Kristin Eisenbraun, “Violence in Schools: Prevalence, Prediction, and Prevention,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 12:459–469 (2007).

77. Richard Lawrence, School Crime and Juvenile Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

78. Wayne Welsh, Robert Stokes, and Jack Greene, “A Macro-Level Model of School Disorder,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37: 243–283 (2000).

79. Gary Gottfredson and Denise Gottfredson, Victimization in Schools (New York: Plenum Press, 1985), p 18.

80. Daryl Hellman and Susan Beaton, “The Pattern of Violence in Urban Public Schools: The Influence of School and Community,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 23:102–127 (1986).

81. Nancy Weishew and Samuel Peng, “Variables Predicting Students’ Problem Behaviors,” Journal of Educational Research 87:5–17 (1993).

82. Welsh, Stokes, and Greene, “A Macro-Level Model of School Disorder.”

83. Rod Brunson and Jody Miller, “Schools, Neighborhoods, and Adolescent Conflicts: A Situational Examination of Reciprocal Dynamics,” Justice Quarterly 26:1–27 (2009).

84. Sheila Heaviside, Cassandra Rowand, Catrina Williams, Elizabeth Burns, Shelley Burns, and Edith McArthur, Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996–97 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1998).

85. Crystal A. Garcia, “School Safety Technology in America: Current Use and Perceived Effectiveness,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 14:30–54 (2003).

86. National Center for Education Statistics, Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2012.

87. Bruce Jacobs, “Anticipatory Undercover Targeting in High Schools,” Journal of Criminal Justice 22:445–357 (1994).

88. New York City Police Department,  http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/home/home.shtml  (accessed June 2013).

89. Darcia Harris Bowman, “Curbing Crime,” Education Week, April 4, 2004.

90. Stuart Tremlow, “Preventing Violence in Schools,” Psychiatric Times 21:61–65 (2004).

91. Allison Ann Payne, Denise Gottfredson, and Gary Gottfredson, “Schools as Communities: The Relationships among Communal School Organization, Student Bonding, and School Disorder,” Criminology 41:749–777 (2003).

92. Susan L. Wynne and Hee-Jong Joo, “Predictors of School Victimization: Individual, Familial, and School Factors,” Crime and Delinquency 57:458–488 (2011).

93. Payne, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson, “Schools as Communities.”

94. Hellman and Beaton, “The Pattern of Violence in Public Schools,” pp. 122–123.

95. Glenn Cook, “Education Debates Return to the Headlines as Midterms Near,” American School Board Journal 193:6–7 (2006).

96. Stuart Yeh, “Reforming Federal Testing Policy to Support Teaching and Learning,” Educational Policy 20:495–524 (2006).

97. US Department of Education, “Race to the Top Program,”  http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/  (accessed July 2013).

98. Birch Bayh, “Challenge for the Third Century: Education in a Safe Environment—Final Report on the Nature and Prevention of School Violence and Vandalism,” report of the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, 95th Congress, 1st Session, p 95.

99. Douglas Breunlin, Rocco Cimmarusti, Joshua Hetherington, and Jayne Kinsman, “Making the Smart Choice: A Systemic Response to School-Based Violence,” Journal of Family Therapy 28:246–266 (2006).

100. “When School Is Out,” The Future of Children, vol. 9 (Los Altos, CA: David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Fall 1999).

101. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733 (1985).

102. Safford United School District No. 1 v. Redding [08-479].

103. Safford v. Redding, 557 U.S. ___ (2009).

104. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, No. 09–11121, June 16, 2011,  http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-11121.pdf  (accessed July 2013).

105. Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 115 S.Ct. 2394 (1995); Bernard James and Jonathan Pyatt, “Supreme Court Extends School’s Authority to Search,” National School Safety Center News Journal 26:29 (1995).

106. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County et al. v. Earls et al., 01.332 (2002).

107. Michael Medaris, A Guide to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998).

108. Ibid.

109. 393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733 (1969).

110. Ibid., p. 741.

111. Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S.Ct. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986).

112. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988).

113. Terry McManus, “Home Web Sites Thrust Students into Censorship Disputes,” New York Times, August 13, 1998, p. E9.

114. Morse et al. v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).

115. Santa Fe Independent School District, Petitioner v. Jane Doe, individually and as next friend for her minor children, Jane and John Doe, et al., No. 99-62 (June 19, 2000).

116. Good News Club et al. v. Milford Central School, No. 99-2036 (2001).

117. Va. Code Ann. S 22.1-203 (Michie 2000).

118. Brown v. Gilmore, 01-384 (case heard on October 29, 2001).

119. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, No. 02-1624 (2004).

120. Ibid.

121. 423 U.S. 907, 96 S.Ct. 210, 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975).

122. 430 U.S. 651, 97 S.Ct. 1401 (1977).

123. ACLU and Human Rights Watch press release, “US: Students with Disabilities Face Corporal Punishment at Higher Rates,” August 10, 2009,  http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/07/us-students-disabilities-face-corporal-punishment-higher-rates  (accessed June 2013).

11: Drug Use and Delinquency

Chapter Outline

Frequently Abused Drugs

· Marijuana and Hashish

Cocaine

Heroin

Alcohol

Other Drug Categories

Trends in Teenage Drug Use

· The Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey

The PRIDE Survey

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health

Are the Survey Results Accurate?

Why Do Youths Take Drugs?

· Social Disorganization

Peer Pressure

Family Factors

Genetic Factors

Emotional Problems

Problem Behavior Syndrome

Rational Choice

Pathways to Drug Abuse

· Adolescents Who Distribute Small Amounts of Drugs

Adolescents Who Frequently Sell Drugs

Teenage Drug Dealers Who Commit Other Delinquent Acts

Losers and Burnouts

Persistent Offenders

Drug Use and Delinquency

· Drugs and Chronic Offending

Explaining Drug Use and Delinquency

Drug Control Strategies

· Law Enforcement Efforts

Education Strategies

Community Strategies

Treatment Strategies

Harm Reduction

What Does the Future Hold?

chapter features

· Youth stories: Hope Turner

· Case profile: Fernando’s Story

· focus on Delinquency: Does Drug Dealing Pay?

· focus on Delinquency: Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)

· Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—treatment: Multisystemic Therapy

· Professional spotlight: Mai Ferrell

Learning Objectives

· 1 Know which drugs are most frequently abused by American youth

· 2 Understand the extent of the drug problem among American youth today

· 3 Be able to discuss how teenage drug use in this country has changed over time

· 4 Know the main explanations for why youths take drugs

· 5 Recognize the different behavior patterns of drug-involved youths

· 6 Understand the relationship between drug use and delinquency

· 7 Be familiar with the major drug control strategies

· 8 Be able to argue the pros and cons of government use of different drug control strategies

ON HER WAY HOME FROM high school, after celebrating the last day of classes by drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana with friends, Carla Wagner lost control of her car and hit Helen Marie Witty, age 16. Helen Marie was rollerblading on the sidewalk. The impact of the collision instantly killed the young victim. Wagner was convicted of manslaughter while driving under the influence and was sentenced to six years at a women’s prison in Florida. As part of her sentence she is required to speak to high school students about the dangers of drinking and driving and the lifelong consequences that this criminal action can cause to victims and their families, as well as offenders. The victim’s parents, Helen and John Witty, also speak to the same high school students to tell the story of their tragic loss. These educational campaigns have become more widespread in recent years, along with teen-focused antidrug workshops, which help youths learn more about what works and how they can play a role in preventing drug use in the community.

There is little question that adolescent  substance abuse  and its association with delinquency are vexing problems. Almost every town, village, and city in the United States has confronted some type of teenage substance abuse problem. Self-report surveys indicate that just under half of high school seniors have tried drugs and 7 out of 10 (69 percent) have used alcohol. 1

substance abuse

Using drugs or alcohol in such a way as to cause physical, emotional, and/or psychological harm to yourself.

Adolescents at high risk for drug abuse often come from the most impoverished communities and experience a multitude of problems, including school failure and family conflict. 2  Equally troubling is the association between drug use and crime. 3  Research indicates that between 5 and 8 percent of all juvenile male arrestees in some cities test positive for cocaine. 4  Self-report surveys show that drug abusers are more likely to become delinquents than are nonabusers. 5  The pattern of drug use and crime makes teenage substance abuse a key national concern.

This chapter addresses some important issues involving teenage substance abuse, beginning with a review of the kinds of drugs children and adolescents are using and how often they are using them. Then we discuss who uses drugs and what causes substance abuse. After describing the association between drug abuse and delinquent behavior, the chapter concludes with a review of efforts to prevent and control the use of drugs in the United States.

Frequently Abused Drugs

A wide variety of substances referred to as “drugs” are used by teenagers. Some are addicting, others not. Some create hallucinations, others cause a depressed stupor, and a few give an immediate uplift. This section identifies the most widely used substances and discusses their effects. All of these drugs can be abused, and because of the danger they present, many have been banned from private use. Others are available legally only with a physician’s supervision, and a few are available to adults but prohibited for children.

Marijuana and Hashish

Commonly called “pot” or “grass,” marijuana is produced from the leaves of Cannabis sativa.  Hashish  (hash) is a concentrated form of cannabis made from unadulterated resin from the female plant. The main active ingredient in both marijuana and hashish is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a mild hallucinogen.  Marijuana  is a drug commonly used by teenagers.

hashish

A concentrated form of cannabis made from unadulterated resin from the female cannabis plant.

marijuana

The dried leaves of the cannabis plant.

Smoking large amounts of pot or hash can cause distortions in auditory and visual perception, even producing hallucinatory effects. Small doses produce an early excitement (“high”) that gives way to drowsiness. Pot use is also related to decreased activity, overestimation of time and space, and increased food consumption. When the user is alone, marijuana produces a dreamy state. In a group, users become giddy and lose perspective.

Marijuana is not physically addicting, but its long-term effects have been the subject of much debate. During the 1970s, it was reported that smoking pot caused a variety of physical and mental problems, including brain damage and mental illness. Although the dangers of pot and hash may have been overstated, use of these drugs does present some health risks, including an increased risk of lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and other diseases. Marijuana smoking should be avoided by prospective parents because it lowers sperm count in male users, and females experience disrupted ovulation and a greater chance of miscarriage. 6

Like other drugs, marijuana can be refined or altered. One especially well known version is  synthetic marijuana . Also known as Spice and K-2, this is an “herbal drug mixture” that most often combines designer chemicals derived from the cannibinoid family of drugs. 7  Only recently (in 2011) did the Drug Enforcement Administration add synthetic marijuana to its schedule of illegal drugs. Just over 11 percent of high school seniors report using this form of marijuana in the last year. 8

synthetic marijuana

A mixture of chemicals derived from the cannibinoid family.

Alcohol-related deaths number 100,000 a year, far more than all other illegal drugs combined. Considering this, why do so many youths abuse alcohol? Youths who use alcohol report that it reduces tension, enhances pleasure, improves social skills, and transforms experiences for the better. Although these reactions may result from limited use of alcohol, alcohol in higher doses acts as a depressant.

Cocaine

Cocaine  is an alkaloid derivative of the coca plant. When first isolated in 1860, it was considered a medicinal breakthrough that could relieve fatigue, depression, and other symptoms, and it quickly became a staple of patent medicines. When its addictive qualities and dangerous side effects became apparent, its use was controlled by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.

cocaine

A powerful natural stimulant derived from the coca plant.

Cocaine is the most powerful natural stimulant. Its use produces euphoria, restlessness, and excitement. Overdoses can cause delirium, violent manic behavior, and possible respiratory failure. The drug can be sniffed, or “snorted,” into the nostrils, or it can be injected. The immediate feeling of euphoria, or “rush,” is short-lived, and heavy users may snort coke as often as every 10 minutes. Another dangerous practice is “speedballing”—injecting a mixture of cocaine and heroin.

Crack  is processed street cocaine. Its manufacture involves using ammonia or baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) to remove the hydrochlorides and create a crystalline form of cocaine that can be smoked. In fact, crack gets its name from the fact that the sodium bicarbonate often emits a crackling sound when the substance is smoked. Also referred to as “rock,” “gravel,” and “roxanne,” crack gained popularity in the mid-1980s. It is relatively inexpensive, can provide a powerful high, and is highly addictive psychologically. Crack cocaine use has been in decline in recent years. Heavy criminal penalties, tight enforcement, and social disapproval have helped to lower crack use.

crack

A highly addictive crystalline form of cocaine containing remnants of hydrochloride and sodium bicarbonate, which emits a crackling sound when smoked.

Heroin

Narcotic drugs produce insensibility to pain and free the mind of anxiety and emotion. Users experience relief from fear and apprehension, release of tension, and elevation of spirits. This short period of euphoria is followed by a period of apathy, during which users become drowsy and may nod off.  Heroin , the most commonly used narcotic in the United States, is produced from opium, a drug derived from the opium poppy flower. Dealers cut the drug with neutral substances (sugar or lactose), and street heroin is often only 1 to 4 percent pure.

heroin

A narcotic made from opium and then cut with sugar or some other neutral substance until it is only 1 to 4 percent pure.

Heroin is probably the most dangerous commonly used drug. Users rapidly build up a tolerance for it, fueling the need for increased doses to obtain the desired effect. At first heroin is usually sniffed or snorted; as tolerance builds, it is “skin popped” (shot into skin, but not into a vein), and finally it is injected into a vein, or “main-lined.” 9  Through this progressive use, the user becomes an  addict —a person with an overpowering physical and psychological need to continue taking a particular substance by any means possible. If addicts cannot get enough heroin to satisfy their habit, they suffer withdrawal symptoms, which include irritability, depression, extreme nervousness, and nausea.

addict

A person with an overpowering physical or psychological need to continue taking a particular substance or drug.

Alcohol

The drug of choice for most teenagers continues to be  alcohol . A little under two-thirds (64 percent) of high school seniors reported using alcohol in the past year, and 69 percent say they have tried it at some time during their lifetime; by the 12th grade 54 percent of American youth report that they have “been drunk.” 10  More than 20 million Americans are estimated to be problem drinkers, and at least half of these are alcoholics.

alcohol

Fermented or distilled liquids containing ethanol, an intoxicating substance.

What kind of people become addicts? View the Schaffer Library of Drug Policy website ( http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/ ). You can also visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Just over 1.4 million drivers are arrested each year for driving under the influence (including 9,300 teen drivers), and about 840,000 more are arrested for other alcohol-related violations. 11  Drinking and driving by teenagers alone results in more than 800 deaths each year. 12  The economic cost is staggering. An estimated $185 billion is lost each year, including $36 billion from premature deaths, $88 billion in reduced work effort, and $19 billion arising from short- and long-term medical problems. 13

Considering these problems, why do so many youths drink to excess? Youths who use alcohol report that it reduces tension, enhances pleasure, improves social skills, and transforms experiences for the better. 14  Although these reactions may result from limited use of alcohol, in higher doses alcohol acts as a depressant. Long-term use has been linked with depression and physical ailments ranging from heart disease to cirrhosis of the liver. Many teens also think drinking stirs their romantic urges, but scientific evidence indicates that alcohol decreases sexual response. 15

To learn more about the causes of alcoholism, go to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. ( http://www.ncadd.org/ ), a group that advocates prevention, intervention, research, and treatment of alcoholism and other drug addictions. You can also access their website by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Other Drug Categories

Other drug categories include anesthetic drugs, inhalants, sedatives and barbiturates, tranquilizers, hallucinogens, stimulants, steroids, designer drugs, and cigarettes.

Anesthetic Drugs

A variety of drugs called  anesthetic drugs  are central nervous system (CNS) depressants. Local anesthetics block nervous system transmissions; general anesthetics act on the brain to produce loss of sensation, stupor, or unconsciousness. The most widely abused anesthetic drug is phencyclidine (PCP), known as “angel dust.” Angel dust can be sprayed on marijuana or other leaves and smoked, drunk, or injected. Originally developed as an animal tranquilizer, PCP creates hallucinations and a spaced-out feeling that causes heavy users to engage in violent acts. The effects of PCP can last up to two days, and the danger of overdose is high.

anesthetic drugs

Central nervous system depressants.

Inhalants

Some youths inhale vapors from lighter fluid, paint thinner, cleaning fluid, or model airplane glue to reach a drowsy, dizzy state that is sometimes accompanied by hallucinations.  Inhalants  produce a short-term euphoria followed by a period of disorientation, slurred speech, and drowsiness. Amyl nitrite (“poppers”) is a commonly used volatile liquid packaged in capsule form, which is inhaled when the capsule is broken open.

inhalants

Volatile liquids that give off a vapor, which is inhaled, producing short-term excitement and euphoria followed by a period of disorientation.

Sedatives and Barbiturates

The most commonly used drugs of the barbiturate family are  sedatives , which depress the central nervous system into a sleeplike condition. On the illegal market, sedatives are called “goofballs” or “downers” and are often known by the color of the capsules: “reds” (Seconal), “blue devils” (Amytal), and “rainbows” (Tuinal).

sedatives

Drugs of the barbiturate family that depress the central nervous system into a sleeplike condition.

Sedatives can be prescribed by doctors as sleeping pills. Illegal users employ them to create relaxed, sociable feelings; overdoses can cause irritability, repellent behavior, and unconsciousness. Barbiturates are the major cause of drug-overdose deaths.

Tranquilizers

Legally prescribed  tranquilizers , such as Ampazine, Thorazine, Pacatal, and Sparine, were originally designed to control the behavior of people suffering from psychoses, aggressiveness, and agitation. Less powerful tranquilizers, such as Valium, Librium, Miltown, and Equanil, are used to combat anxiety, tension, fast heart rate, and headaches. The use of illegally obtained tranquilizers can lead to addiction, and withdrawal can be painful and hazardous.

tranquilizers

Drugs that reduce anxiety and promote relaxation.

Hallucinogens

Both natural and synthetic  hallucinogens  produce vivid distortions of the senses without greatly disturbing the viewer’s consciousness. Some produce hallucinations, and others cause psychotic behavior in otherwise normal people.

hallucinogens

Natural or synthetic substances that produce vivid distortions of the senses without greatly disturbing consciousness.

One common hallucinogen is mescaline, named after the Mescalero Apaches, who first discovered its potent effect. Mescaline occurs naturally in peyote, a small cactus that grows in Mexico and the southwestern United States. After initial discomfort, mescaline produces vivid hallucinations and out-of-body sensations.

A second group of hallucinogens are synthetic alkaloid compounds. These can be transformed into lysergic acid diethylamide, commonly called LSD. This powerful substance stimulates cerebral sensory centers to produce visual hallucinations, intensify hearing, and increase sensitivity. Users often report a scrambling of sensations; they may “hear colors” and “smell music.” Users also report feeling euphoric and mentally superior, although to an observer they appear disoriented. Anxiety and panic may occur, and overdoses can produce psychotic episodes, flashbacks, and even death.

Stimulants

“Uppers,” “speed,” “pep pills,” and “crystal” are  stimulants —synthetic drugs that stimulate action in the central nervous system. They produce increased blood pressure, breathing rate, and bodily activity, and mood elevation. One widely used amphetamine produces psychological effects such as increased confidence, euphoria, impulsive behavior, and loss of appetite. Commonly used stimulants include Benzedrine (“bennies”), Dexedrine (“dex”), Dexamyl, Bephetamine (“whites”), and Methedrine (“meth,” “speed,” “crystal meth”). Methedrine is probably the most widely used and most dangerous amphetamine. Some people swallow it; heavy users inject it. Long-term heavy use can result in exhaustion, anxiety, prolonged depression, and hallucinations.

stimulants

Synthetic substances that produce an intense physical reaction by stimulating the central nervous system.

One form of methamphetamine is a crystallized substance with the street name of “ice” or “crystal.” Ice methamphetamine looks similar to shards of ice or chunks of rock salt and is highly pure and extremely addictive. 16  Smoking this ice or crystal causes weight loss, kidney damage, heart and respiratory problems, and paranoia. 17  Methamphetamines in general, whether in the three main forms of powder, ice, or tablets, have become an increasingly important priority of US law enforcement authorities. One study estimates that the economic cost of methamphetamine use in the United States exceeds $23 billion annually. 18  Because of this drug’s popularity and deadly consequences, it is the subject of the accompanying Youth Stories feature.

Steroids

Teenagers use highly dangerous  anabolic steroids  to gain muscle bulk and strength. 19  Black-market sales of these drugs approach $1 billion annually. Although not physically addicting, steroids can become an obsession among teens who desire athletic success. Long-term users may spend up to $400 a week on steroids and may support their habit by dealing the drug.

anabolic steroids

Drugs used by athletes and bodybuilders to gain muscle bulk and strength.

Steroids are dangerous because of the health problems associated with their long-term use: liver ailments, tumors, kidney problems, sexual dysfunction, hypertension, and mental problems such as depression. Steroid use runs in cycles, and other drugs—Clomid, Teslac, and Halotestin, for example—that carry their own dangerous side effects are often used to curb the need for high dosages of steroids. Finally, steroid users often share needles, which puts them at high risk for contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

Designer Drugs

Lab-created synthetics designed to get around existing drug laws, at least temporarily, are known as  designer drugs . The most widely used designer drug is ecstasy, which is derived from speed and methamphetamine. After being swallowed, snorted, injected, or smoked, it acts simultaneously as a stimulant and a hallucinogen, producing mood swings, disturbing sleeping and eating habits, altering thinking processes, creating aggressive behavior, interfering with sexual function, and affecting sensitivity to pain. The drug can also increase blood pressure and heart rate. Teenage users taking ecstasy at raves have died from heat stroke because the drug can cause dehydration.

designer drugs

Lab-made drugs designed to avoid existing drug laws.

Cigarettes

Many countries around the world have established laws to prohibit the sale of cigarettes to minors. The reality, however, is that in many countries children and adolescents have easy access to tobacco products. 20  In the United States, the 1992 Synar Amendment requires states to enact and enforce laws restricting the sale of tobacco products to youths under the age of 18. States were required to reduce illegal sales rates to minors to no more than 20 percent. The FDA rules require age verification for anyone under the age of 27 who is purchasing tobacco products. The FDA has also banned cigarette vending machines and self-service displays except in adult-only facilities. The signing of the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement between 46 states and the tobacco industry in 1998 placed further restrictions on the advertising and marketing of cigarettes to young people and allocated substantial sums to antismoking campaigns. 21  Some efforts to enforce compliance with these restrictions and educate tobacco retailers about the new laws have produced promising results. 22  Despite all of these measures, two out of every five high school seniors in America (40 percent) report having smoked cigarettes over their lifetime. However, in recent years cigarette use by high school students has been on the decline. 23

youth stories: Hope Turner

Hope Turner was just 5 years old when she was first exposed to methamphetamine. She didn’t ingest it, but she just as easily could have. Her dad used methamphetamine on a regular basis and would leave the drug lying about the house. Called to the house on another matter one night in December 2005, Kansas City, Missouri, police discovered a gram of the drug and the implements used to smoke it. Hope was being watched by her dad that night, as was sometimes the case ever since her mom and dad had divorced.

The police charged Hope’s dad with possession of an uncontrolled substance. But that was the extent of the case. Unlike some states, Missouri did not consider the use or possession of illicit drugs in the presence of a minor a form of child endangerment, a criminal offense punishable with a prison sentence.

The case made front page headlines and outraged the community and Dennine Turner, Hope’s mom. Concerned for the safety of her own daughter and other children throughout the state, Dennine Turner lobbied the state legislature and the governor to take action. Methamphetamine use was especially problematic in the state. Its use by teenagers and adults was on the rise, and home “meth labs” were being uncovered by law enforcement at a rate of more than one a day, putting children at serious risk of exposure to the drug and injury from the toxic chemicals used in its manufacture.

A bill was eventually passed and signed into law by Missouri governor Jay Nixon on July 9, 2009. Known as “Hope’s Law,” after Hope Turner, it states, in part, “that anyone who possesses methamphetamine in the presence, or the home of, a person younger than 17, will be guilty of endangering the welfare of a child, in the first degree.” In Missouri, child endangerment is a class-C felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Hope’s Law represents one way to help reduce the dangers that drugs present to children in the home. Could other states benefit from similar laws? What is the state of affairs across the country?

·  Although methamphetamine use among secondary school students has shown a downward trend in the 14 years it has been investigated (1999 to 2012), authorities are concerned because it has spread from its origins in the rural West to other parts of the country and into urban and suburban areas. According to the US Department of Justice’s National Drug Intelligence Center, methamphetamine availability is highest in the Pacific region, followed by the West, Southwest, Southeast, Midwest, and Northeast regions.

·  Data on methamphetamine seizure amounts from the Drug Enforcement Administration suggest that methamphetamine availability has increased considerably. In 2007, the amount seized was 4,974 kilograms compared to 6,568 kilograms in 2009.

·  Other problems arise from the majority of it being produced domestically, either in “Mom and Pop” laboratories or in superlabs, which are mostly found in the Central Valley and southern areas of California. It can be made with many household products that are difficult or not feasible to regulate, and its production presents many dangers to people and the environment.

·  A number of states, such as Oklahoma and Iowa, have banned over-the-counter sales of cold medicines like Sudafed, making them available only by prescription, because they contain pseudoephedrine, an essential ingredient of methamphetamines.

CRITICAL THINKING

Do you think laws like Hope’s Law can make a difference in protecting children from the dangers of drugs? What are some other approaches that may prove helpful?

SOURCES: “Woman Pushes for Passage of Hope’s Law,” KMBC-Kansas City, Missouri, April 6, 2007,  http://www.kmbc.com  (accessed July 2013); Lloyd Johnston, Patrick O’Malley, Jerald Bachman, and John Schulenberg, Monitoring the Future National Results on Drug Use: 2012 Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 2013), table 5; National Drug Intelligence Center, Methamphetamine Drug Threat Assessment, p. 8; National Drug Intelligence Center, Drug Availability in the United States (Johnstown, PA: Author, 2010), figure 11; National Drug Intelligence Center, Pseudoephedrine Smurfing Fuels Surge in Large-Scale Methamphetamine Production in California: Situation Report (Johnstown PA: Author, 2009); Dana Hunt, Sarah Kuck, and Linda Truitt, Methamphetamine Use: Lessons Learned (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc., 2005), pp. iv, v; Fox Butterfield, “Fighting an Illegal Drug Through Its Legal Source,” New York Times, January 30, 2005, p. A18; Kate Zernike, “Potent Mexican Meth Floods in as States Curb Domestic Variety,” New York Times, January 23, 2006.

Trends in Teenage Drug Use

Has America’s decades-long War on Drugs paid off? Has drug use declined, or is it on the upswing? A number of national surveys conduct annual reviews of teen drug use by interviewing samples of teens around the nation. What do national surveys tell us about the extent of drug use, and what have been the recent trends in teen usage?

The Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey

One of the most important and influential surveys of teen substance abuse is the annual Monitoring the Future survey conducted by the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. In all, about 45,000 students located in 433 secondary schools participate in the study.

The most recent MTF survey in 2012 indicates that, with a few exceptions, drug use among American adolescents continued to decline from the peak levels reached in 1996 and 1997. Annual drug use was down by more than two-fifths (43 percent) for 8th-graders during this period, while reductions have been somewhat lower for those in the 10th (20 percent) and 12th (3 percent) grades. 24  As  Figure 11.1  shows, drug use peaked in the late 1970s and early 1980s and then began a decade-long decline until showing an uptick in the mid-1990s; usage for most drugs has been stable or in decline since then. Especially encouraging has been a significant drop in the use of alcohol by the youngest kids in the survey—a 26 percent drop in annual rates in the last five years (from 32.1 percent in 2008 to 23.6 percent in 2012) and a 37 percent drop in the last 10 years (from 37.2 percent in 2003). There has also been a continuing decline in cigarette smoking and use of smokeless tobacco products. According to the study, cigarette use in 2012 was at its lowest levels recorded in the life of the MTF survey—37 years in the case of high school seniors. 25  In recent years, a great deal of attention has been paid to the use of prescription-type drugs such as narcotics, tranquilizers, and sedatives among youths. From 2011 to 2012, annual use of OxyContin, a prescription painkiller narcotic, was lower among 12th-graders (from 4.9 percent to 4.3 percent), 10th-graders (3.9 percent to 3.0 percent), and 8th-graders (1.8 percent to 1.6 percent). 26  Annual use among all grades combined (2.9 percent in 2012) was also lower from the peak year of 2009, when it was 3.9 percent. 27

figure 11.1: Trends in Annual Prevalence of Illicit Drug Use

SOURCE: Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and John E. Schulenberg, Monitoring the Future National Results on Drug Use: 2012 Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 2013), table 6.

The PRIDE Survey

A second source of information on teen drug and alcohol abuse is the National Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) survey, which up until recently was also conducted annually. 28  Typically, findings from the PRIDE survey correlate highly with the MTF drug survey. The most recent PRIDE survey (for the 2009–10 school year) indicates small to moderate reductions in drug activity over the previous school year, but substantial decreases over the last 10 years. For example, just over 21 percent of students in grades 6 to 12 claimed to have used drugs during the past year, down from about 25 percent in the 2000–01 school year (see  Table 11.1 ). Cigarette smoking and alcohol use were also down. The fact that two surveys generate roughly the same pattern in drug abuse helps bolster their validity and give support to a decline in teenage substance abuse.

table 11.1: Annual Drug Use, 2000–2001 vs. 2009–2010, Grades 6–12

	2000–01 (%)	2009–10 (%)	Rate of Decrease (%)
Cigarettes	30.5	18.9	38.0
Any alcohol	52.1	40.3	22.6
Any illicit drug	24.6	21.4	13.0
Source: PRIDE Questionnaire Report for Grades 6 to 12: National Summary Statistics for 2009–10 (Bowling Green, KY: PRIDE Surveys, September 27, 2010), tables 1.5–1.7.

The National Survey on Drug Use and Health

Sponsored by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH, formerly called the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) interviews approximately 70,000 people at home each year. 29  Like the MTF and PRIDE surveys, the latest NSDUH survey (2011) shows that drug and alcohol use, although still a problem, has stabilized or declined.

Although overall illicit drug use by youth ages 12 to 17 has declined somewhat in recent years (a significant 13 percent reduction between 2002 and 2011), 30  it still remains a significant problem. For example, heavy drinking (defined as having five or more alcoholic drinks on the same occasion on at least five different days in the past 30 days) was reported by a little more than 6 percent of the population ages 12 and older, or just under 16 million people. Among youths ages 12 to 17, 1.5 percent were heavy drinkers and 7.4 percent engaged in binge drinking, defined as having five or more alcoholic beverages on the same occasion at least once in the past 30 days. 31

The latest NSDUH results showed that rates of overall illicit drug use in the past month are higher for adolescent males than for females (10.8 percent versus 9.3 percent). Conversely, adolescent females reported higher rates than males for nonmedical use of psychotherapeutic drugs (3.2 percent versus 2.4 percent) and nonmedical use of pain relievers (2.6 percent versus 1.9 percent). 32  Previous surveys (2002–04) found that adolescent females were closing the gap with their male counterparts in terms of usage of marijuana, alcohol, and cigarettes. 33  The most recent survey shows that current marijuana use is more common among male youths (9.0 percent) compared to their female counterparts (6.7 percent). 34

Are the Survey Results Accurate?

Student drug surveys must be interpreted with caution. First, it may be overly optimistic to expect that heavy users are going to cooperate with a drug-use survey, especially one conducted by a government agency. Even if willing, these students are likely to be absent from school during testing periods. Also, drug abusers are more likely to be forgetful and to give inaccurate accounts of their substance abuse.

Another problem is the likelihood that the most drug-dependent portion of the adolescent population is omitted from the sample. In some cities, almost half of all youths arrested dropped out of school before the 12th grade, and more than half of these arrestees are drug users. 35  Juvenile detainees (those arrested and held in a lockup) test positively for cocaine at a rate many times higher than those reporting recent use in the MTF and PRIDE surveys. 36  The inclusion of eighth-graders in the MTF sample is one way of getting around the dropout problem. Nonetheless, high school surveys may be excluding some of the most drug-prone young people in the population.

There is evidence that the accuracy of reporting may be affected by social and personal traits: girls are more willing than boys to admit taking drugs; kids from two-parent homes are less willing to admit taking drugs than kids growing up in single-parent homes. Julia Yun Soo Kim, Michael Fendrich, and Joseph Wislar speculate that it is culturally unacceptable for some subgroups in the population, such as Hispanic females, to use drugs, and therefore, in self-report surveys, they may underrepresent their involvement. 37

Although these problems are serious, they are consistent over time and therefore do not hinder the measurement of change or trends in drug usage. That is, prior surveys also omitted dropouts and other high-risk individuals and were biased because of cultural issues. However, because these problems are built into every wave of the surveys, any change recorded in the annual substance abuse rate is probably genuine. So, although the validity of these surveys may be questioned, they are probably reliable indicators of trends in substance abuse.

Why Do Youths Take Drugs?

Why do youths engage in an activity that is sure to bring them overwhelming problems? It is hard to imagine that even the youngest drug users are unaware of the problems associated with substance abuse. Although it is easy to understand dealers’ desires for quick profits, how can we explain users’ disregard for long- and short-term consequences?

Self-report surveys are one source that can be drawn upon to elucidate some of the reasons or motives for why youths take drugs. Drawing upon 30 years of data collected from the Monitoring the Future survey (1976–2005), researchers identified a wide range of motives among high school seniors. 38  Social and recreational reasons were the most common responses, with more than half (57.2 percent) of all seniors saying they use drugs “to have a good time,” “to experiment” (49.3 percent), and “to get high” (43.0 percent). Coping with negative affect was the next most common group of reasons for using drugs; for example, 38 percent of seniors reported using drugs “to relax,” 19 percent “to get away from problems,” and 15 percent “because of anger/frustration.” Smaller percentages of students reported using drugs for other groups of reasons, including drug effect (for example, “to increase drug effects”; 6.7 percent), compulsive use (for example, “to get through the day”; 6.1 percent), cope with physical needs (for example, “to sleep”; 7.1 percent), and miscellaneous (for example, “because it tastes good”; 35.4 percent). 39   Concept Summary 11.1  reviews these and other most likely reasons why youths take drugs.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 11.1: Key Reasons Why Youths Take Drugs

Social disorganization	Poverty; growing up in disorganized urban environment
Peer pressure	Associating with youths who take drugs
Family factors	Poor family life, including harsh punishment, neglect
Genetic factors	Parents abuse drugs
Emotional problems	Feelings of inadequacy; blame others for failures
Problem behavior syndrome	Drug use is one of many problem behaviors
Rational choice	Perceived benefits, including relaxation, greater creativity

Social Disorganization

One explanation ties drug abuse to poverty, social disorganization, and hopelessness. Drug use by young minority group members has been tied to factors such as racial prejudice, low self-esteem, poor socioeconomic status, and the stress of living in a harsh urban environment. 40  The associations among drug use, race, and poverty have been linked to the high level of mistrust and defiance found in lower socioeconomic areas. 41  Despite the long-documented association between social disorganization and drug use, and even some specific drugs like methamphetamine, 42  the empirical data on the relationship between class and crime have been inconclusive. 43  For example, the National Youth Survey (NYS), a longitudinal study of delinquent behavior conducted by Delbert Elliott and his associates, found little if any association between drug use and social class. The NYS found that drug use is higher among urban youths, but there was little evidence that minority youths or members of the lower class were more likely to abuse drugs than white youths and the more affluent. 44  Research by the Rand Corporation indicates that many drug-dealing youths had legitimate jobs at the time they were arrested for drug trafficking. 45  Therefore, it would be difficult to describe drug abusers simply as unemployed dropouts.

Peer Pressure

Shared feelings and a sense of intimacy lead youths to become fully enmeshed in the “drug-use subculture.” Drug users do in fact have intimate and warm relationships with substance-abusing peers, which help support their habits and behaviors.

Research shows that adolescent drug abuse is highly correlated with the behavior of best friends, especially when parental supervision is weak. 46  Youths in inner-city areas where feelings of alienation run high often come in contact with drug users who teach them that drugs provide an answer to their feelings of inadequacy and stress. 47  Perhaps they join with peers to learn the techniques of drug use; their friendships with other drug-dependent youths give them social support for their habit. Empirical research efforts show that a youth’s association with friends who are substance abusers increases the probability of drug use. 48  The relationship is reciprocal: adolescent substance abusers seek friends who engage in these behaviors, and associating with drug abusers leads to increased levels of drug abuse. Recent research by Gregory Zimmerman and Bob Edward Vásquez also finds that the peer effect on adolescent substance use may be nonlinear; that is, it decreases at higher levels of substance use, which suggests a “saturation” effect. The researchers also found that the peer influence on substance use is partially mediated by the perceptions of the health consequences of substance use and that neighborhood context plays a more important role than previously suggested. 49

Peer networks may be the most significant influence on long-term substance abuse. Shared feelings and a sense of intimacy can lead youths to become enmeshed in what has been described as the “drug-use subculture.” 50  Research indicates that drug users do in fact have warm relationships with substance-abusing peers who help support their behaviors. 51  These behaviors can also be reinforced through adolescent peer networks brought about by dating and romantic relationships. 52  This lifestyle provides users with a clear role, activities they enjoy, and an opportunity for attaining status among their peers. 53  One reason it is so difficult to treat hard-core users is that quitting drugs means leaving the “fast life” of the streets.

Family Factors

Poor family life is also offered as an explanation for drug use. Studies have found that the majority of drug users have had an unhappy childhood, which included harsh punishment and parental neglect. 54  The drug abuse and family quality association may involve both racial and gender differences. Females and whites who were abused as children are more likely to have alcohol and drug arrests as adults; abuse is less likely to affect drug use in males and African Americans. 55  It is also common to find substance abusers within large families and where parents are divorced, separated, or absent. 56

Social psychologists suggest that drug abuse patterns may also result from observation of parental drug use. 57  Youths who learn that drugs provide pleasurable sensations may be most likely to experiment with illegal substances; a habit may develop if the user experiences lower anxiety and fear. 58  Research shows, for example, that gang members raised in families with a history of drug use were more likely than other gang members to use cocaine and to use it seriously. And even among gang members, parental abuse was found to be a key factor in the onset of adolescent drug use. 59  Observing drug abuse may be a more important cause of drug abuse than other family-related problems.

Other family factors associated with teen drug abuse include parental conflict over childrearing practices, failure to set rules, and unrealistic demands followed by harsh punishments. Low parental attachment, rejection, and excessive family conflict have all been linked to adolescent substance abuse. 60  The Case Profile entitled “Fernando’s Story” tells how one young person worked to deal with family problems that contributed to his drug use and criminal activity.

Genetic Factors

The association between parental drug abuse and adolescent behavior may have a genetic basis. 61  Research has shown that biological children of alcoholics reared by nonalcoholic adoptive parents develop alcohol problems more often than the natural children of the adoptive parents. 62  A number of studies comparing alcoholism among identical and fraternal twins have found that the degree of concordance (both siblings behaving identically) is twice as high among the identical twin groups. 63

A genetic basis for drug abuse is also supported by evidence showing that future substance abuse problems can be predicted by behavior exhibited as early as 6 years of age. The traits predicting future abuse are independent from peer relations and environmental influences. 64

To read more about the concept of addiction, go to the Psychedelic Library ( http://www.psychedelic-library.org/ ) or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Emotional Problems

As we have seen, not all drug-abusing youths reside in lower-class urban areas. To explain drug abuse across social classes, some experts have linked drug use to emotional problems that can strike youths in any economic class. Psychodynamic explanations of substance abuse suggest that drugs help youths control or express unconscious needs. Some psychoanalysts believe adolescents who internalize their problems may use drugs to reduce their feelings of inadequacy. Introverted people may use drugs as an escape from real or imagined feelings of inferiority. 65  Another view is that adolescents who externalize their problems and blame others for their perceived failures are likely to engage in antisocial behaviors, including substance abuse. Research exists to support each of these positions. 66

case profile: Fernando’s Story

FERNANDO ELLIS was a 15-year-old of Latino heritage who was referred to the local mental health/substance abuse agency after he attempted to jump out of his father’s moving vehicle during a verbal argument. Fernando had been using and was high on drugs at the time. He was skipping school, using marijuana on a daily basis, and had numerous drug-related police contacts and charges. He was also on probation for selling drugs on school grounds.

Fernando’s father worked long hours and drank to excess when he was at home. He introduced his son to alcohol and drugs at an early age, and offered little supervision or guidance. Fernando’s mother was killed in an accident when Fernando was 12 years old, leaving his father to care for him and his three older siblings. In addition, Fernando was born with a birth defect that had often resulted in teasing by other children. At times, it was difficult to understand his speech, and he walked with a significant limp. It appeared Fernando was trying to fit in, “be cool,” and gain acceptance by engaging in criminal activity.

At the juvenile court hearing, Fernando was ordered to complete community service and individual counseling, and was referred to the community mental health center for an alcohol and drug assessment, as well as a suicide risk assessment. He reluctantly cooperated with the order to avoid a more serious disposition.

Fernando’s assessments indicated that although he did try to jump out of a moving car, he did not appear to be a suicide risk. He was under the influence at the time and in a very heated argument with his father. There was concern about his daily use of drugs and alcohol, and Fernando was referred to an outpatient drug treatment program at the center. In addition, Fernando met weekly with his counselor for individual counseling. They worked on his drug and alcohol issues, changing his behavior and habits, and on the grief and loss issues related to the sudden death of his mother. This loss was a significant turning point for Fernando. Up to that time, he had been a good student who was not involved with drugs. Everything changed when his mother was killed.

Over the course of his work with his counselor, Fernando began to process this significant loss, as well as make positive changes in his life. A team of professionals including his teachers, probation officer, drug and alcohol counselor, and a mentor provided by the school all worked with Fernando to help him realize his goals. He began to attend school on a more regular basis, and worked to improve his relationships with his father and siblings and to reduce his criminal activity and drug and alcohol use. Fernando continued to occasionally use alcohol but eliminated his drug use. He also struggled with his home situation and sometimes ran away from home to stay with friends. Overall, Fernando significantly reduced his criminal activity, although he remained on probation for the duration of the court order.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Based on the information you read in this chapter, list the reasons why Fernando may have abused alcohol and drugs. What were the significant family factors that may have played a role?

2.

Although there was progress in the case, involved team members continued to have concerns for Fernando and his siblings. What could have been done to address these concerns? Do you think Fernando should have been removed from his parental home? How would this have impacted his situation?

3.

If you were going to use a multisystemic treatment approach with Fernando, whom would you involve and what issues would you plan to address? Do you think this approach could be successful in the case? Why or why not?

Drug abusers are also believed to exhibit psychopathic or sociopathic behavior characteristics, forming what is called an  addiction-prone personality . 67  Drinking alcohol may reflect a teen’s need to remain dependent on an overprotective mother or an effort to reduce the emotional turmoil of adolescence. 68

addiction-prone personality

A personality that has a compulsion for mood-altering drugs, believed by some to be the cause of substance abuse.

Research on the psychological characteristics of narcotics abusers does, in fact, reveal the presence of a significant degree of pathology. Personality testing of users suggests that a significant percentage suffer from psychotic disorders. Studies have found that addicts suffer personality disorders characterized by a weak ego, a low frustration tolerance, and fantasies of omnipotence. Up to half of all drug abusers may also be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), which is defined as a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others. 69

Problem Behavior Syndrome

For some adolescents, substance abuse is one of many problem behaviors that begin early in life and remain throughout the life course. 70  Longitudinal studies show that youths who abuse drugs are maladjusted, emotionally distressed, and have many social problems. 71  Having a deviant lifestyle means associating with delinquent peers, living in a family in which parents and siblings abuse drugs, being alienated from the dominant values of society, and engaging in delinquent behaviors at an early age. 72

Youths who abuse drugs lack commitment to religious values, disdain education, and spend most of their time in peer activities. 73  Youths who take drugs do poorly in school, have high dropout rates, and maintain their drug use after they leave school. 74

Rational Choice

Youths may choose to use drugs because they want to get high, relax, improve their creativity, escape reality, or increase their sexual responsiveness. Research indicates that adolescent alcohol abusers believe getting high will increase their sexual performance and facilitate their social behavior; they care little about negative consequences. 75  Substance abuse, then, may be a function of the rational, albeit mistaken, belief that substance abuse benefits the user.

Pathways to Drug Abuse

There is no single path to becoming a drug abuser, but it is generally believed that most users start at a young age using alcohol as a  gateway drug  to harder substances. That is, drug involvement begins with drinking alcohol at an early age, which progresses to experimentation with marijuana, and finally, to using cocaine and even heroin. 76  Research on adolescent drug users in Miami found that youths who began their substance abuse careers early—by experimenting with alcohol at age 7, getting drunk at age 8, having alcohol with an adult present by age 9, and becoming regular drinkers by the time they were 11 years old—later became crack users. 77  Drinking with an adult present was a significant precursor of substance abuse and delinquency. 78

gateway drug

A substance that leads to use of more serious drugs; alcohol use has long been thought to lead to more serious drug abuse.

Although the gateway concept is still being debated, there is little disagreement that serious drug users begin their involvement with alcohol. 79  Though most recreational users do not progress to “hard stuff,” most addicts first experiment with recreational alcohol and recreational drugs before progressing to narcotics. By implication, if teen drinking could be reduced, the gateway to hard drugs would be narrowed.

What are the patterns of teenage drug use? Are all abusers similar, or are there different types of drug involvement? Research indicates that drug-involved youths do take on different roles, lifestyles, and behavior patterns, some of which are described in the next sections. 80

Adolescents Who Distribute Small Amounts of Drugs

Many adolescents who use and distribute small amounts of drugs do not commit any other serious delinquent acts. They occasionally sell marijuana, crystal, and PCP to support their own drug use. Their customers include friends, relatives, and acquaintances. Deals are arranged over the phone, in school, or at public meeting places; however, the actual distribution takes place in more private arenas, such as at home or in cars.

Petty dealers do not consider themselves “seriously” involved in drugs. One girl commented, “I don’t consider it dealing. I’ll sell hits of speed to my friends, and joints and nickel bags [of marijuana] to my friends, but that’s not dealing.” Petty dealers are insulated from the justice system because their activities rarely result in apprehension. In fact, few adults notice their activities because these adolescents maintain a relatively conventional lifestyle. In several jurisdictions, however, agents of the justice system are cooperating in the development of educational programs to provide nonusers with the skills to resist the “sales pitch” of petty dealers.

Adolescents Who Frequently Sell Drugs

A small number of adolescents are high-rate dealers who bridge the gap between adult drug distributors and the adolescent user. Though many are daily users, they take part in many normal activities, including going to school and socializing with friends.

Frequent dealers often have adults who “front” for them—that is, sell them drugs for cash. The teenagers then distribute the drugs to friends and acquaintances. They return most of the proceeds to the supplier, keeping a commission for themselves. They may also keep drugs for their personal use, and, in fact, some consider their drug dealing as a way of “getting high for free.” One young user, Winston, age 17, told investigators, “I sell the cracks for money and for cracks. The man, he give me this much. I sell most of it and I get the rest for me. I like this much. Every day I do this.” 81  James Inciardi and his associates found that about 80 percent of the youths who dealt crack regularly were daily users. 82

Frequent dealers are more likely to sell drugs in parks, schools, or other public places. Deals occur irregularly, so the chance of apprehension is not significant. This irregularity combined with having to pay off others means the amount earned by drug dealers can be rather meager. Research on the earnings of drug dealers is discussed in the Focus on Delinquency feature entitled “Does Drug Dealing Pay?”

Teenage Drug Dealers Who Commit Other Delinquent Acts

A more serious type of drug-involved youth is the one who distributes multiple substances and commits both property and violent crimes; many are gang members. 83  These youngsters make up about 2 percent of the teenage population, but they may commit up to 40 percent of robberies and assaults and about 60 percent of all teenage felony thefts and drug sales. Few gender or racial differences exist among these youths. Girls are as likely as boys to become persistent drug-involved offenders, white youths as likely as black youths, and middle-class adolescents raised outside cities as likely as lower-class city children. 84

In cities, these youths frequently are hired by older dealers to act as street-level drug runners. Each member of a crew of 3 to 12 youths will handle small quantities of drugs; the supplier receives 50 to 70 percent of the drug’s street value. The crew members also act as lookouts, recruiters, and guards. Although they may be recreational drug users themselves, crew members refrain from using addictive drugs such as heroin. Between drug sales, the young dealers commit robberies, burglaries, and other thefts.

Most youngsters in the street drug trade either terminate their dealing or become drug dependent. A few, however, develop entrepreneurial skills. Those who are rarely apprehended by police advance in the drug business. They develop their own crews and may handle more than half a million dollars a year.

FOCUS on delinquency: Does Drug Dealing Pay?

In one of the first studies to investigate if drug dealing pays, economists Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter found that drug dealers in Washington, DC, made about $30 per hour when they were working and cleared on average about $2,000 per month. These amounts are greater than most dealers could hope to have earned in legitimate jobs, but they are not enough to afford a steady stream of luxuries. It was also found that most small-time dealers also held conventional jobs.

Two more recent studies offer differing views on the economics of drug dealing. In an analysis of the financial activities of a drug-selling street gang in Chicago, economist Steven Levitt and sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh found that the average hourly wage of drug dealers or “foot soldiers” was between $2.50 and $7.10 (see  Table 11.A ). The results are based on a four-year period in which the gang was active. As an average wage per month, this comes to $140 to $470. In a typical month, drug dealers worked just over 50 hours. As shown in the table, the hourly wage of drug dealers is substantially lower than the average wage for all gang members and the gang leader. This finding suggests that, at least for drug dealers, factors other than income may explain participation in this activity.

TABLE 11.A: Estimated Hourly Wages of Members in a Drug-Selling Gang

	Drug Dealers	All Gang Members	Gang Leader
Year 1	$2.50	$5.90	$32.50
Year 2	$3.70	$7.40	$47.50
Year 3	$3.30	$7.10	$65.90
Year 4	$7.10	$11.10	$97.20
Note: Estimated hourly wages include both official and unofficial income sources. All wages are in 1995 dollars.
Source: Adapted from Levitt and Venkatesh, “An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang’s Finances,” table III.

In contrast, psychologists Michelle Little and Laurence Steinberg found that drug dealers derive a substantial income from selling drugs. Based on a large sample of serious male juvenile offenders in Philadelphia who reported incomes from drug sales, it was found that their average weekly wage was $1,693, or more than $6,700 per month. Based on Levitt and Venkatesh’s finding that drug dealers worked a little over 50 hours per month, the average hourly wage for this group of drug dealers comes to $135. Drug dealers who also held conventional jobs reported that their income from dealing was on average 41 times greater than what they made in the legal economy. It was also found that more than half the sample reported that they were involved in dealing drugs for more than a year. The authors speculated that income from drug sales served as an important incentive for continued involvement in illicit activities and may have acted as a disincentive for investment in conventional goals.

CRITICAL THINKING

Many are of the opinion that drug dealers make a great deal of money, which contributes to the public’s view that dealers should be subject to more punitive dispositions. Does this research change your opinion of how society should treat drug dealers? Explain. How might this research be used to deter juveniles from dealing drugs?

SOURCES: Steven D. Levitt and Sudhir A. Venkatesh, “An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang’s Finances,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 115:755–789 (2000); Michelle Little and Laurence Steinberg, “Psychosocial Correlates of Adolescent Drug Dealing in the Inner City: Potential Roles of Opportunity, Conventional Commitments, and Maturity,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:357–386 (2006); Robert MacCoun and Peter Reuter, “Are the Wages of Sin $30 an Hour? Economic Aspects of Street-Level Drug Dealing,” Crime and Delinquency 38:477–491 (1992).

In many instances, these drug dealer–delinquents are members of teenage gangs. The gangs maintain “rock houses,” or “stash houses,” that receive drug shipments arranged by members who have the overseas connections and financial backing needed to wholesale drugs. The wholesalers pay the gang for permission to deal in their territory. Lower-echelon gang members help transport the drugs and work the houses, retailing cocaine and other drugs to neighborhood youths. Each member makes a profit for every ounce of rock sold. Police estimate that youths who work in rock houses will earn $700 and up for a 12-hour shift. 85

Some experts question whether gangs are responsible for as much drug dealing as the media would have us believe. Some believe that the tightly organized “super” gangs are being replaced with loosely organized neighborhood groups. The turbulent environment of drug dealing is better handled by flexible organizations than by rigid, vertically organized gangs with a leader who is far removed from the action. 86

Losers and Burnouts

Some drug-involved youths do not have the savvy to join gangs or groups and instead begin committing unplanned crimes that increase their chances of arrest. Their heavy drug use increases their risk of apprehension and decreases their value for organized drug distribution networks.

Drug-involved “losers” can earn a living by steering customers to a seller in a “copping” area, touting drug availability for a dealer, or acting as a lookout. However, they are not considered trustworthy or deft enough to handle drugs or money. Though these offenders get involved in drugs at an early age, they receive little attention from the justice system until they have developed an extensive arrest record. By then they are approaching the end of their minority and will either desist or become so entrapped in the drug-crime subculture that little can be done to deter their illegal activities.

Persistent Offenders

About two-thirds of substance-abusing youths continue to use drugs in adulthood, but about half desist from other criminal activities. Those who persist in both substance abuse and crime maintain these characteristics:

·  They come from poor families.

·  Other criminals are members of their families.

·  They do poorly in school.

·  They started using drugs and committing other delinquent acts at an early age.

·  They use multiple types of drugs and commit crimes frequently.

·  They have few opportunities in late adolescence to participate in legitimate and rewarding adult activities. 87

Some evidence exists that these drug-using persisters have low nonverbal IQs and poor physical coordination. Nonetheless, there is little evidence to explain why some drug-abusing youths drop out of crime while others remain active.

Drug Use and Delinquency

An association between drug use and delinquency has been established, and this connection can take a number of forms. 88  Crime may be an instrument of the drug trade: violence erupts when rival gangs use weapons to settle differences and establish territorial monopolies. In New York City, authorities report that crack gangs will burn down their rivals’ headquarters. In the 1990s, it was estimated that between 35 and 40 percent of New York’s homicides were drug related. 89  This figure has come down somewhat since then.

Drug users may also commit crimes to pay for their habits. 90  One study conducted in Miami found that 573 narcotics users annually committed more than 200,000 crimes to obtain cash. Similar research with a sample of 356 addicts accounted for 118,000 crimes annually. 91  If such proportions hold true, then the nation’s estimated 700,000 heroin addicts alone may be committing more than 100 million crimes each year.

Drug users may be more willing to take risks because their inhibitions are lowered by substance abuse. Cities with high rates of cocaine abuse are also more likely to experience higher levels of armed robbery. It is possible that crack and cocaine users are more willing to engage in a risky armed robbery to get immediate cash than a burglary, which requires more planning and effort. 92

The relationship between alcohol and drug abuse and delinquency has been substantiated by a number of studies. Some have found that youths who abuse alcohol are most likely to engage in violence; as adults, those with long histories of drinking are more likely to report violent offending patterns. 93

The National Institute of Justice’s Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program tracked trends in drug use among arrestees in urban areas. Some, but not all, of its 36 sites collected data on juveniles. Due to a lack of funding, the Department of Justice ended this program in 2004. 94  The most recent report (2002) found that among juvenile detainees almost 60 percent of juvenile males and 30 percent of juvenile females tested positive for marijuana, the most commonly used drug, and its prevalence was 10 and 6 times higher than cocaine use for juvenile males and females, respectively. 95  With the exception of methamphetamines, male detainees were more likely to test positive for the use of any drug than were female detainees. While males and minority-group members have somewhat higher positive test rates than females and Caucasians, drug use is prevalent among juvenile arrestees, reaffirming the close association between substance abuse and criminality.

Juvenile justice researchers Carl McCurley and Howard Snyder found that higher levels of youth problem behaviors and delinquency, ranging from school suspensions to major theft to gun carrying, are associated with drug use as well as selling drugs. 96  This finding held up for younger and older teens (see  Table 11.2 ). For example, among youths ages 12 to 14, 31 percent who reported drinking alcohol in the past month were suspended from school compared to 18 percent who did not drink alcohol. Similarly, for youths ages 15 to 17, school suspensions were significantly higher for those who drank alcohol compared to those who did not (38 percent versus 27 percent). These findings are based on data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a self-report survey administered to a nationally representative sample of youths ages 12 to 17. The researchers found that the difference in the prevalence of problem behaviors is even greater among youths, both younger and older, who used marijuana in the past month compared to their counterparts who did not: a twofold increase in school suspensions (19 percent versus 46 percent and 27 percent versus 52 percent), a threefold increase in vandalizing property (14 percent versus 50 percent and 11 percent versus 33 percent), and a five- and threefold increase in gun carrying (4 percent versus 20 percent and 5 percent versus 15 percent).

table 11.2: Drug Use, Problem Behaviors, and Delinquency

Behavior	Drank Alcohol (Past 30 days)	Used Marijuana (Past 30 days)	Sold Drugs (Ever)
	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Youth Ages 12–14
Suspended from school	18%	31%	19%	46%	19%	55%
Vandalize property	13	37	14	50	14	56
Major theft	2	11	2	20	2	27
Attack/assault	8	28	9	36	9	53
Belong to a gang	1	7	1	16	1	18
Carry handgun	4	12	4	20	4	25
Arrested	2	8	3	15	2	22
Youth Ages 15–17
Suspended from school	27%	38%	27%	52%	27%	63%
Vandalize property	10	23	11	33	11	40
Major theft	3	10	4	17	3	23
Attack/assault	8	21	10	29	9	37
Belong to a gang	1	5	1	9	1	12
Carry handgun	4	10	5	15	5	18
Arrested	5	12	5	21	5	26
Note: The time frame for “suspended from school” was ever; for the other items, it was the past 12 months. The value in the “yes” column differs significantly (p < .05) from the value in the “no” column for all column pairs within substance behavior and age groups. Source: Carl McCurley and Howard Snyder, Co-occurrence of Substance Use Behaviors in Youth (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice, 2008), p. 3.

Drugs and Chronic Offending

It is possible that most delinquents are not drug users, but that police are more likely to apprehend muddle-headed substance abusers than clear-thinking abstainers. A second, more plausible interpretation of the existing data is that the drug abuse–crime connection is so powerful because many delinquents are in fact substance abusers. 97  Research by Bruce Johnson and his associates confirms this suspicion. Using data from a national self-report survey, these researchers found that less than 2 percent of the youths who responded to the survey (a) report using cocaine or heroin, and (b) commit two or more index crimes each year. However, these drug-abusing adolescents accounted for 40 to 60 percent of all the index crimes reported in the sample. Less than one-quarter of these delinquents committed crimes solely to support a drug habit. These data suggest that a small core of substance-abusing adolescents commit a significant proportion of all serious crimes. It is also evident that a behavior—drug abuse—that develops late in adolescence influences the extent of delinquent activity through the life course. 98

The relationship between drug abuse and chronic offending is illustrated by Inciardi, Horowitz, and Pottieger’s interviews with crack-involved youths in Miami. The 254 kids in their sample reported committing 223,439 criminal offenses during the 12 months prior to their interviews. It is not surprising that 87 percent of the sample had been arrested. The greater the involvement in the crack business, the greater the likelihood of committing violent crime. About 74 percent of the dealers committed robbery, and 17 percent engaged in assault. Only 12 percent of the nondealers committed robbery, and 4 percent engaged in assault. 99

Explaining Drug Use and Delinquency

The association between delinquency and drug use has been established in a variety of cultures. 100  It is far from certain, however, whether (a) drug use causes delinquency, (b) delinquency leads youths to engage in substance abuse, or (c) both drug abuse and delinquency are functions of some other factor. 101

Some of the most sophisticated research on this topic has been conducted by Delbert Elliott and his associates at the Institute of Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado. 102  Using data from the National Youth Survey, a longitudinal study of self-reported delinquency and drug use, Elliott and his colleagues David Huizinga and Scott Menard found a strong association between delinquency and drug use. 103  However, the direction of the relationship is unclear. As a general rule, drug abuse appears to be a type of delinquent behavior and not a cause of delinquency. Most youths become involved in delinquent acts before they are initiated into drugs; it is difficult therefore to conclude that drug use causes crime.

In other research involving the National Youth Survey, Jason Ford found that there is a reciprocal and ongoing relationship between alcohol use and delinquency during adolescence, and that part of the reason for this reciprocal relationship is that both behaviors have the effect of weakening youths’ bonds with society, thereby promoting continued alcohol use and delinquency. 104

According to the Elliott research, both drug use and delinquency seem to reflect developmental problems; they are both part of a disturbed lifestyle. This research reveals some important associations between substance abuse and delinquency:

·  Alcohol abuse seems to be a cause of marijuana and other drug abuse, because most drug users started with alcohol, and youths who abstain from alcohol almost never take drugs.

·  Marijuana use is a cause of multiple-drug use. About 95 percent of youths who use more serious drugs started on pot; only 5 percent of serious drug users never smoked pot.

·  Youths who commit felonies started with minor delinquent acts. Few delinquents (1 percent) report committing only felonies.

The Elliott research has been supported by other studies also indicating that delinquency and substance abuse are part of a general pattern of deviance or problem behavior syndrome, such as association with an antisocial peer group and educational failure. 105  There seems to be a pattern in which troubled youths start by committing petty crimes and drinking alcohol and proceed to harder drugs and more serious crimes. Kids who drink at an early age later go on to engage in violent acts in their adolescence; violent adolescents increase their alcohol abuse as they mature. 106  Both their drug abuse and the delinquency are part of an urban underclass lifestyle involving limited education, few job skills, unstable families, few social skills, and patterns of law violations. 107

Drug Control Strategies

Billions of dollars are being spent each year to reduce the importation of drugs, deter drug dealers, and treat users. Yet although the overall incidence of drug use has declined, drug use has concentrated in the nation’s poorest neighborhoods, with a consequent association between substance abuse and crime.

A number of drug control strategies have been tried. Some are designed to deter drug use by stopping the flow of drugs into the country, apprehending dealers, and cracking down on street-level drug deals. Another approach is to prevent drug use by educating would-be users and convincing them to “say no” to drugs. A third approach is to treat users so that they can terminate their addictions. These and other drug control efforts are discussed in the following sections.  Concept Summary 11.2  reviews the key strategies.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 11.2: Key Drug Control Strategies

Law enforcement		Preventing drugs from entering the country Destroying crops used to make drugs Arresting members of drug cartels and street-level dealers
Education		Informing children about the dangers of drug use Teaching children to resist peer pressure
Community-based		Community organizations and residents taking action to deter drug dealing Engaging youth in prosocial activities
Treatment		Intervening with drug users, including counseling and experiential activities
Harm reduction		Minimizing the harmful effects caused by drug use and some of the more punitive responses to drug use

Law Enforcement Efforts

Law enforcement strategies are aimed at reducing the supply of drugs and, at the same time, deterring would-be users from drug abuse.

Source Control

One approach to drug control is to deter the sale of drugs through apprehension of large-volume drug dealers, coupled with enforcement of drug laws that carry heavy penalties. This approach is designed to punish known dealers and users and to deter those who are considering entering the drug trade.

A major effort has been made to cut off supplies of drugs by destroying overseas crops and arresting members of drug cartels; this approach is known as source control. The federal government has been encouraging exporting nations to step up efforts to destroy drug crops and to prosecute dealers. Other less aggressive source control approaches, such as crop substitution and alternative development programs for the largely poor farmers in other countries, have also been tried, and a review of international efforts suggests that “some success can be achieved in reduction of narcotic crop production.” 108  Three South American nations—Peru, Bolivia, and Colombia—have agreed to coordinate control efforts with the United States. However, translating words into deeds is a formidable task. Drug lords fight back through intimidation, violence, and corruption. The United States was forced to invade Panama with 20,000 troops in 1989 to stop its leader, General Manuel Noriega, from trafficking in cocaine.

Even when efforts are successful in one area, they may result in a shift in production to another area or in the targeted crop being replaced by another. For example, enforcement efforts in Peru and Bolivia were so successful that they altered cocaine cultivation patterns. As a consequence, Colombia became the premier coca-cultivating country when the local drug cartels encouraged growers to cultivate coca plants. When the Colombian government mounted an effective eradication campaign in the traditional growing areas, the cartel linked up with rebel groups in remote parts of the country for their drug supply. 109  Leaders in neighboring countries expressed fear when the United States announced that they would provide billions in military aid—under the program known as “Plan Colombia”—to fight Colombia’s rural drug dealers/rebels, assuming that success would drive traffickers over the border. 110  Another unintended effect of this campaign has been a recent shift by drug cartels to exploit new crops, from a traditional emphasis on coca to opium poppy, the plant used to make heroin. It is estimated that Latin American countries, including Mexico, now supply upwards of 80 percent of the heroin consumed in the United States. 111

Arresting large-volume drug dealers is an important strategy in reducing the supply of drugs. Here, St. Louis County police officer Justin Sparks arrests a man for having drug paraphernalia after the man allegedly attempted to purchase an over-the-counter cold medication containing pseudoephedrine in Fenton, Missouri. The man was denied the sale because he had already purchased the legal limit of pseudoephedrine for the month. Police use an electronic database to track pseudoephedrine sales in real time.

On the other side of the world, Afghanistan has since reclaimed its position as the world leader in opium production, accounting for 92 percent of the global market. 112  This has come about after the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, which had banned poppy growing. Now, almost all of the heroin sold in Russia and three-quarters of that sold in Europe comes from Afghanistan. This has occurred despite new laws against poppy growing, law enforcement efforts, and crop substitution efforts on the part of agricultural aid organizations. Breaking with religious beliefs, Taliban forces are now promoting the growing of poppies—in some areas distributing leaflets that order farmers to grow the crop—and providing protection to drug smugglers, all in an effort to finance their operations against the US military and Coalition forces in the country. 113  The United Nations estimates that in 2010 almost 250,000 households in Afghanistan were involved in opium production, which equates to 6 percent of the country’s population. 114

To find out more about the federal government’s drug control strategies, go to the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the White House website ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ ) or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Border Control

Law enforcement efforts have also been directed at interdicting drug supplies as they enter the country. Border patrols and military personnel have been involved in massive interdiction efforts, and many billion-dollar seizures have been made. It is estimated that between one-quarter and one-third of the annual cocaine supply shipped to the United States is seized by drug enforcement agencies. Yet US borders are so vast and unprotected that meaningful interdiction is impossible. In 2010 (most recent data available), US federal law enforcement agencies seized more than 8,500 pounds of cocaine and 335 pounds of heroin along the southwest border alone. 115  Global rates of interception of heroin and cocaine indicate that only 26 percent and 42 percent, respectively, of all imports are being seized by law enforcement. 116

In recent years, another form of border control to interdict drugs entering the country has emerged: targeting Internet drug traffickers in foreign countries. With the increasing popularity of the Internet, some offenders are now turning to this source to obtain designer-type drugs. In Buffalo, New York, US customs agents discovered that a steady flow of packages containing the drug gamma-butyrolactone, or GBL, an ingredient of GBH (gamma hydroxybutyrate)—the date-rape drug—were entering the country from Canada; the drug was disguised as a cleaning product. Operation Webslinger, a joint investigation of federal law enforcement agencies in the United States and Canada, was put in place to track down the suppliers. Within a year, Operation Webslinger had shut down four Internet drug rings operating in the United States and Canada, made 115 arrests in 84 cities, and seized the equivalent of 25 million doses of GBH and other related drugs. 117  Shortly following this, another federal task force, known as Operation Gray Lord and involving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), was set up to combat illegal sales of narcotics on the Internet. 118

If all importation were ended, homegrown marijuana and lab-made drugs such as ecstasy could become the drugs of choice. Even now, their easy availability and relatively low cost are increasing their popularity; they are a $10 billion business in the United States today. But there have been some signs of success. In 2010 (most recent data available), 6,768 illegal methamphetamine laboratories were seized by authorities across the United States. This is down considerably from the peak in 2003 when more than 10,000 labs were seized nationwide, but represents a 12 percent increase from 2009. The DEA attributes this success to state restrictions on retail sales of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine products. 119  Many of these labs are operated out of homes, putting children—10,000 children were found in 8,000 of these labs over the years—at grave risk of being burned or injured, not to mention exposing them to illegal drugs. 120

Targeting Dealers

Law enforcement agencies have also made a concerted effort to focus on drug trafficking. Efforts have been made to bust large-scale drug rings. The long-term consequence has been to decentralize drug dealing and to encourage teenage gangs to become major suppliers. Ironically, it has proven easier for federal agents to infiltrate traditional organized crime groups than to take on drug-dealing gangs.

Police can also intimidate and arrest street-level dealers and users in an effort to make drug use so much of a hassle that consumption is cut back. Some street-level enforcement efforts have had success, but others are considered failures. A review of more than 300 international studies on police crackdowns on drug users and dealers found that this approach more often than not leads to increased violence; 87 percent of the studies reported an increase in violence due to these law enforcement practices. 121  “Drug sweeps” have also clogged correctional facilities with petty offenders while proving a drain on police resources. These sweeps are also suspected of creating a displacement effect: stepped-up efforts to curb drug dealing in one area or city may encourage dealers to seek friendlier territory. 122  People arrested on drug-related charges are the fastest growing segment of both the juvenile and adult justice systems. National surveys have found that juvenile court judges are prone to use a get-tough approach on drug-involved offenders. They are more likely to be processed formally by the court and to be detained between referral to court and disposition than other categories of delinquent offenders, including those who commit violent crimes. 123  Despite these efforts, juvenile drug use continues, indicating that a get-tough policy is not sufficient to deter drug use.

Education Strategies

Another approach to reducing teenage substance abuse relies on educational programs. Drug education now begins in kindergarten and extends through the 12th grade. An overwhelming majority of public school districts across the United States have implemented drug education programs with various components, including teaching students about the causes and effects of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use; teaching students to resist peer pressure; and referring students for counseling and treatment. 124  In a Texas survey of drug use among secondary school students that found drug use in rural school districts to be fast approaching usage rates in urban schools, the researchers speculate that funding cutbacks for drug education programs in the rural schools may be partly to blame. 125  Education programs, such as Project ALERT that now operates in all 50 states, have been shown to be successful in training middle-school youths to avoid recreational drugs and to resist peer pressure to use cigarettes and alcohol. 126  The latest survey of evidence-based drug use prevention programs in general shows that they are increasingly being implemented in middle schools across the country. 127  While not considered to be evidence-based, D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) continues to be widely used across the country and has recently undergone a large-scale evaluation of its new curriculum, “Take Charge of Your Life.” Because of its continued widespread use and influence, D.A.R.E. is the subject of the accompanying Focus on Delinquency feature.

For a web-based antidrug education campaign, see The Partnership at  Drugfree.org  ( http://www.drugfree.org/ ). You can also go to the official website for D.A.R.E. ( http://www.drugfree.org/ ), or check out both of these sites by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

The Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program is an elementary school course designed to give students the skills for resisting peer pressure to experiment with tobacco, drugs, and alcohol. It employs uniformed police officers to deliver the antidrug message to students before they enter junior high school. While reviews have been mixed, the program continues to be used around the nation.

FOCUS on delinquency: Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.)

A landmark study of “Take Charge of Your Life,” touted as the new D.A.R.E., found that the new curriculum reduced the use of marijuana among teens who reported using it at the start of the study, but increased the initiation of smoking and drinking among teens. The end result: D.A.R.E. America, the organization that oversees the program, will no longer use the new curriculum.

Over the last 15 years, national evaluations and independent reviews, including a study by the General Accountability Office (GAO), have repeatedly questioned the effectiveness of D.A.R.E., the most popular and widespread school-based substance abuse prevention program, leading many communities to discontinue its use. This was also due to the program not meeting US Department of Education effectiveness standards. To meet these criticisms head-on, D.A.R.E. began testing a new curriculum for middle and high school programs called “Take Charge of Your Life” (TCYL). The program focuses on older students and relies more on having them question their assumptions about drug use than on listening to lectures on the subject. The program works largely on changing social norms, teaching students to question whether they really have to use drugs to fit in with their peers. Emphasis shifted from fifth-grade students to those in the seventh grade, and a booster program was added in ninth grade, when kids are more likely to experiment with drugs. Police officers serve more as coaches than as lecturers, encouraging students to challenge the social norm of drug use in discussion groups. Students also do more role-playing in an effort to learn decision-making skills. There is also an emphasis on the role of media and advertising in shaping behavior.

A large-scale experimental study was launched to test the effectiveness of the program. The study was led by researchers at the University of Akron with $14 million in funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Eighty-three school districts in six metropolitan areas from across the country—Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, New Orleans, and St. Louis—involving nearly 20,000 seventh-grade students, were randomly assigned to the program (41 school districts) or to a control group that used the schools’ existing substance abuse prevention education program (42 school districts). Five years later and two years after the program ended—when students were in 11th grade—researchers once again interviewed the students about their past-month and past-year use of tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana. Study results showed that there was a significant decrease in marijuana use among teens enrolled in the TCYL program compared to those who were not, but this only applied to those who were already using marijuana at the start of the study. The program had no effect on the initiation or onset of marijuana use. More problematic was the finding that 3 to 4 percent more students who took part in the TCYL program, compared to those in the control group, used alcohol and tobacco by the 11th grade.

The main conclusion of the researchers was that the TCYL program should not be implemented in schools as a universal prevention intervention. This was the original designation of the program, and it was to be achieved by altering students’ intentions to use drugs—preventing them from trying drugs in the first place. Further analyses suggested that “both the content and intensity of the specific lessons around the targeted messages may not have been powerful enough to affect student substance using behaviors.”

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

What do these study results mean for the future of D.A.R.E.? Should schools continue to use it? What are the implications of its continued use in schools?

2.

Are the reasons for teenage drug use so complex that a single school-based program is doomed to fail? Explain.

SOURCES: Zili Sloboda, Richard C. Stephens, Peggy C. Stephens, Scott F. Grey, Brent Teasdale, Richard D. Hawthorne, Joseph Williams, and Jesse F. Marquette, “The Adolescent Substance Abuse Prevention Study: A Randomized Field Trial of a Universal Substance Abuse Prevention Program,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 102:1–10 (2009); Peggy C. Stephens, Zili Sloboda, Richard C. Stephens, Brent Teasdale, Scott F. Grey, Richard D. Hawthorne, and Joseph Williams, “Universal School-Based Substance Abuse Prevention Programs: Modeling Targeted Mediators and Outcomes for Adolescent Cigarette, Alcohol and Marijuana Use,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 102:19–29 (2009); Brent Teasdale, Peggy C. Stephens, Zili Sloboda, Scott F. Grey, and Richard C. Stephens, “The Influence of Program Mediators on Eleventh Grade Outcomes for Seventh Grade Substance Users and Nonusers,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 102:11–18 (2009); University of Akron, “Press Release: Landmark Substance-Abuse Study Completed,” March 31, 2009; Carol H. Weiss, Erin Murphy-Graham, and Sarah Birkeland, “An Alternative Route to Policy Influence: How Evaluations Affect D.A.R.E.,” American Journal of Evaluation 26:12–30 (2005); General Accountability Office, Youth Illicit Drug Use Prevention: D.A.R.E. Long-Term Evaluations and Federal Efforts to Identify Effective Programs (Washington, DC: Author, 2003).

Two recent large-scale studies demonstrate the effectiveness of antidrug messages targeted at youth. An evaluation of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, which features ads showing the dangers of marijuana use, reported that 41 percent of students in grades 7 to 12 “agree a lot” that the ads made them less likely to try or use drugs. Importantly, the study also reported that past-year marijuana use among the students was down 6 percent. 128  The second study, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which asked young people ages 12 to 17 about antidrug messages they had heard or seen outside of school hours, reported that past-month drug use by those exposed to the messages was 31 percent lower than those who had not been exposed to the messages (9.2 percent compared to 13.2 percent). 129

Community Strategies

Another type of drug control effort relies on local community groups. Representatives of local government agencies, churches, civic organizations, and similar institutions are being brought together to create drug-prevention programs. Their activities include drug-free school zones, which encourage police to keep drug dealers away from schools; Neighborhood Watch programs, which are geared to reporting drug dealers; citizen patrols, which frighten dealers away from publichousing projects; and community centers, which provide an alternative to the street culture.

Community-based programs reach out to some of the highest-risk youths, who are often missed by the well-known education programs that take place in schools. 130  These programs try to get youths involved in after-school programs offering counseling, delivering clothing, food, and medical care when needed, and encouraging school achievement. Community programs also sponsor drug-free activities involving the arts, clubs, and athletics. In many respects, evaluations of community programs have shown that they may encourage antidrug attitudes and help insulate participating youths from an environment that encourages drugs. 131

Treatment Strategies

Each year more than 130,000 youths ages 12 to 17 are admitted to treatment facilities in the United States, with just over half (52 percent) being referred through the juvenile justice system. Almost two-thirds (between 61 and 66 percent, depending on age group) of all admissions involve marijuana as the primary drug of abuse. 132

Many approaches are available to treat users. 133  Some efforts stem from the perspective that users have low self-esteem, and they use various techniques to build up the user’s sense of self. Some use psychological counseling, and others, such as the  multisystemic therapy (MST)  technique developed by Scott Henggeler, direct attention to family, peer, and psychological problems by focusing on problem solving and communication skills. 134  Because of its importance and effectiveness as a drug and delinquency treatment strategy, MST is the subject of the accompanying Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature.

multisystemic therapy (MST)

Addresses a variety of family, peer, and psychological problems by focusing on problem solving and communication skills training.

Another approach is to involve users in outdoor activities, wilderness training, and after-school community programs. 135  More intensive efforts use group therapy, in which leaders try to give users the skills and support to help them reject the social pressure to use drugs. These programs are based on the Alcoholics Anonymous philosophy that users must find the strength to stay clean and that support from those who understand their experiences can be a successful way to achieve a drug-free life.

Residential programs are used with more heavily involved drug abusers. Some are detoxification units that use medical procedures to wean patients from the more addicting drugs. Others are therapeutic communities that attempt to deal with the psychological causes of drug use. Hypnosis, aversion therapy (getting users to associate drugs with unpleasant sensations, such as nausea), counseling, biofeedback, and other techniques are often used.

There is little evidence that these residential programs can effectively reduce teenage substance abuse. 136  Many are restricted to families whose health insurance will pay for short-term residential care; when the coverage ends, the children are released. Adolescents do not often enter these programs voluntarily, and most have little motivation to change. 137  A stay can stigmatize residents as “addicts,” even though they never used hard drugs; while in treatment, they may be introduced to hard-core users with whom they will associate upon release. One residential program that holds promise for reducing teenage substance abuse is UCLA’s Comprehensive Residential Education, Arts, and Substance Abuse Treatment (CREASAT) program, which integrates “enhanced substance abuse services” (group therapy, education, vocational skills) and visual and performing arts programming. 138  Because of the importance of these programs, we discuss the career of a juvenile substance abuse counselor in the Professional Spotlight feature.

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Treatment: Multisystemic Therapy

MST is an increasingly popular multimodal treatment approach designed for serious juvenile offenders. The particular type of treatment is chosen according to the needs of the young person; therefore, the nature of the treatment is different for each youth. The treatment may include individual, family, peer, school, and community interventions, including parent training and skills training; more often though, it is referred to as a “family-based treatment.”

MST has proven successful in reducing delinquency, substance abuse, and other problematic behaviors in a number of experiments with serious juvenile offenders. Scott Henggeler and his colleagues carried out a long-term follow-up of a randomized experiment to test the efficacy of MST compared to traditional counseling services for 118 substance-abusing juvenile offenders. The average age at treatment was 16 years and the average age at follow-up was 19.5 years. Compared to those who received traditional counseling services (the control group), MST participants had significantly lower yearly conviction rates for aggressive criminal activity (15 percent versus 57 percent), but not for property crimes. Treatment effects on long-term illicit drug use were mixed, with biological measures (for example, urine analysis) indicating significantly higher rates of marijuana abstinence for MST participants compared to control group participants (55 percent versus 28 percent), but no effect on cocaine use.

In another randomized experiment, Cindy Schaeffer and Charles Borduin carried out an even longer-term follow-up to test the efficacy of MST compared to individualized therapy for 176 serious and violent juvenile offenders. The average age at treatment was 14 years and the average age at follow-up was about 29 years. Compared to those who received individual therapy, MST participants had significantly lower recidivism rates (50 percent versus 81 percent), including lower rates of rearrest for violent offenses (14 percent versus 30 percent). MST participants also had 54 percent fewer arrests and 57 percent fewer days of confinement in adult detention facilities compared to their control counterparts.

MST has also been shown to be highly cost-effective. According to the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, for every $1 spent on MST, more than $8 are saved in victim costs and juvenile justice and criminal justice costs. This finding has proven particularly influential with policy makers and legislators across the country, who are grappling with how best to keep juvenile crime rates from going up in tough economic times.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

What factors account for MST’s success in reducing delinquency, substance abuse, and other problematic behaviors? Explain.

2.

How does MST compare with other treatment strategies to reduce juvenile drug use? Do you think more communities should use it to address juvenile drug use? If so, what are the most important challenges that the program will need to address?

SOURCES: Elizabeth K. Drake, Steve Aos, and Marna G. Miller, “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications for Washington State,” Victims and Offenders 4:170–190 (2009); Cindy M. Schaeffer and Charles M. Borduin, “Long-Term Follow-Up to a Randomized Clinical Trial of Multisystemic Therapy with Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73:445–453 (2005); Scott W. Henggeler, W. Glenn Clingempeel, Michael J. Brondino, and Susan G. Pickrel, “Four-Year Follow-Up of Multisystemic Therapy with Substance-Abusing and Substance-Dependent Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 41:868–874 (2002); Scott W. Henggeler, Sonja K. Schoenwald, Charles M. Borduin, Melisa D. Rowland, and Phillippe B. Cunningham, Multisystemic Treatment of Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents (New York: Guilford Press, 1998).

Harm Reduction

A  harm reduction  approach involves lessening the harms caused to youths by drug use and by some of the more punitive responses to drug use. Harm reduction encapsulates some of the efforts advanced under the community and treatment strategies noted above, but maintains as its primary focus efforts to minimize the harmful effects of drug use. This approach includes the following components:

·  The availability of drug treatment facilities so that all addicts who wish to do so can overcome their habits and lead drug-free lives

·  The use of health professionals to administer drugs to addicts as part of a treatment and detoxification program

·  Needle exchange programs that will slow the transmission of HIV and educate drug users about how HIV is contracted and spread

·  Special drug courts or pretrial diversion programs that compel drug treatment (juvenile drug courts are discussed in  Chapter 13 ) 139

harm reduction

Efforts to minimize the harmful effects caused by drug use.

PROFESSIONAL spotlight

MAI FERRELL is a juvenile substance abuse counselor at a program called Sun-Hawk Adolescent Recovery Center in Utah, Arizona. She decided to work in this area of juvenile justice because she feels drawn to work with children and adolescents—something she has done for some time now—as they are the most open to change. There is a real chance to make a difference in their lives and help them achieve their dreams. Ferrell prepared for her career in juvenile substance abuse recovery by first getting an undergraduate degree in psychology and then earning her master’s degree in social work.

Ferrell’s routine can vary from day to day. On most days, she facilitates a group therapy session in the morning. Some of the topics they deal with include the processing of feelings, relapse recovery, and the benefits of psycho-educational classes. Throughout much of the remainder of the day, she is in contact with the parents of the juveniles, preparing individual counseling sessions, and staying on top of case management duties.

What does Ferrell find to be the most rewarding part of her job? She says that, without a doubt, it is being able to see the internal change that takes place in her clients. The adolescents she works with come into the facility angry, broken, and completely oblivious about the lifestyles they were leading. It makes her feel fulfilled when they “get it,” when they accept responsibility and accountability for their choices.

The most challenging part of Mai Ferrell’s job is dealing with the parents of her juvenile clients. For her, it seems that sometimes parents do not get exactly what addiction is and how it affects their children as well as the family as a whole. There are many parents who are not willing to invest themselves in the process of helping their families get healthy. Also, from time to time there are parents who are just not willing to accept accountability and responsibility for their part in their children’s choices and behaviors.

Mai Ferrell

Juvenile Substance Abuse Counselor

Needle exchange programs—providing drug users with clean needles in exchange for used ones—have been shown to maintain the low prevalence of HIV transmission among drug users and lower rates of hepatitis C. Methadone maintenance clinics in which heroin users receive doctor-prescribed methadone (a nonaddictive substance that satisfies the cravings caused by heroin) have been shown to reduce illegal heroin use and criminal activity. 140

Critics of the harm reduction approach warn that it condones or promotes drug use, “encouraging people either to continue using drugs or to start using drugs, without recognizing the dangers of their addiction.” 141  Advocates, on the other hand, refer to harm reduction as a valuable interim measure in dealing with drug use: “There are safer ways of using drugs, and harm reduction for patients is a valuable interim measure to help them make informed choices and improve their overall health.” 142  Advocates also call for this approach to replace the War on Drugs, and claim that this change in drug policy will go a long way toward solving two key problems caused by punitive responses. First, it will reduce the number of offenders, both juvenile and adult, being sent to already overcrowded institutionalized settings for what amounts to less serious offenses. Second, it will discourage police crackdowns in minority neighborhoods that result in racial minorities being arrested and formally processed at much higher rates for drug offenses. 143  The War on Drugs has also been a major source of the racial discrimination that occurs in both the adult and juvenile justice systems. 144  (For more on racial discrimination in the juvenile justice system, see  Chapters 13 ,  14 , and  15 .)

To learn more about the  harm reduction  approach to teenage drug use, check out the Harm Reduction Coalition ( http://harmreduction.org/ ) or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

What Does the Future Hold?

The United States appears willing to go to great lengths to fight the drug war. 145  The financial cost alone of the 40-year War on Drugs has been considerable. A detailed study by the Associated Press puts the government price tag at $1 trillion. 146  Innovative prevention and treatment programs have been stepped up. Indeed, the National Research Council’s scientific panel on the demand for illegal drugs concluded that the short-term effectiveness of many treatment modalities has been “repeatedly and convincingly demonstrated,” and called for greater research to investigate the long-term benefits. 147  Yet all drug control strategies are doomed to fail as long as youths want to take drugs and drugs remain widely available and accessible. Prevention, deterrence, and treatment strategies ignore the core reasons for the drug problem: poverty, alienation, and family disruption. As the gap between rich and poor widens and the opportunities for legitimate advancement decrease, it should come as no surprise that adolescent drug use continues.

Some commentators have called for the  legalization of drugs . This approach can have the short-term effect of reducing the association between drug use and crime (because, presumably, the cost of drugs would decrease), but it may have grave consequences. Drug use would most certainly increase, creating an overflow of unproductive people who must be cared for by the rest of society. The problems of teenage alcoholism should serve as a warning of what can happen when controlled substances are readily available. However, the implications of decriminalization should be further studied: What effect would a policy of partial decriminalization (for example, legalizing small amounts of marijuana) have on drug-use rates? Does a get-tough policy on drugs “widen the net”? Are there alternatives to the criminalization of drugs that could help reduce their use? 148

legalization of drugs

Decriminalizing drug use to reduce the association between drug use and crime.

The studies of drug dealing in Philadelphia and Washington, DC, suggest that law enforcement efforts may have little influence on drug-abuse rates as long as dealers can earn more than the minimal salaries they might earn in the legitimate world. Only by giving youths legitimate future alternatives can hard-core users be made to forgo drug use willingly. 149

On October 20, 2010, Mexican authorities carried out a controlled burn of 134 tons of marijuana in the border town of Tijuana. The drugs were seized by the Mexican Army after a clash with local drug traffickers. It was the largest confiscation in recent years. Legalization of marijuana in some states could drastically change how the Mexican government enforces its drug laws. Coordination between the countries will be crucial.

SUMMARY

· 1 Know which drugs are most frequently abused by American youth

·  Alcohol is the drug most frequently abused by American teens.

·  Other popular drugs include marijuana and prescription drugs.

· 2 Understand the extent of the drug problem among American youth today

·  Self-report surveys indicate that just under half of all high school seniors have tried drugs.

·  Surveys of arrestees indicate that a significant proportion of teenagers are drug users and many are high school dropouts.

·  The number of drug users may be even higher than surveys suggest, because surveys of teen abusers may be missing the most delinquent youths.

· 3 Be able to discuss how teenage drug use in this country has changed over time

·  The national survey conducted by PRIDE, the Monitoring the Future survey, and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health report that drug and alcohol use are much lower today than 10 and 15 years ago.

· 4 Know the main explanations for why youths take drugs

·  The main explanations for why youths take drugs include growing up in disorganized areas in which there is a high degree of hopelessness, poverty, and despair; peer pressure; parental substance abuse; emotional problems; and suffering from general problem behavior syndrome.

· 5 Recognize the different behavior patterns of drug-involved youths

·  Some youths are occasional users who might sell to friends.

·  Others are seriously involved in both drug abuse and delinquency; many of these are gang members.

·  There are also “losers,” who filter in and out of the juvenile justice system, and a small percentage of teenage users remain involved with drugs into adulthood.

· 6 Understand the relationship between drug use and delinquency

·  It is not certain whether drug abuse causes delinquency.

·  Some experts believe there is a common cause for both delinquency and drug abuse—perhaps alienation and rage.

· 7 Be familiar with the major drug control strategies

·  Some try to inhibit the importation of drugs, others to close down major drug rings, and a few to stop street-level dealing.

·  There are also attempts to treat users through rehabilitation programs, reduce juvenile use by educational efforts, and implement harm reduction measures, and some communities have mounted grassroots drives.

·  These efforts have not been totally successful, although overall use of drugs may have declined somewhat.

· 8 Be able to argue the pros and cons of government use of different drug control strategies

·  It is difficult to eradicate drug abuse because there is so much profit to be made from the sale of drugs.

·  One suggestion: legalize drugs. But critics warn that such a step may produce greater numbers of substance abusers. Supporters of legalization argue that it would greatly reduce the violence and other criminal activity associated with drug dealing.

KEY TERMS

substance abuse,  p. 399

hashish,  p. 400

marijuana,  p. 400

synthetic marijuana,  p. 400

cocaine,  p. 401

crack,  p. 401

heroin,  p. 401

addict,  p. 401

alcohol,  p. 401

anesthetic drugs,  p. 402

inhalants,  p. 402

sedatives,  p. 402

tranquilizers,  p. 402

hallucinogens,  p. 402

stimulants,  p. 403

anabolic steroids,  p. 403

designer drugs,  p. 403

addiction-prone personality,  p. 410

gateway drug,  p. 411

multisystemic therapy (MST),  p. 422

harm reduction,  p. 423

legalization of drugs,  p. 425

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Discuss the differences among the various categories and types of substances of abuse. Is the term “drugs” too broad to have real meaning?

2.

Why do you think youths take drugs? Do you know anyone with an addiction-prone personality?

3.

What policy might be the best strategy to reduce teenage drug use: Source control? Reliance on treatment? National education efforts? Community-level enforcement? Harm reduction measures?

4.

Under what circumstances, if any, might the legalization or decriminalization of drugs be beneficial to society?

5.

Do you consider alcohol a drug? Should greater controls be placed on the sale of alcohol?

6.

Do TV shows and films glorify drug usage and encourage youths to enter the drug trade? Should all images of drinking and smoking be banned from TV? What about advertisements that try to convince youths how much fun it is to drink beer or smoke cigarettes?

VIEWPOINT

The president has appointed you the new “drug czar.” You have $10 billion under your control with which to wage your campaign. You know that drug use is unacceptably high, especially among poor, inner-city kids, that a great deal of criminal behavior is drug-related, and that drug-dealing gangs are expanding around the United States.

At an open hearing, drug control experts express their policy strategies. One group favors putting the money into hiring new law enforcement agents who will patrol borders, target large dealers, and make drug raids here and abroad. They also call for such get-tough measures as the creation of strict drug laws and the mandatory waiver of young drug dealers to the adult court system.

A second group believes the best way to deal with drugs is to spend the money on community treatment programs, expanding the number of beds in drug detoxification units, and funding research on how to reduce drug dependency clinically.

A third group argues that neither punishment nor treatment can restrict teenage drug use and that the best course is to educate at-risk kids about the dangers of substance abuse and then legalize all drugs but control their distribution. This course of action will help reduce crime and violence among drug users and also balance the national debt, because drugs could be heavily taxed.

·  Do you believe drugs should be legalized? If so, what might be the negative consequences of legalization?

·  Can any law enforcement strategies reduce drug consumption?

·  Is treatment an effective drug control technique?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

The following organizations provide more information on different approaches to reducing teenage drug use. Before you answer the questions above, check out their websites. The Open Society Institute ( http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org ) has a special interest in alleviating the harms caused by drug use and punitive drug policies. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, through its Office on Smoking and Health ( http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/osh/ ), is the lead federal agency for comprehensive tobacco prevention and control. The mission of the National Institute on Drug Abuse ( http://www.drugabuse.gov/ ) is to lead the nation in bringing the power of science to bear on drug abuse and addiction. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University ( http://www.casacolumbia.org/ ) brings together under one roof all the professional disciplines needed to study and combat abuse of all substances. The US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection ( http://www.cbp.gov/ ) has many components, one of which is enforcing drug laws.

You can access all of these websites by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and John E. Schulenberg, Monitoring the Future National Results on Drug Use: 2012 Overview, Key Findings on Adolescent Drug Use (Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 2013).

2. Peter Greenwood, “Substance Abuse Problems among High-Risk Youth and Potential Interventions,” Crime and Delinquency 38:444–458 (1992).

3. Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Youth Violence and Illicit Drug Use,” The NSDUH Report 5 (Washington, DC: Author, 2006).

4. Gary M. McClelland, Linda A. Teplin, and Karen M. Abram, Detection and Prevalence of Substance Use among Juvenile Detainees (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006), pp. 4, 6.

5. Jonathan G. Tubman, Andrés G. Gil, and Eric F. Wagner, “Co-Occurring Substance Use and Delinquent Behavior during Early Adolescence: Emerging Relations and Implications for Intervention Strategies,” Criminal Justice and Behavior 31:463–488 (2004).

6. Dennis Coon, Introduction to Psychology (St. Paul, MN: West, 1992), p. 178.

7. Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, and Schulenberg, Monitoring the Future National Results on Drug Use, p. 5.

8. Ibid, p. 5.

9. Alan Neaigus, Aylin Atillasoy, Samuel Friedman, Xavier Andrade, Maureen Miller, Gilbert Ildefonso, and Don Des Jarlais, “Trends in the Noninjected Use of Heroin and Factors Associated with the Transition to Injecting,” in James Inciardi and Lana Harrison, eds., Heroin in the Age of Crack-Cocaine (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998), pp. 108–130.

10. Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, and Schulenberg, Monitoring the Future National Results on Drug Use, tables 5 and 6.

11. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 2010 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 2011), tables 29, 38.

12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Teen Drinking and Driving: A Dangerous Mix.” CDC Vital Signs, October 2012.

13. Henrick J. Harwood, Updating Estimates of the Economic Costs of Alcohol Abuse in the United States: Estimates, Update Methods, and Data, report prepared by the Lewin Group for the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000), table 3.

14. D. J. Rohsenow, “Drinking Habits and Expectancies about Alcohol’s Effects for Self versus Others,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 51:75–76 (1983).

15. Spencer Rathus, Psychology, 4th ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1990), p. 161.

16. National Drug Intelligence Center, Methamphetamine Drug Threat–Assessment (Johnstown, PA: Author, 2005), p. 10.

17. Mary Tabor, “‘Ice’ in an Island Paradise,” Boston Globe, December 8, 1989, p. 3.

18. Nancy Nicosia, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Beau Kilmer, Russell Lundberg, and James Chiesa, The Economic Cost of Methamphetamine Use in the United States, 2005 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2009).

19. Paul Goldstein, “Anabolic Steroids: An Ethnographic Approach,” unpublished paper (Narcotics and Drug Research, Inc., March 1989).

20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Use of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products among Students Aged 13–15 Years—Worldwide, 1999–2005,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 55:553–556 (2006).

21. Joe Nocera, “If It’s Good for Philip Morris, Can It Also Be Good for Public Health?” New York Times Magazine, June 18, 2006, pp. 46–53, 70, 76–78.

22. Clete Snell and Laura Bailey, “Operation Storefront: Observations of Tobacco Retailer Advertising Compliance with Tobacco Laws,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 3:78–90 (2005).

23. Johnston, O’Malley, Bachman, and Schulenberg, Monitoring the Future National Results on Drug Use, table 5.

24. Ibid., table 6.

25. Ibid., table 7.

26. Ibid., table 6.

27. Ibid., table 2.

28. PRIDE Questionnaire Report for Grades 6 to 12: National Summary Statistics for 2009–10 (Bowling Green, KY: PRIDE Surveys, September 27, 2010), tables 1.5–1.7.

29. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings (Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012).

30. Ibid., figure 2.6.

31. Ibid., p. 33.

32. Ibid., p. 21.

33. Office of National Drug Control Policy, Girls and Drugs: A New Analysis: Recent Trends, Risk Factors, and Consequences (Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President, 2006), figure 3.

34. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary of National Findings, p. 21.

35. Diana C. Noone, “Drug Use among Juvenile Detainees,” in National Institute of Justice, Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring: 2000 Annual Report (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2003), p. 135.

36. McClelland, Teplin, and Abram, Detection and Prevalence of Substance Use among Juvenile Detainees.

37. Julia Yun Soo Kim, Michael Fendrich, and Joseph Wislar, “The Validity of Juvenile Arrestees’ Drug Use Reporting: A Gender Comparison,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:419–432 (2000).

38. Yvonne M. Terry-McElrath, Patrick M. O’Malley, and Lloyd D. Johnston, “Reasons for Drug Use among American Youth by Consumption Level, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity: 1976–2005,” Journal of Drug Issues 39:677–714 (2009).

39. Ibid., figure 1, p. 686.

40. G. E. Vallant, “Parent-Child Disparity and Drug Addiction,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 142:534–539 (1966).

41. Charles Winick, “Epidemiology of Narcotics Use,” in D. Wilner and G. Kassenbaum, eds., Narcotics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 3–18.

42. Justin Hayes-Smith and Rachel Bridges Whaley, “Community Characteristics and Methamphetamine Use: A Social Disorganization Perspective,” Journal of Drug Issues 39:547–576 (2009); see also Rachel Bridges Whaley, Justin M. Smith, and Rebecca Hayes-Smith, “Teenage Drug and Alcohol Use: Comparing Individual and Contextual Effects,” Deviant Behavior 32:818–845 (2011).

43. Joan S. Tucker, Michael S. Pollard, Kayla de la Haye, David P. Kennedy, and Harold D. Green, “Neighborhood Characteristics and the Initiation of Marijuana Use and Binge Drinking,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 128:83–89 (2013); Allison B. Brenner, José A. Bauermeister, and Marc A. Zimmerman, “Neighborhood Variation in Adolescent Alcohol Use: Examination of Sociological and Social Disorganization Theories,” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drug Issues 72:651–659 (2011).

44. Delbert Elliott, David Huizinga, and Scott Menard, Multiple Problem Youth: Delinquency, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Problems (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989).

45. Peter Reuter, Robert MacCoun, and Patrick Murphy, Money from Crime: A Study of the Economics of Drug Dealing in Washington, D.C. (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1990).

46. Thomas Dishion, Deborah Capaldi, Kathleen Spracklen, and Fuzhong Li, “Peer Ecology of Male Adolescent Drug Use,” Development and Psychopathology 7:803–824 (1995).

47. C. Bowden, “Determinants of Initial Use of Opioids,” Comprehensive Psychiatry 12:136–140 (1971).

48. Terence Thornberry and Marvin Krohn, “Peers, Drug Use and Delinquency,” in David Stoff, James Breiling, and Jack Maser, eds., Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1997), pp. 218–233.

49. Gregory M. Zimmerman and Bob Edward Vásquez, “Decomposing the Peer Effect on Adolescent Substance Use: Mediation, Nonlinearity, and Differential Nonlinearity,” Criminology 49:1235–1274 (2011).

50. Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960).

51. Denise Kandel and Mark Davies, “Friendship Networks, Intimacy and Illicit Drug Use in Young Adulthood: A Comparison of Two Competing Theories,” Criminology 29:441–471 (1991).

52. Derek A. Kreager and Dana L. Haynie, “Dangerous Liaisons? Dating and Drinking Diffusion in Adolescent Peer Networks,” American Sociological Review 76:737–763 (2011).

53. James Inciardi, Ruth Horowitz, and Anne Pottieger, Street Kids, Street Drugs, Street Crime: An Examination of Drug Use and Serious Delinquency in Miami (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993), p. 43

54. D. Baer and J. Corrado, “Heroin Addict Relationships with Parents during Childhood and Early Adolescent Years,” Journal of Genetic Psychology 124:99–103 (1974).

55. Timothy Ireland and Cathy Spatz Widom, Childhood Victimization and Risk for Alcohol and Drug Arrests (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1995).

56. See S. F. Bucky, “The Relationship between Background and Extent of Heroin Use,” American Journal of Psychiatry 130:709–710 (1973); I. Chien, D. L. Gerard, R. Lee, and E. Rosenfield, The Road to H: Narcotics Delinquency and Social Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1964).

57. J. S. Mio, G. Nanjundappa, D. E. Verlur, and M. D. DeRios, “Drug Abuse and the Adolescent Sex Offender: A Preliminary Analysis,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 18:65–72 (1986).

58. G. T. Wilson, “Cognitive Studies in Alcoholism,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55:325–331 (1987).

59. John Hagedorn, Jose Torres, and Greg Giglio, “Cocaine, Kicks, and Strain: Patterns of Substance Use in Milwaukee Gangs,” Contemporary Drug Problems 25:113–145 (1998).

60. Abigail A. Fagan, M. Lee Van Horn, Susan Antaramian, and J. David Hawkins, “How Do Families Matter? Age and Gender Differences in Family Influence on Delinquency and Drug Use,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 9:150–170 (2011).

61. For a comprehensive review of genetics and delinquency in general, see Melissa Peskin, Andrea L. Glenn, Yu Gao, Jianghong Liu, Robert A. Schug, Yaling Yang, and Adrian Raine, “Personal Characteristics of Delinquents: Neurobiology, Genetic Predispositions, Individual Psychosocial Attributes,” in Barry C. Feld and Donna M. Bishop, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 73–106.

62. D. W. Goodwin, “Alcoholism and Genetics,” Archives of General Psychiatry 42:171–174 (1985).

63. Ibid.

64. Patricia Dobkin, Richard Tremblay, Louise Masse, and Frank Vitaro, “Individual and Peer Characteristics in Predicting Boys’ Early Onset of Substance Abuse: A Seven-Year Longitudinal Study,” Child Development 66:1198–1214 (1995).

65. Ric Steele, Rex Forehand, Lisa Armistead, and Gene Brody, “Predicting Alcohol and Drug Use in Early Adulthood: The Role of Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior Problems in Early Adolescence,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:380–387 (1995).

66. Ibid., pp. 380–381.

67. Jerome Platt and Christina Platt, Heroin Addiction (New York: Wiley, 1976), p. 127.

68. Rathus, Psychology, p. 158.

69. Eric Strain, “Antisocial Personality Disorder, Misbehavior and Drug Abuse,” Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 183:162–165 (1995).

70. Dobkin, Tremblay, Masse, and Vitaro, “Individual and Peer Characteristics in Predicting Boys’ Early Onset of Substance Abuse.”

71. J. Shedler and J. Block, “Adolescent Drug Use and Psychological Health: A Longitudinal Inquiry,” American Psychologist 45:612–630 (1990).

72. Greenwood, “Substance Abuse Problems among High-Risk Youth and Potential Interventions,” p. 448.

73. John Wallace and Jerald Bachman, “Explaining Racial/Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Drug Use: The Impact of Background and Lifestyle,” Social Problems 38:333–357 (1991).

74. Marvin Krohn, Terence Thornberry, Lori Collins-Hall, and Alan Lizotte, “School Dropout, Delinquent Behavior, and Drug Use,” in Howard Kaplan, ed., Drugs, Crime and Other Deviant Adaptations: Longitudinal Studies (New York: Plenum Press, 1995), pp. 163–183.

75. B. A. Christiansen, G. T. Smith, P. V. Roehling, and M. S. Goldman, “Using Alcohol Expectancies to Predict Adolescent Drinking Behavior after One Year,” Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology 57:93–99 (1989).

76. See Mark A. Kleiman, Jonathan P. Caulkins, and Angela Hawken, Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 82–83.

77. Inciardi, Horowitz, and Pottieger, Street Kids, Street Drugs, Street Crime, p. 135.

78. Ibid., p. 136.

79. Mary Ellen Mackesy-Amiti, Michael Fendrich, and Paul Goldstein, “Sequence of Drug Use among Serious Drug Users: Typical vs. Atypical Progression,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 45:185–196 (1997).

80. The following sections lean heavily on Marcia Chaiken and Bruce Johnson, Characteristics of Different Types of Drug-Involved Youth (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1988).

81. Ibid., p. 100.

82. Inciardi, Horowitz, and Pottieger, Street Kids, Street Drugs, Street Crime.

83. Lening Zhang, John Welte, and William Wieczorek, “Youth Gangs, Drug Use and Delinquency,” Journal of Criminal Justice 27:101–109 (1999).

84. Chaiken and Johnson, Characteristics of Different Types of Drug-Involved Youth, p. 12.

85. Rick Graves and Ed Allen, Narcotics and Black Gangs (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, n.d.).

86. John Hagedorn, “Neighborhoods, Markets, and Gang Drug Organization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31: 264–294 (1994).

87. Chaiken and Johnson, Characteristics of Different Types of Drug-Involved Youth, p. 14.

88. For an excellent overview of the drugs-crime relationship, see David A. Boyum, Jonathan P. Caulkins, and Mark A. R. Kleiman, “Drugs, Crime, and Public Policy,” in James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, eds., Crime and Public Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), pp. 370–373.

89. Eric Baumer, Janet Lauritsen, Richard Rosenfeld, and Richard Wright, “The Influence of Crack Cocaine on Robbery, Burglary, and Homicide Rates: A Cross-City, Longitudinal Analysis,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:316–340 (1998).

90. Ibid.

91. James Inciardi, “Heroin Use and Street Crime,” Crime and Delinquency 25:335–346 (1979); James Inciardi, The War on Drugs (Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1986); see also W. McGlothlin, M. Anglin, and B. Wilson, “Narcotic Addiction and Crime,” Criminology 16:293–311 (1978); George Speckart and M. Douglas Anglin, “Narcotics Use and Crime: An Overview of Recent Research Advances,” Contemporary Drug Problems 13:741–769 (1986); Charles Faupel and Carl Klockars, “Drugs-Crime Connections: Elaborations from the Life Histories of Hard-Core Heroin Addicts,” Social Problems 34:54–68 (1987).

92. Eric Baumer, “Poverty, Crack and Crime: A Cross-City Analysis,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 31:311–327 (1994).

93. Mildred M. Maldonado-Molina, Jennifer M. Reingle, and Wesley G. Jennings, “Does Alcohol Use Predict Violent Behaviors? The Relationship between Alcohol Use and Violence in a Nationally Representative Longitudinal Sample,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 9:99–111 (2011); Kelli A. Komro, Amy L. Tobler, Mildred M. Maldonado-Molina, and Cheryl L. Perry, “Effects of Alcohol Use Initiation Patterns on High-Risk Behaviors among Urban, Low-Income, Young Adolescents,” Prevention Science 11:14–23 (2010); Marvin Dawkins, “Drug Use and Violent Crime among Adolescents,” Adolescence 32:395–406 (1997); Helene Raskin White and Stephen Hansell, “The Moderating Effects of Gender and Hostility on the Alcohol-Aggression Relationship,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33: 450–470 (1996).

94. Fox Butterfield, “Justice Department Ends Testing of Criminals for Drug Use,” New York Times, January 28, 2004.

95. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring [ADAM] Program, Preliminary Data on Drug Use and Related Matters among Adult Arrestees and Juvenile Detainees, 2002 (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice), tables 2 and 3.

96. Carl McCurley and Howard Snyder, Co-occurrence of Substance Use Behaviors in Youth (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice, 2008).

97. Boyum, Caulkins, and Kleiman, “Drugs, Crime, and Public Policy,” p. 372.

98. B. D. Johnson, E. Wish, J. Schmeidler, and D. Huizinga, “Concentration of Delinquent Offending: Serious Drug Involvement and High Delinquency Rates,” Journal of Drug Issues 21:205–229 (1991).

99. Inciardi, Horowitz, and Pottieger, Street Kids, Street Drugs, Street Crime.

100. Stefano Passini, “The Delinquency-Drug Relationship: The Influence of Social Reputation and Moral Disengagement,” Addictive Behaviors 37:577–579 (2012); W. David Watts and Lloyd Wright, “The Relationship of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana, and Other Illegal Drug Use to Delinquency among Mexican-American, Black, and White Adolescent Males,” Adolescence 25:38–54 (1990).

101. For a general review of this issue, see Helene Raskin White, “The Drug Use–Delinquency Connection in Adolescence,” in Ralph Weisheit, ed., Drugs, Crime and Criminal Justice (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1990), pp. 215–256; Speckart and Anglin, “Narcotics Use and Crime”; Faupel and Klockars, “Drugs-Crime Connections.”

102. Delbert Elliott, David Huizinga, and Suzanne Ageton, Explaining Delinquency and Drug Abuse (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985).

103. David Huizinga, Scott Menard, and Delbert Elliott, “Delinquency and Drug Use: Temporal and Developmental Patterns,” Justice Quarterly 6:419–455 (1989).

104. Jason A. Ford, “The Connection between Heavy Drinking and Juvenile Delinquency during Adolescence,” Sociological Spectrum 25:629–650 (2005).

105. Helene Raskin White, Robert Padina, and Randy LaGrange, “Longitudinal Predictors of Serious Substance Use and Delinquency,” Criminology 25:715–740 (1987).

106. Bu Huang, Helene White, Rick Kosterman, Richard Catalano, and J. David Hawkins, “Developmental Associations between Alcohol and Interpersonal Aggression during Adolescence,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38:64–83 (2001).

107. Eric Wish, “US Drug Policy in the 1990s: Insights from New Data from Arrestees,” International Journal of the Addictions 25:1–15 (1990).

108. Graham Farrell, “Drugs and Drug Control,” in Graeme Newman, ed., Global Report on Crime and Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 177.

109. US Department of State, 1998 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, February 1999.

110. Clifford Krauss, “Neighbors Worry about Colombian Aid,” New York Times, August 25, 2000, p. A3; see also Juan Forero, “Colombia’s Coca Survives US Plan to Uproot It,” New York Times, August 19, 2006.

111. Juan Forero with Tim Weiner, “Latin America Poppy Fields Undermine US Drug Battle,” New York Times, August 8, 2003, p. A1.

112. United Nations, 2007 World Drug Report (Vienna: Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations, 2007).

113. Carlotta Gall, “Another Year of Drug War, and the Poppy Crop Flourishes,” New York Times, February 17, 2006.

114. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Afghanistan Opium Survey 2010: Summary of Findings (Vienna: Author, September 2010), p. 1.

115. US Drug Enforcement Administration, National Drug Threat Assessment 2011 (Washington, DC: National Drug Intelligence Center, US Drug Enforcement Administration, 2010), table B3, p. 50.

116. United Nations, 2007 World Drug Report, p. 8.

117. “Operation Webslinger Targets Illegal Internet Trafficking of Date-Rape Drug,” US Customs Today 38 (2002).

118. Gardiner Harris, “Two Agencies to Fight Online Narcotics Sales,” New York Times, October 18, 2003.

119. US Drug Enforcement Administration, National Drug Threat Assessment 2011.

120. Fox Butterfield, “Home Drug-Making Laboratories Expose Children to Toxic Fallout,” New York Times, February 23, 2004.

121. International Centre for Science in Drug Policy, Effect of Drug Law Enforcement on Drug-Related Violence: Evidence from a Scientific Review (Vancouver, Canada: Author, 2010).

122. Mark Moore, Drug Trafficking (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1988).

123. Howard Snyder and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2006), pp. 168, 178–182.

124. Christopher L. Ringwalt, Susan Ennett, Amy Vincus, Judy Thorne, Louise Ann Rohrbach, and Ashley Simons-Rudolph, “The Prevalence of Effective Substance Use Prevention in US Middle Schools,” Prevention Science 3:257–265.

125. Jane Carlisle Maxwell, Melissa Tackett-Gibson, and James Dyer, “Substance Use in Urban and Rural Texas School Districts,” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 13:327–339 (2006).

126. Denise C. Gottfredson, David B. Wilson, and Stacy S. Najaka, “School-Based Crime Prevention,” in Lawrence W. Sherman, David P. Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton-MacKenzie, eds., Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, rev. ed. (New York: Routledge, 2006), table 4.9; see also Phyllis Ellickson, Robert Bell, and K. McGuigan, “Preventing Adolescent Drug Use: Long-Term Results of a Junior High Program,” American Journal of Public Health 83:856–861 (1993).

127. Christopher Ringwalt, Amy A. Vincus, Sean Hanley, Susan T. Ennett, J. Michael Bowling, and Susan Haws, “The Prevalence of Evidence-Based Drug Use Prevention Curricula in US Middle Schools in 2008,” Prevention Science 12:63–69 (2011).

128. Partnership Attitude Tracking Study: Teens, 2004 (Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2005), pp. 12, 24.

129. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, p. 71.

130. Lori K. Holleran, Margaret A. Taylor-Seehafer, Elizabeth C. Pomeroy, and James Alan Neff, “Substance Abuse Prevention for High-Risk Youth: Exploring Culture and Alcohol and Drug Use,” Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly 23:165–184 (2005).

131. Brandon C. Welsh and Akemi Hoshi, “Communities and Crime Prevention,” in Sherman, Farrington, Welsh, and MacKenzie, eds., Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, pp. 184–186.

132. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Treatment Episode Data Sets (TEDS). Highlights—2007. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services (Rockville, MD: DASIS Series: S-45, DHHS Publication No. [SMA] 09-4360, 2009), table 2b.

133. Andrew R. Morral, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Greg Ridgeway, Arnab Mukherji, and Christopher Beighley, The Relative Effectiveness of 10 Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment Programs in the United States (Arlington, VA: Drug Policy Research Center, RAND Corporation, 2006).

134. Scott W. Henggeler, Sonja K. Schoenwald, Charles M. Borduin, Melisa D. Rowland, and Phillippe B. Cunningham, Multisystemic Treatment of Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents (New York: Guilford, 1998).

135. Eli Ginzberg, Howard Berliner, and Miriam Ostrow, Young People at Risk: Is Prevention Possible? (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988), p. 99.

136. Laurie Chassin, “Juvenile Justice and Substance Abuse,” The Future of Children 18(2):165–183 (2008); James C. Howell, Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009), p. 272.

137. Ginzberg, Berliner, and Ostrow, Young People at Risk: Is Prevention Possible?

138. Donnie W. Watson, Lorrie Bisesi, Susie Tanamly, and Noemi Mai, “Comprehensive Residential Education, Arts, and Substance Abuse Treatment (CREASAT): A Model Treatment Program for Juvenile Offenders,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1:388–401 (2003).

139. Steven R. Donziger, ed., The Real War on Crime: The Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission (New York: HarperPerennial, 1996), pp. 201–202.

140. Charlotte Allan and Nat Wright, “Harm Reduction: The Least Worst Treatment of All; Tackling Drug Addiction Has Few Easy Solutions,” Student British Medical Journal 12:92–93 (2004), at 92.

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid.; see also Erik K. Laursen and Paul Brasler, “Is Harm Reduction a Viable Choice for Kids Enchanted with Drugs?” Reclaiming Children and Youth 11:181–183 (2002).

143. Donziger, The Real War on Crime, p. 201.

144. Robert J. MacCoun and Karin D. Martin, “Drugs,” in Michael Tonry, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Public Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 513.

145. Eric L. Jensen, Jurg Gerber, and Clayton Mosher, “Social Consequences of the War on Drugs: The Legacy of Failed Policy,” Criminal Justice Policy Review 15:100–121 (2004).

146. Associated Press, “AP Impact: US Drug War Has Met None of Its Goals,” New York Times, May 14, 2010.

147. Peter Reuter, ed., Understanding the Demand for Illegal Drugs (Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academies Press, 2010), p. 103.

148. Kleiman, Caulkins, and Hawken, Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know; Kathryn Ann Farr, “Revitalizing the Drug Decriminalization Debate,” Crime and Delinquency 36:223–237 (1990).

149. Reuter, MacCoun, and Murphy, Money from Crime, pp. 165–168.

12: Delinquency Prevention: Social and Developmental Perspectives

Chapter Outline

The Many Faces of Delinquency Prevention

· Costs of Delinquency: A Justification for Prevention

A Brief History of Delinquency Prevention

Classifying Delinquency Prevention

Early Prevention of Delinquency

· Home-Based Programs

Improving Parenting Skills

Daycare Programs

Preschool

School Programs in the Primary Grades

Prevention of Delinquency in the Teenage Years

· Mentoring

School Programs for Teens

After-School Programs

Job Training

Comprehensive Community-Based Programs

Future of Delinquency Prevention

Learning Objectives

· 1 Know the difference between delinquency prevention and delinquency control

· 2 Have an understanding of the magnitude of cost to society caused by juvenile crime and violence

· 3 Be able to identify some of the major historical events that gave rise to the present focus on delinquency prevention

· 4 Be familiar with different approaches to classifying delinquency prevention programs

· 5 Know the key features of the developmental perspective of delinquency prevention

· 6 Have an understanding of the many different types of effective delinquency prevention programs for children and teens

· 7 Be able to identify key factors of effective programs

· 8 Be able to discuss other benefits produced by delinquency prevention programs

· 9 Be able to identify and comment on pressing issues facing the future of delinquency prevention

chapter features

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—prevention: Head Start

focus on Delinquency: Public Support for Delinquency Prevention

Youth stories: Wes Moore

Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice—prevention: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development

FOR MICHELLE, a British citizen, age 16 and pregnant with her first child, violence came early in life and at the hands of her mother, her unborn child’s grandmother. Living in poverty, with no family other than her distant mother, and having already experienced violence by a loved one, Michelle (her last name withheld to protect her identity) was confronted with many of the obstacles in life that put her and her baby at increased risk for a wide range of health and social problems. Some of these problems include abuse of drugs and alcohol, unemployment, and reliance on social services, and for the child, low birth weight, neglect and abuse, behavioral problems, and later involvement in delinquent and criminal activities.

In April 2007, the British government set out to help improve the life chances of Michelle and her baby along with hundreds of other similar young mothers and their newborns by providing specially trained nurses to visit them at their homes during the final months of pregnancy and up to the child’s second birthday. The nurses visit every week in the beginning and then every other week. Each visit lasts about two hours. During these visits mothers get advice about care of the child, infant development, and the importance of proper nutrition and avoiding smoking and drinking during pregnancy. The home visits also serve to improve the well-being of the mothers, linking them to community resources to help with employment, education, or addiction recovery. In the words of the early intervention expert Deanna Gomby and her colleagues, “Home visitors can see the environments in which families live, gain a better understanding of the families’ needs, and therefore tailor services to meet those needs. The relationships forged between home visitors and parents can break through loneliness and isolation and serve as the first step in linking families to their communities.”

In the United States, this program, known as the Nurse-Family Partnership and developed by David Olds at the University of Colorado, has proven tremendously successful. Through three large-scale trials in Elmira (New York), Memphis, and Denver, it has been found to improve women’s prenatal health, increase the spacing among subsequent pregnancies, reduce child abuse, neglect, and injuries, improve children’s school readiness, and reduce adolescent crime and substance use. Today, the Nurse-Family Partnership is operating in more than 500 counties in 42 states across the country, serving almost 26,000 families each year. 1

It was this success that caught the attention of the British government. (The program has already been implemented in 10 cities and towns across Britain.) For Michelle and hundreds of other teenage mothers like her, the government sees this scientifically proven program as the best chance of saving these children from the cycle of violence, poverty, and despair to which their young mothers fell victim. 2

Public officials faced with the problem of juvenile delinquency in their cities have many options. For some, it will be a clear choice of getting tough on juvenile delinquency and implementing punitive or justice-oriented measures. For others, it will be a matter of getting tough on the causes of juvenile delinquency and implementing prevention programs to ward off delinquency before it takes place. Still others will combine justice and nonjustice measures to combat the problem. Ideally, decisions about which approach or which combination of measures to use will be based on the needs of the community and the highest-quality available evidence on what works best in preventing juvenile delinquency.

This chapter begins with a discussion of key features of delinquency prevention, which include the differences between prevention and other approaches to tackle delinquent behavior, the financial costs that delinquency imposes on society, and efforts to make sense of the many different types of prevention programs and measures. The history of delinquency prevention in the United States is also discussed. Next, we review the effectiveness of delinquency prevention programs that are provided in the childhood years. Daycare, preschool, and primary school programs are among the different types of prevention programs covered. This is followed by a review of the effectiveness of a wide range of delinquency prevention programs implemented in the teenage years, including school-based, after-school, and job training programs. The chapter concludes with a look at key issues to be faced in the ongoing efforts to prevent delinquency.

The Many Faces of Delinquency Prevention

Preventing juvenile delinquency means many different things to many different people. Programs or policies designed to prevent juvenile delinquency can include the police making an arrest as part of an operation to address gang problems, a juvenile court sanction to a secure correctional facility, or, in the extreme case, a death penalty sentence. These measures are often referred to as  delinquency control  or  delinquency repression . More often, though,  delinquency prevention  refers to intervening in young people’s lives before they engage in delinquency in the first place—that is, preventing the first delinquent act. Both forms of delinquency prevention have a common goal of trying to prevent the occurrence of a future delinquent act, but what distinguishes delinquency prevention from delinquency control is that prevention typically does not involve the juvenile justice system. Instead, programs or policies designed to prevent delinquency involve daycare providers, nurses, teachers, social workers, recreation staff at the YMCA, counselors at Boys and Girls Clubs of America, other young people in school, and parents. This form of delinquency prevention is sometimes referred to as nonjustice delinquency prevention or alternative delinquency prevention.  Exhibit 12.1  lists examples of programs to prevent and control delinquency.

exhibit 12.1: Delinquency Prevention vs. Control

Prevention	Control
Home visitation	Antigang police task force
Preschool	Boot camps
Child skills training	Wilderness programs
Mentoring	Probation
After-school recreation	Electronic monitoring
Job training	Secure confinement

delinquency control or delinquency repression

Involves any justice program or policy designed to prevent the occurrence of a future delinquent act.

delinquency prevention

Involves any nonjustice program or policy designed to prevent the occurrence of a future delinquent act.

Delinquency prevention programs are not designed with the intention of excluding juvenile justice personnel. Many types of delinquency prevention programs, especially those that focus on adolescents, involve juvenile justice personnel such as the police. In these cases, the juvenile justice personnel work in close collaboration with those from such areas as education, health care, recreation, and social services. In this chapter, we focus on delinquency prevention programs that are driven or led by these non–juvenile justice agencies.

An important issue facing delinquency prevention is cost: programs cost money to run. Expenses include staff salaries, equipment, and sometimes rent for the facilities in which programs take place. Though prevention programs can be costly, they are beneficial because they save money that would otherwise be spent in the justice system.

Costs of Delinquency: A Justification for Prevention

The impacts of juvenile delinquency on society, which include such things as damaged property, pain and suffering to victims, and the involvement of police and other agencies of the juvenile justice system, can be converted into dollars and cents. The damaged property will need to be repaired or replaced, and it is the victim who will often have to pay for this, as many crime victims do not have insurance. The pain and suffering inflicted on an individual from an assault or robbery can result not only in immediate costs of medical care and lost wages from missing work, but also in reduced quality of life from debilitating injuries or fear of being victimized again, which can result in not being able to go to work, long-term medical care, and counseling.

Here again it is the crime victim and also the victim’s family, employer, and many services, such as Medicaid, welfare, and mental health, that incur the dollar costs associated with these services. Victim costs resulting from an aggravated assault are as high as $37,000, and are even higher for rape and arson. The average murder costs around $5 million. 3  Another study puts the total cost of a murder, which includes victim costs plus costs to the justice system, at just under $10 million. 4  Then there is the cost of the involvement of the police, courts, and corrections agencies. While some of the costs incurred by the juvenile justice system go toward addressing the needs of victims, such as follow-up interviews by police and court-based victim assistance programs, the majority of the costs are directed at the processing of offenders. Police arrest, public defender costs, court appearances, serving a sentence—whether it be probation or incarceration—and aftercare programs upon release into the community are all costly steps in the justice system. There are also costs incurred by society in efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency, through different types of prevention programs.

Mark Cohen and Alex Piquero estimate that the typical criminal career over the juvenile and adult years (ages 10 to 26) costs society between $2.6 and $4.6 million. 5  Adding the costs of drug use and dropping out of high school brings the total cost to $3.2 to $5.5 million. A much lower estimate of the cost of a criminal career—for the adult years only—was reported by criminologists Matt DeLisi and Jewel Gatling. Based on a sample of 500 career criminals, the authors found that the average criminal career costs society more than $1.1 million. 6  Another study of 500 urban boys between the ages of 7 and 17—based on the youngest sample of the Pittsburgh Youth Study—estimated that those who were chronic offenders caused as much as eight times higher average costs to victims than other juvenile offenders, with costs approaching $1 million for the chronic offenders. 7

Studies have also looked at the costs of juvenile delinquency to different states and the nation as a whole.

State Costs

Ted Miller and his associates examined the costs of juvenile violence in the state of Pennsylvania. 8  The study was based on the violent offenses of murder, rape, robbery, assault, and physical and sexual abuse. Violence by juveniles was estimated to cost $2.6 billion in victim costs and $46 million in perpetrator costs per year. Juvenile perpetrator costs were made up of costs to the juvenile and adult justice systems, which included costs from probation, detention, juvenile treatment programs, and incarceration in adult prisons. Interestingly, this study also reported on the costs of violence against juveniles that was committed by adults and other juveniles. Compared to the victim costs of violence committed by juveniles, the victim costs of violence committed against juveniles was much higher: $4.5 billion versus $2.6 billion. The main reason for this difference was because juveniles suffered more sexual abuse—a very costly offense—at the hands of adults, but there was very little sexual abuse by juveniles against adults.

National Costs

The only national estimate of the costs of juvenile delinquency focuses on a limited number of violent offenses. Homicides and assault-related injuries perpetrated by juveniles cost the United States $16 billion each year. 9  This estimate includes some of the costs incurred by federal, state, and local governments to assist victims of juvenile violence, such as medical treatment for injuries and services for victims in the form of aid for lost wages. These are tangible, or out-of-pocket, victim costs. Missing from this total are the intangible or indirect costs suffered by victims, including pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life. These costs can be as much as four or five times the tangible costs. Also missing from this $16 billion price tag of juvenile violence are the costs from society’s response to juvenile violence, which include early prevention programs, services for juveniles, and the juvenile justice system. These costs are unknown.

Considering these costs, it is not surprising that there has been a long-standing effort to prevent juvenile delinquency.

To read more about the costs of juvenile violence in the United States, go to the Children’s Safety Network Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center ( http://www.edarc.org/ ) or visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

A Brief History of Delinquency Prevention

The history of the prevention of juvenile delinquency in the United States is closely tied to the history of juvenile justice in this country. From the founding of the House of Refuge, which opened in New York in 1825, to more contemporary events, such as amendments to the federal Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, child-saving organizations and lawmakers have had an interest in both the prevention and control of delinquency. However, many social scientists have noted that efforts to prevent juveniles from engaging in delinquency in the first place were secondary to and often overlooked in favor of interventions with juveniles who had already committed delinquent acts. 10  This imbalance between prevention and control of juvenile delinquency remains in place to this day.

Chicago Area Project

One of the earliest juvenile delinquency prevention programs was the Chicago Area Project, started in 1933 by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay. 11  This project was designed to produce social change in communities that suffered from high delinquency rates and gang activity. As part of the project, qualified local leaders coordinated social service centers that promoted community solidarity and counteracted social disorganization. More than 20 different programs were developed, featuring discussion groups, counseling services, hobby groups, school-related activities, and recreation. There is still some question of whether these programs had a positive influence on the delinquency rate. Some evaluations indicated positive results, but others showed that the Chicago Area Project efforts did little to reduce juvenile delinquency. 12

Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study

Another well-known delinquency prevention program that was implemented around the same time as the Chicago project was the Cambridge-Somerville (Massachusetts) Youth Study. 13  The focus of this program was more on improving individuals than their surroundings. One interesting feature of this program is that it was one of the first delinquency prevention programs to be evaluated using a  randomized experimental design . Prior to the start of the program, 650 boys (325 matched pairs) were assigned to receive the program (the  experimental group ) or not receive the program (the  control group ). The experimental group boys received regular friendly attention from counselors for an average of five years and whatever medical and educational services were needed. The counselors talked to the boys, took them on trips and to recreational activities, tutored them in reading and arithmetic, played games with them at the project’s center, encouraged them to attend church, and visited their families to give advice and general support. The program was to have continued for 10 years, but when America became involved in World War II, many of the adult counselors were drafted. 14  An evaluation of the program 30 years after it ended, when the men were 45 years old, found that those in the experimental group committed more crime than those in the control group. 15  One possible reason for this negative result was that the program was done in groups instead of one on one. The group format was thought to have resulted in minor delinquents being influenced by more involved or serious delinquents. 16

randomized experimental design

Considered the “gold standard” of evaluation designs to measure the effect of a program on delinquency or other outcomes. Involves randomly assigning subjects either to receive the program (the experimental group) or not receive it (the control group).

experimental group

A group of subjects that receives a prevention program.

control group

A comparison group of subjects that does not receive a prevention program.

Head Start teacher Marcus Tate helps 5-year-olds Almanis Herndon (left), and Kymani Fitzgerald plant a garden at the Z. L. Madden Learning Center in Spartanburg, South Carolina, on May 15, 2013. Tate was named the Head Start Teacher of the Year for the state.

Detached Street Workers

In the 1950s, a major focus of delinquency prevention programs was to reach out to youths who were unlikely to use community centers. Instead of having troubled youths come to them, detached street workers were sent into inner-city neighborhoods, creating close relationships with juvenile gangs and groups in their own milieu. 17  The best-known detached street worker program was Boston’s Mid-City Project, which dispatched trained social workers to seek out and meet with youth gangs three to four times a week on the gangs’ own turf. Their goal was to modify the organization of the gang and allow gang members a chance to engage in more conventional behaviors. The detached street workers tried to help gang members get jobs and educational opportunities. They acted as go-betweens for gang members with agents of the power structure—lawyers, judges, parole officers, and the like. Despite these efforts, an evaluation of the program by Walter Miller failed to show that it resulted in a significant reduction in criminal activity. 18

Federally Funded Programs

The 1960s ushered in a tremendous interest in the prevention of delinquency. Much of this interest was in programs based on social structure theory. This approach seemed quite compatible with the rehabilitative policies of the Kennedy (New Frontier) and Johnson (Great Society/War on Poverty) administrations. Delinquency prevention programs received a great deal of federal funding. The most ambitious of these was the New York City–based Mobilization for Youth (MOBY). Funded by more than $50 million, MOBY attempted an integrated approach to community development. Based on Cloward and Ohlin’s concept of providing opportunities for legitimate success, MOBY created employment opportunities in the community, coordinated social services, and sponsored social action groups such as tenants’ committees, legal action services, and voter registration. But MOBY ended for lack of funding amid questions about its utility and use of funds.

Improving the socialization of lower-class youths to reduce their potential for future delinquency was also an important focus of other federally funded programs during the 1960s. The largest and best known of these programs was Head Start, a national program for preschoolers that continues to this day. (See the accompanying Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature.)

To read more about Head Start, visit its website ( http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/ ) or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Prevention Head Start

Head Start is probably the best-known effort to help lower-class youths achieve proper socialization and, in so doing, reduce their potential for future criminality. Head Start programs were instituted in the 1960s as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In the beginning, Head Start was a two-month summer program for children who were about to enter a school that was aimed at embracing the “whole child.” In embracing the whole child, the school offered comprehensive programming that helped improve physical health, enhance mental processes, and improve social and emotional development, self-image, and interpersonal relationships. Preschoolers were provided with an enriched educational environment to develop their learning and cognitive skills. They were given the opportunity to use pegs and pegboards, puzzles, toy animals, dolls, letters and numbers, and other materials that middle-class children take for granted. These opportunities provided the children a leg up in the educational process.

Today, with annual funding approaching $7 billion and an enrollment of close to 1 million children, the Head Start program is administered by the Head Start Bureau, the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF), the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Head Start teachers strive to provide a variety of learning experiences appropriate to the child’s age and development. These experiences encourage the child to read books, to understand cultural diversity, to express feelings, and to play with and relate to peers in an appropriate fashion. Students are guided in developing gross and fine motor skills and self-confidence. Health care is also an issue, and most children enrolled in the program receive comprehensive health screening, physical and dental examinations, and appropriate follow-up. Many programs provide meals, and in so doing help children receive proper nourishment.

Head Start programs now serve parents in addition to their preschoolers. Some programs allow parents to enroll in classes, which cover parenting, literacy, nutrition/weight loss, domestic violence prevention, and other social issues; social services, health, and educational services are also available.

Considerable controversy has surrounded the success of the Head Start program. In 1970, the Westinghouse Learning Corporation issued a definitive evaluation of the Head Start effort and concluded that there was no evidence of lasting cognitive gains on the part of the participating children. Initial gains seemed to fade away during the elementary school years, and by the third grade, the performance of the Head Start children was no different from that of their peers.

While disappointing, this evaluation focused on IQ levels and gave short shrift to improvement in social competence and other survival skills. More recent research has produced dramatically different results. One report found that by age 5, children who experienced the enriched daycare offered by Head Start averaged more than 10 points higher on their IQ scores than their peers who did not participate in the program. Other research that carefully compared Head Start children to similar youngsters who did not attend the program found that the former made significant intellectual gains. Head Start children were less likely to have been retained in a grade or placed in classes for slow learners, they outperformed peers on achievement tests, and they were more likely to graduate from high school.

Head Start kids also made strides in nonacademic areas: They appear to have better health, immunization rates, nutrition, and enhanced emotional characteristics after leaving the program. Research also shows that the Head Start program can have important psychological benefits for the mothers of participants, such as decreasing depression and anxiety and increasing feelings of life satisfaction. While findings in some areas may be tentative, they are all in the same direction: Head Start enhances school readiness and has enduring effects on social competence.

If, as many experts believe, there are close links among school performance, family life, and crime, programs such as Head Start can help some potentially criminal youths avoid coming into conflict with the law. A large-scale study of the long-term effects of Head Start by economists Eliana Garces, Duncan Thomas, and Janet Currie provides some support for this view. Based on a national panel survey of households, the authors found that children who attended Head Start (at ages 3 to 5) were significantly less likely to report being arrested or referred to court for a crime by ages 18 to 30, compared to their siblings who did not attend the program.

Head Start has also been shown to be a worthwhile investment of taxpayer dollars in both the short and long term. This was the conclusion of a review of cost-benefit analyses of Head Start by economists Jens Ludwig and Deborah Phillips. One of the cost-benefit analyses found that the program’s short- and medium-term benefits could offset between 40 and 60 percent of its costs, and the addition of a small fraction of long-term benefits (like reductions in juvenile crime) could make it pay for itself.

Despite these views and the research findings, Head Start faces challenges on a number of fronts. Some proposals for change include turning the program over to state control, focusing more narrowly on improving children’s literacy, and mandating more qualified teachers but not providing the necessary resources to improve their low pay. Experts and advocates alike argue that these measures threaten to “water down” one of the most successful national programs for children and families in need.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

Head Start reaches almost one-half of all children and families in need. In addition to spending more money, what does the US government need to do to expand Head Start’s reach?

2.

What changes could be made to Head Start to make it more effective in improving the lives of children and families?

SOURCES: Holly S. Schindler and Hirokazu Yoshikawa, “Preventing Crime through Intervention in the Preschool Years,” in Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Jens Ludwig and Deborah A. Phillips, “Long-Term Effects of Head Start on Low-Income Children,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1136:257–268 (2008); Edward Zigler, Walter S. Gilliam, and Stephanie M. Jones, eds., A Vision for Universal Preschool Education (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006); US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Impact Study: First Year Findings (Washington, DC: Author, 2005); Carol H. Ripple and Edward Zigler, “Research, Policy, and the Federal Role in Prevention Initiatives for Children,” American Psychologist 58:482–490 (2003); Eliana Garces, Duncan Thomas, and Janet Currie, “Longer-Term Effects of Head Start,” American Economic Review 92:999–1012 (2002); Janet Currie, “Early Childhood Education Programs,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 15:213–238 (2001).

Contemporary Preventive Approaches

The emphasis on large-scale federally funded programs aimed at the prevention of delinquency continued into the 1970s and 1980s, and these types of programs are still important today. But in recent years the focus of delinquency prevention efforts has shifted from neighborhood reclamation projects of the 1960s to more individualized, family-centered treatments. 19

Classifying Delinquency Prevention

Just as there are a number of different ways to define delinquency prevention and very little agreement on the best way to do so, 20  the organization or classification of delinquency prevention is equally diverse, and there is very little agreement on the most effective way to do this.

Public Health Approach

One of the first efforts to classify the many different types of delinquency prevention activities drew upon the public health approach to preventing diseases and injuries. 21  This method divided delinquency prevention activities into three categories: primary prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary prevention. Primary prevention focuses on improving the general well-being of individuals through such measures as access to health care services and general prevention education, and modifying conditions in the physical environment that are conducive to delinquency through such measures as removing abandoned vehicles and improving the appearance of buildings. Secondary prevention focuses on intervening with children and young people who are potentially at risk for becoming offenders, as well as the provision of neighborhood programs to deter known delinquent activity. Tertiary prevention focuses on intervening with adjudicated juvenile offenders through such measures as substance abuse treatment and imprisonment. Here, the goal is to reduce repeat offending or recidivism. 22

Developmental Perspective

Another popular approach to classifying delinquency prevention activities is the developmental perspective. Developmental prevention refers to interventions, especially those targeting  risk factors  and  protective factors , that are designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals. 23  Developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency is informed generally by motivational or human development theories on juvenile delinquency, and specifically by longitudinal studies that follow samples of young persons from their early childhood experiences to the peak of their involvement with delinquency in their teens and crime in their 20s. 24  The developmental perspective claims that delinquency in adolescence (and later criminal offending in adulthood) is influenced by “behavioral and attitudinal patterns that have been learned during an individual’s development.” 25   Concept Summary 12.1  lists key features of the developmental perspective. From this perspective, prevention activities are organized around different stages of the life course. We divide our discussion of developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency into two stages: childhood and adolescence.

CONCEPT SUMMARY 12.1: Developmental Perspective on Delinquency Prevention

·  Informed by human development theories and longitudinal studies

·  Designed to prevent the development of criminal potential in individuals

·  Targeted at risk factors for delinquency and protective factors against delinquency

·  Provided to children and families

·  Implemented at different stages over the life course: childhood, early school years, adolescence, and transition to work

risk factor

A negative prior factor in an individual’s life that increases the risk of occurrence of a future delinquent act.

protective factor

A positive prior factor in an individual’s life that decreases the risk of occurrence of a future delinquent act.

For the most part, we have adopted the developmental perspective in discussing the effectiveness of different types of delinquency prevention programs in the rest of this chapter. This approach has several advantages: It allows for assessing the success of programs at different life-course stages; its coverage of the types of delinquency prevention programs that have been implemented is vast; and it is a well-recognized approach that has been used by other social scientists in reviews of the effectiveness of delinquency prevention. 26

Early Prevention of Delinquency

In the effort to address juvenile delinquency, early childhood interventions—initiated before delinquency occurs—have received much interest and have come to be seen as an important part of an overall strategy to reduce the harm caused by juvenile delinquency. Recent research shows that the general public is highly supportive of delinquency prevention programs and is even willing to pay more in taxes for these programs compared to more punitive options like military-style boot camps and prison. (This is discussed in the Focus on Delinquency feature entitled “ Public Support for Delinquency Prevention .”) Early childhood delinquency prevention programs aim at positively influencing the early risk factors or “root causes” of delinquency and criminal offending that may continue into the adult years. These early risk factors are many, some of which include growing up in poverty, a high level of hyperactivity or impulsiveness, inadequate parental supervision, and harsh or inconsistent discipline. Early childhood interventions are often multidimensional, targeted at more than one risk factor, because they take a variety of different forms, including cognitive development, child skills training, and family support. The following sections examine early childhood delinquency prevention programs that have been implemented in the four most influential settings: home, daycare, preschool, and the school. Most of the programs have been carried out in the United States.

FOCUS on delinquency: Public Support for Delinquency Prevention

Politicians who support “get-tough” responses to juvenile offenders have long claimed to have the full backing of the general public, and that it is indeed the public that demands tougher dispositions (or sentences) such as military-style boot camps and longer terms in institutions to hold them accountable for their transgressions. To be sure, there is public support for get-tough responses to juvenile delinquency, especially violent acts. But this support is not at the levels often claimed and, more importantly, not as high when compared to alternatives such as rehabilitation or treatment for juvenile offenders or early childhood or youth prevention programs. This overestimate of the punitiveness of the general public on the part of politicians and others has become known as the “mythical punitive public.”

New, cutting-edge research provides more evidence to substantiate the mythical punitive public—that is, that citizens are highly supportive of delinquency prevention and are even willing to pay more in taxes to support these programs compared to other responses. In a review of the public opinion literature, criminologist Frank Cullen and his colleagues found that the American public is generally supportive of delinquency prevention programs, especially for at-risk children and youth. They also found that public opinion is no longer a barrier—as it once was perceived to be—to the implementation of delinquency prevention programs in communities across the country.

In a study of public preferences of responses to juvenile offending, criminologist Daniel Nagin and his colleagues found that the public values early prevention and offender rehabilitation or treatment more than increased incarceration. As shown in  Table 12.A , households were willing to pay an average of $125.71 in additional taxes on nurse home visitation programs to prevent delinquency compared to $80.97 on longer sentences, a difference of $44.74 per year. Support for paying more in taxes for rehabilitation was also higher than for longer sentences: $98.10 versus $80.97. At the state level, public support for the prevention option translated into $601 million that hypothetically could be used to prevent delinquency compared to $387 million for longer sentences for juvenile offenders.

Table 12.A: Public Willingness to Pay for Delinquency Prevention vs. Other Measures

Program	Average WTP per Household per Year	Statewide WTP per Year
Longer sentence	$80.97	$387 million
Rehabilitation	$98.10	$468 million
Nurse visitation	$125.71	$601 million
Note: WTP = willingness to pay. Source: Adapted from Nagin, Piquero, Scott, and Steinberg, “Public Preferences for Rehabilitation versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey,” table 2.

This study was based on a large sample of residents in Pennsylvania and used a highly rigorous methodology of public opinion polling known as contingent valuation (CV), which has many advantages over conventional polling methods. The contingent valuation approach allows for the “comparison of respondents’ willingness to pay for competing policy alternatives.”

In another innovative study to gauge the public’s preferences for a range of alternative responses to crime, Mark Cohen, Roland Rust, and Sara Steen found the public overwhelmingly supported increased spending of tax dollars on youth prevention programs compared to building more prisons. Public support for spending more taxes on drug treatment for nonviolent offenders as well as police also ranked higher than support for building more prisons, but not as high as for youth prevention programs.

While the mythical punitive public appears to be just that, there is no denying that the general public does see some value in get-tough policies to tackle juvenile crime. But this new crop of public opinion research reveals—even more convincingly than past research—that there is a growing demand for early prevention programs and little demand for increased use of incarceration.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

If you were a politician, would these research findings influence your decision on the policy positions you take on juvenile crime? Explain.

2.

Public opinion is one important consideration in implementing delinquency prevention programs. What are some other key factors?

SOURCES: Julian V. Roberts and Ross Hastings, “Public Opinion and Crime Prevention: A Review of International Trends,” in Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Francis T. Cullen, Brenda A. Vose, Cheryl N. Lero, and James D. Unnever, “Public Support for Early Intervention: Is Child Saving a ‘Habit of the Heart’?” Victims and Offenders 2:108–124 (2007); Mark A. Cohen, Roland T. Rust, and Sara Steen, “Prevention, Crime Control or Cash? Public Preferences Toward Criminal Justice Spending Priorities,” Justice Quarterly 23:317–335 (2006); Daniel S. Nagin, Alex R. Piquero, Elizabeth S. Scott, and Laurence Steinberg, “Public Preferences for Rehabilitation versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Evidence from a Contingent Valuation Survey,” Criminology and Public Policy 5:627–652 (2006); Julian V. Roberts, “Public Opinion and Youth Justice,” in Michael Tonry and Anthony N. Doob, eds., Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Comparative and Cross-National Perspectives. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 31 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).

Home-Based Programs

In a supportive and loving home environment, parents care for their children’s health and general well-being, help instill in their children positive values such as honesty and respect for others, and nurture prosocial behaviors. One of the most important types of home-based programs to prevent juvenile delinquency involves the provision of support for families. Support for families in their homes can take many different forms. A popular and effective form of family support is home visitation. 27

Home Visitation

The best-known home visitation program is the Nurse-Family Partnership (formerly Prenatal/Early Infancy Project) that was started in Elmira, New York. 28  This program was designed with three broad objectives:

·  To improve the outcomes of pregnancy

·  To improve the quality of care that parents provide to their children (and their children’s subsequent health and development)

·  To improve women’s own personal life-course development (completing their education, finding work, and planning future pregnancies) 29

Early prevention programs that stress family support can reduce child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency. The most effective early family support programs provide infants with regular pediatrician checkups and provide parents with advice about care for the child, infant development, and local services. Here, Molly Walters watches her sister, Billie Joe Walters, swaddle Billie Joe’s month-old son, Hayden, with the help of “coach” Janet DeBolt, director of the Nurse-Family Partnership in Uniontown, Pennsylvania.

The program targeted first-time mothers-to-be under 19 years of age, unmarried, or poor. In all, 400 women were enrolled in the program. The mothers-to-be received home visits from nurses during pregnancy and during the first two years of the child’s life. Each home visit lasted about one and one-quarter hours, and the mothers were visited on average every two weeks. The home visitors gave advice to the mothers about care of the child, infant development, and the importance of proper nutrition and avoiding smoking and drinking during pregnancy. Fifteen years after the program started, children of the mothers who received home visits had half as many arrests as children of mothers who received no home visits (the control group). 30  It was also found that these children, compared to those in the control group, had fewer convictions and violations of probation, were less likely to run away from home, and were less likely to drink alcohol. In addition to the program’s success in preventing juvenile crime and other delinquent activities, it also produced a number of improvements in the lives of the mothers, such as lower rates of child abuse and neglect, crime in general, and substance abuse, as well as less reliance on welfare and social services. 31  A Rand study found that the program’s desirable effects, for both the children and the mothers, translated into substantial financial benefits for government and taxpayers, and that the total amount of these benefits was more than four times the cost of the program (see  Figure 12.1 ). 32  In the latest follow-up of the program, when the children were 19 years old, girls incurred significantly fewer arrests and convictions compared to their control counterparts, while few program effects were observed for the boys. 33

figure 12.1: Costs and Benefits of Home Visits for High-Risk Families

SOURCE: Adapted from Greenwood et al., “Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions: Nurse Home Visits and the Perry Preschool” (table 4.3).

Two other experiments of the Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP) program in Memphis, Tennessee, and Denver, Colorado, have produced similar benefits for the mothers and their children, including a reduction in child abuse and neglect. The success of the program has resulted in its use in more than 500 counties in 42 states across the country, serving almost 26,000 families each year. 34  In Colorado, the program was established in law, and in its first year of operation served almost 1,400 families in 49 of the state’s 64 counties. 35  It is also now being replicated throughout England. 36  The use of nurses instead of paraprofessionals, its intensity (a minimum of two years), and its targeted nature (for first-time, disadvantaged mothers only) are critical features that distinguish it from other, less effective home visitation programs such as Hawaii Healthy Start. 37

To read more about the Nurse-Family Partnership, visit their website ( http://www.nursefamilypartnership.org/ ) or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Improving Parenting Skills

Another form of family support that has shown some success in preventing juvenile delinquency is improving parenting skills. Although the main focus of parent training programs is on the parents, many of these programs also involve children with the aim of improving the parent-child bond.

Two reviews capture the broad-scale effectiveness of family-based prevention programs. The first one involved a meta-analysis of the effects of early prevention programs that included parents and children up to age 5. 38  Eleven high-quality studies were included that covered a variety of program modalities, including home visitation, family support services, and parental education (improvement of core parenting skills). Results showed significant effects across a number of important domain outcomes, including educational success, delinquency, cognitive development, involvement in the justice system, and family well-being. Program duration and intensity were associated with larger effects, but not multicomponent programs. This latter finding goes against much past research, including the latest results on the effectiveness of the Fast Track multicomponent, multisite prevention program (see  Chapter 6 ). 39

The second study involved a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of early family/parent training programs for children up to age 5 years on antisocial behavior and delinquency. 40  It included 55 randomized controlled experiments and investigated the full range of these programs, including home visits, parent education plus daycare, and parent training. Results indicated that early family/parent training is an effective intervention for reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency. These programs also produce a wide range of other important benefits for families, including improved school readiness and school performance on the part of children and greater employment and educational opportunities for parents. Significant differences were not detected across program type, such as traditional parent training versus home visiting.

Oregon Social Learning Center

The most widely cited parenting skills program is one created at the Oregon Social Learning Center (OSLC) by Gerald Patterson and his colleagues. 41  Patterson’s research convinced him that poor parenting skills were associated with antisocial behavior in the home and at school. Family disruption and coercive exchanges between parents and children led to increased family tension, poor academic performance, and negative peer relations. The primary cause of the problem seemed to be that parents did not know how to deal effectively with their children. Parents sometimes ignored their children’s behavior, but at other times the same actions would trigger explosive rage. Some parents would discipline their children for reasons that had little to do with the children’s behavior, instead reflecting their own frustrations.

The children reacted in a regular progression, from learning to be noncompliant to learning to be assaultive. Their “coercive behavior,” which included whining, yelling, and temper tantrums, would sometimes be acquired by other family members. Eventually family conflict would flow out of the home and into the school and social environment.

The OSLC program uses behavior modification techniques to help parents acquire proper disciplinary methods. Parents are asked to select several behaviors for change and to count the frequency of their occurrence. OSLC personnel teach social skills to reinforce positive behaviors, and constructive disciplinary methods to discourage negative ones. Incentive programs are initiated in which a child can earn points for desirable behaviors. Points can be exchanged for allowance, prizes, or privileges. Parents are also taught disciplinary techniques that stress firmness and consistency rather than “nattering” (low-intensity behaviors, such as scowling or scolding) or explosive discipline, such as hitting or screaming. One important technique is the “time out,” in which the child is removed for brief isolation in a quiet room. Parents are taught the importance of setting rules and sticking to them. A number of evaluation studies carried out by Patterson and his colleagues showed that improving parenting skills can lead to reductions in juvenile delinquency. 42

The parent training method used by the OSLC may be the most cost-effective method of early intervention. A Rand study found that parent training costs about one-twentieth what a home visit program costs and is more effective in preventing serious crimes. The study estimates that 501 serious crimes could be prevented for every million dollars spent on parent training (or $2,000 per crime), a far cheaper solution than long-term incarceration, which would cost about $16,000 to prevent a single crime. 43

To read more about the OSLC parenting skills program, visit their website ( http://www.oslc.org/ ), or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Daycare Programs

Daycare services are available to children as young as 6 weeks old in the United States and other Western countries. 44  In addition to allowing parents to return to work, daycare serves to provide children with a number of benefits, including social interaction with other children and stimulation of their cognitive, sensory, and motor control skills. The effectiveness of early childhood intervention has been studied in two programs described here—one in Syracuse, New York, and one in Houston, Texas.

Among the best known of early childhood intervention programs that provide high-quality daycare services is the Syracuse University Family Development Research Program. This program involved high-risk women during the later stages of their pregnancies. After the women gave birth, paraprofessionals were assigned to work with them, encouraging sound parent-child relationships, providing nutrition information, and helping them establish relationships with social service agencies. In addition, the children received free full-time daycare, designed to develop their intellectual abilities, up to age 5. A 10-year follow-up compared children involved in the program with a control group and found that those who received the intervention were less likely to be referred to the juvenile court for delinquency offenses, more likely to express positive feelings about themselves, and able to take a more active role in dealing with personal problems. Girls seemed especially to benefit, doing better in school; parents were more likely to express prosocial attitudes. 45

Daycare programs serve largely as an organized form of child care to allow parents to return to work. But they also provide children with a number of important benefits, including social interaction with other children and stimulation of their cognitive, sensory, and motor control skills. A number of daycare programs have been effective in preventing delinquency.

Another high-quality daycare program was that of the Houston Parent-Child Development Center. Like the Syracuse University program, mothers and their children received services. In the first year of the program, the mothers received home visits from social service professionals, for the purpose of informing them about child development and parenting skills and helping them to develop prosocial bonds with their children. In the second year of the program, the mothers and their children attended a child development center four mornings a week. Here, children were provided with daycare services to foster cognitive skills and encourage positive interactions with other children. Mothers participated in classes on family communication and child management. Eight years after the program ended, children who received the program were less involved in fighting and other delinquent activities when compared to a control group. 46

The success of these programs rests in their targeting of important individual-and family-level risk factors for delinquency, such as low intelligence, impulsiveness, and inconsistent and poor parenting. Social scientists point to a package of child- and parent-centered interventions targeted at multiple risk factors as a core ingredient of successful delinquency prevention programs. 47

Preschool

Preschool programs differ from daycare programs in that preschool is geared more toward preparing children for school. Preschool is typically provided to children ages 3 to 5 years. These are the formative years of brain development; more learning takes place during this developmental stage than at any other stage over the life course. Low intelligence and school failure are important risk factors for juvenile delinquency. 48  (See  Chapter 6  for why these are risk factors for juvenile delinquency.) For these reasons, highly structured, cognitive-based preschool programs give young children a positive start in life. Some key features of preschool programs include the provision of:

·  Developmentally appropriate learning curricula

·  A wide array of cognitive-based enriching activities

·  Activities for parents, usually of a less intensive nature, so that they may be able to support the school experience at home 49

A preschool in Michigan, a program in Chicago, and Head Start centers in Washington provide some positive findings on the benefits of early intervention.

Started in the mid-1960s, the Perry Preschool in Ypsilanti, Michigan, provided disadvantaged children with a program of educational enrichment supplemented with weekly home visits. The main hypothesis of the program was that “good preschool programs can help children in poverty make a better start in their transition from home to community and thereby set more of them on paths to becoming economically self-sufficient, socially responsible adults.” 50  The main intervention was high-quality, active-learning preschool programming administered by professional teachers for two years. Preschool sessions were half a day long five days a week for the duration of the 30-week school year. The educational approach focused on supporting the development of the children’s cognitive and social skills through individualized teaching and learning.

A number of assessments were made of the program at important stages of development. The first assessment of juvenile delinquency, when the participants were age 15, found that those who received the program reported one-third fewer offenses than a control group. 51  By the age of 27, program participants had accumulated half the arrests of the control group. The researchers also found that the preschoolers had achieved many other significant benefits compared to their control group counter-parts, including higher monthly earnings, higher percentages of home ownership and second car ownership, a higher level of schooling completed, and a lower percentage receiving welfare benefits. 52  All of these benefits translated into substantial dollar cost savings. It was estimated that for each dollar it cost to run and administer the program, more than $7 was saved to taxpayers, potential crime victims, and program participants. 53  An independent study by Rand also found that Perry Preschool was a very worthwhile investment. 54

The most recent assessment of the effectiveness of Perry Preschool—when the subjects were age 40—found that it continues to make a difference in the lives of those who were enrolled in the program. Compared to the control group, program group members had achieved many significant benefits:

·  Fewer lifetime arrests for violent crimes (32 percent vs. 48 percent), property crimes (36 percent vs. 58 percent), and drug crimes (14 percent vs. 34 percent)

·  Higher levels of schooling completed (77 percent vs. 60 percent graduated from high school)

·  Higher annual earnings (57 percent vs. 43 percent had earnings in the top half of the sample) 55

An assessment of the costs and benefits at age 40 found that for every dollar spent on the program, more than $17 was returned to society—in the form of savings in crime, education, welfare, and increased tax revenue.

The Child-Parent Center (CPC) program in Chicago, like Perry Preschool, provided disadvantaged children ages 3 to 4 years with high-quality, active-learning preschool supplemented with family support. However, unlike Perry, CPC continued to provide the children with the educational enrichment component into elementary school, up to the age of 9 years. Just focusing on the effect of the preschool, it was found that, compared to a control group, those who received the program were less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses (17 percent vs. 25 percent) and violent offenses (9 percent vs. 15 percent) by the time they were 18. Preschool participants, compared to a control group, were also less likely to be arrested more than once (10 percent vs. 13 percent). There were other significant benefits realized by the preschool participants compared to the control group:

·  A higher rate of high school completion (50 percent vs. 39 percent)

·  More years of completed education (11 years vs. 10)

·  A lower rate of dropping out of school (47 percent vs. 55 percent) 56

A more recent evaluation when participants were age 24 found that the experimental group, compared to the control group members, had significantly lower rates of felony arrest (17 percent vs. 21 percent) and lower rates of incarceration (21 percent vs. 26 percent). 57  Positive results were found for official justice contact in a follow-up at age 28 as well. 58  The success of the CPC program in preventing juvenile delinquency and improving other life-course outcomes produced substantial cost savings. For each dollar spent on the program, $7.14 was saved to taxpayers, potential crime victims, and program participants. 59

Another early intervention that closely resembles these preschool programs is Head Start. (See the Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature earlier in the chapter.) Head Start provides children with, among other things, an enriched educational environment to develop their learning and cognitive skills. One study of Head Start centers in Seattle, Washington, found that very young children who were enrolled in the program were less likely to misbehave than children in the control group. 60

Overall, high-quality, intensive preschool programs show strong support for preventing delinquency and improving the lives of young people. 61  The provision of family support services combined with preschool programming likely adds to the strength of the Perry and CPC programs in preventing delinquency, but it is clear that preschool was the most important element. The intellectual enrichment component of preschool helps prepare children for the academic challenges of elementary and later grades; reducing the chances of school failure is a significant factor in reducing delinquency. Another notable point about the positive findings of Perry and CPC is that these two programs were implemented many years apart, yet the CPC, as a semi-replication of Perry, demonstrates that preschool programs today can still be effective in preventing delinquency.

School Programs in the Primary Grades

Schools are a critical social context for delinquency prevention efforts, from the early to later grades. 62  (See  Chapter 10 .) All schools work to produce vibrant and productive members of society. The school’s role in preventing delinquency in general, which is the focus of this section, differs from measures taken to make the school a safer place. 63  In this case, a school may adopt a greater security orientation and implement such measures as metal detectors, police in school, and closed-circuit television cameras. A number of experimental programs have attempted to prevent or reduce delinquency by manipulating factors in the learning environment; three are discussed here.

To read more about SSDP, visit their website ( http://ssdp-tip.org/SSDP/ ), or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

The Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP) used a method in which teachers learn techniques that reward appropriate student behavior and minimize disruptive behavior. The program started in first grade and continued through sixth grade. Students were taught in small groups. Students were also provided with skills training to help them master problem solving, communication, and conflict resolution skills. Family training classes were offered, teaching parents how to reward and encourage desirable behavior and provide negative consequences for undesirable behavior in a consistent fashion. Other parent training focused on improving their children’s academic performance while reducing at-risk behaviors such as drug abuse. In short, the program was extremely comprehensive, targeting an array of risk factors for delinquency.

A long-term evaluation of the Seattle program—at age 21—found that children who received the program reported more commitment and attachment to school, better academic achievement, fewer delinquent acts, and fewer instances of selling drugs compared to a control group. Program participants were also less likely than their control counterparts to have received an official court charge in their lifetime. 64  In the latest follow-up, which included 93 percent of the original sample, the investigators found that the full intervention group (compared to the control groups) reported significantly better educational and economic attainment, mental health, and sexual health by age 27, but no effects were found for substance abuse and criminal activity at ages 24 or 27. 65

In Montreal, child psychologist Richard Tremblay set up an experiment to investigate the effects of an early preventive intervention program for 6-year-old boys who were aggressive and hyperactive and from poor neighborhoods. Known as the Montreal Longitudinal-Experimental Study, the program lasted for two years and had two components: school-based social skills training and home-based parent training. Social skills training for the children focused predominantly on improving social interactions with peers. The parent-training component was based on the social learning principles of Gerald Patterson and involved training parents in how to provide positive reinforcement for desirable behavior, use nonpunitive and consistent discipline practices, and develop family crisis management techniques. The program was successful in reducing delinquency. By age 12, boys in the experimental group compared to those in the control group committed less burglary and theft and were less likely to be involved in fights. At every age from 10 to 15, self-reported delinquency was lower for the boys in the experimental group compared to those in the control group. 66  In the latest follow-up when the study participants were 24 years old, it was found that those in the experimental group were still less likely to have a criminal record than their control counterparts, but the effect was not as pronounced as in earlier years (22 percent compared with 33 percent). 67

The final school-based prevention program is the Good Behavior Game (GBG). It uses a universal classroom behavior management strategy that is designed to foster learning by teaching children to regulate their own and their classmates’ behavior. Teachers are trained in the curriculum and receive supportive monitoring throughout the school year. In an experimental study in 19 urban elementary schools in Baltimore, Maryland, first-grade students were randomly assigned to groups that included equal numbers of aggressive and disruptive children. While GBG was in progress, teachers monitored the behavior of students in each group. Misbehavior of any student in a group resulted in a check mark being placed on the chalkboard for that group. At the end of the session, groups with fewer than five check marks received a reward. At the beginning of the program, game sessions were announced and tangible rewards such as stickers were given immediately following the session. As the program became more familiar to students, sessions started unannounced and less tangible rewards were given, like extended recess. In addition, the time between the session and the granting of rewards was extended. The program lasted for two years in the first and second grades.

After one year, experimental students were rated as less aggressive and shy than control students by teachers and peers. Positive effects of the program were most evident among students rated as highly aggressive at baseline. Positive effects of the intervention were maintained through sixth grade for boys, with the highest baseline ratings of aggression at first-grade entry. 68  In a long-term follow-up when study participants were between 19 and 21 years old, significant reductions in rates of violent and criminal behavior were observed among males in the highest-risk group compared to their control counterparts (34 percent vs. 50 percent). Also, significant reductions in rates of drug abuse/dependence disorders were found among males overall (19 percent vs. 38 percent) and in the highest-risk group (29 percent vs. 68 percent) compared to their control counterparts. 69

Schools may not be able to reduce delinquency single-handedly, but a number of viable alternatives to their present operations could aid a communitywide effort to reduce the problem of juvenile crime. A review of school-based programs was conducted by Denise Gottfredson and her colleagues as part of a study to determine the best methods of delinquency prevention. Some of their findings are contained in  Exhibit 12.2 . The main difference between the programs that work and those that do not is that successful programs target an array of important risk factors. Often it is not enough to improve only the school environment or only the family environment; for example, a youth who has a troubled family life may find it more difficult to do well at school, regardless of the improvements made at school. Some effective early school-based delinquency prevention programs also show that greater gains are made with those who are at the highest risk for future delinquency. An evaluation of Peace-Builders, a school-based violence prevention program for kindergarteners to fifth graders, found that decreases in aggression and improvements in social competence were larger for the highest-risk kids compared to those at medium and low levels of risk. 70  Another important ingredient of successful school-based programs is that they be intensive; two or three sessions a semester often does not cut it.

exhibit 12.2: School-Based Delinquency Prevention Programs

What Works?

·  Programs aimed at building school capacity to initiate and sustain innovation

·  Programs aimed at clarifying and communicating norms about behaviors by establishing school rules, improving the consistency of their enforcement (particularly when they emphasize positive reinforcement of appropriate behavior), or communicating norms through schoolwide campaigns (for example, antibullying campaigns) or ceremonies

·  Comprehensive instructional programs that focus on a range of social competency skills (such as developing self-control and skills in stress management, responsible decision making, social problem solving, and communication) and that are delivered over a long period of time to continually reinforce skills

What Does Not Work?

·  Instructional programs that do not focus on social competency skills or do not make use of cognitive-behavioral teaching methods

What Is Promising?

·  Programs that group youths into smaller “schools within schools” to create smaller units, more supportive interactions, or greater flexibility in instruction

·  Classroom or instructional management

SOURCE: Denise C. Gottfredson, David B. Wilson, and Stacy Skroban Najaka, “School-Based Crime Prevention,” in Lawrence W. Sherman, David P. Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, and Doris Layton MacKenzie, eds., Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. Copyright © 2006. Reproduced by permission of Taylor and Francis Books, UK.

Prevention of Delinquency in the Teenage Years

Like early childhood interventions, delinquency prevention programs started in the teenage years also play a vital role in an overall strategy to reduce juvenile delinquency. A wide range of non–juvenile justice delinquency prevention programs attempt to address such risk factors as parental conflict and separation, poor housing, dropping out of high school, and antisocial peers. The following sections examine the five main delinquency prevention approaches targeted at teenagers: mentoring, school-based programs, after-school programs, job training, and comprehensive community-based programs. The Youth Stories feature draws attention to the importance of delinquency prevention in the teenage years.

youth stories: Wes Moore

Westley “Wes” Moore was born in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1979. He graduated high school from Valley Forge Military School, earned a bachelor’s degree from John Hopkins University, was awarded a Rhodes scholarship to study at Oxford University in England, was honored as a combat veteran of the war in Afghanistan, and worked as a White House Fellow for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the Bush administration. Many other notable accomplishments have since followed. This was the successful Wes Moore, the one who made it.

Another Wes Moore, the namesake of the first, was also born in Baltimore—just blocks from the other—in the late 1970s. He didn’t graduate from high school, let alone go on to university or a successful professional career. Instead, he is serving a life sentence in Jessup Correctional Institution in Maryland for participating in an armed robbery that resulted in the death of Sergeant Bruce Prothero, a 13-year veteran of the Baltimore County police department and father of five children.

Identical names aside, the two men shared similar histories. Both grew up in disadvantaged circumstances on the rough streets of Baltimore. Both had lost their fathers at an early age. Each had runs-in with the police and found themselves in difficulty at school at one time or another. As the author Wes Moore states in his book, The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates, “The chilling truth is that his story could have been mine. The tragedy is that my story could have been his.”

So, how did one of them make it? What made the difference in helping one escape a life of delinquency and crime and go on to a successful personal and professional life? These questions are at the heart of Moore’s book. He attributes his ability to escape the fate of his namesake—and the tens of thousands of other inner-city kids facing similar circumstances then and today—to no single factor, but rather a number of influences. One of these was caring, strong mentors who were there for him when he needed it most. His mom, grandparents, and commander at military school were crucial. Mentoring is an important delinquency prevention strategy in the United States. Another valuable influence in his life was being entrusted with responsibilities, which, in his words, “forced me to get serious about my behavior.” Today, Wes Moore works with organizations across the country that invest in youths and support them in making the best choices possible.

CRITICAL THINKING

This is a powerful story. Can it be used to help improve the lives of other children in similar circumstances? What is needed to make this happen? Explain.

SOURCE: Wes Moore, The Other Wes Moore: One Name, Two Fates (New York: Spiegel and Grau, 2010).

Mentoring

Mentoring programs usually involve nonprofessional volunteers spending time with young people at risk for delinquency, dropping out of school, school failure, and other social problems. Mentors behave in a supportive, nonjudgmental manner while acting as role models. 71  In recent years, there has been a large increase in the number of mentoring programs, many of which are aimed at preventing delinquency. 72

Federal Mentoring Programs

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has supported mentoring for many years in all parts of the United States, most notably through the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), now called the Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth (MISIY). The new initiative provides funding to faith- and community-based agencies to mentor youth involved in the juvenile justice system, foster care, and reentry programs. 73  Under JUMP, thousands of at-risk youths were provided with mentors.

Mentoring is one of many types of interventions that have been used with teens considered to be at risk for engaging in delinquent acts. As part of an event to support Big Brothers Big Sisters’ national Hispanic mentoring program in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on September 23, 2012, karate instructor Terry Norblom (right) works with a teen.

The most common areas of increased risk for youths, based on a large number of girls and boys enrolled in the program, are school and social/family domains. (See  Table 12.1 .) Mentors work one-on-one with young people. 74  Research has shown that mentoring and other types of delinquency prevention programs offered in group settings, particularly for high-risk youths, may end up causing more harm than good. By participating in these types of programs in groups, young people who are more chronically involved in delinquency may negatively affect those who are marginally involved in delinquency. 75  An evaluation of JUMP found significant reductions in risk in three critical areas: aggressive behavior/delinquency, peer relationships, and mental health. 76

table 12.1: Risk Factors of Young People in the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP)

	Percentage of Enrolled Youth *
Risk Domain	Male (n = 3,592)	Female (n = 3,807)
School problems	74.6%	63.0%
School behavior	39.5	23.5
Poor grades	53.6	45.9
Truancy	10.4	9.1
Social/family problems	51.7	56.4
Delinquency	17.5	8.5
Fighting	12.8	6.3
Property crime	2.8	0.5
Gang activity	3.0	1.0
Weapons	1.1	0.4
Alcohol use	3.2	1.5
Drug use	4.0	1.8
Tobacco use	2.3	1.9
Pregnancy/early parenting	0.2	1.5
SOURCE: Laurence C. Novotney, Elizabeth Mertinko, James Lange, and Tara Kelly Baker, Juvenile Mentoring Program: A Progress Review (Washington, DC: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2000), p. 5.

* Percentage of total JUMP enrollment for each gender. For 23 youths, no gender was reported in the database.

Effectiveness of Mentoring

The overall effectiveness of mentoring in preventing delinquency is reported in two comprehensive reviews of the literature. In one systematic review and meta-analysis that included 18 mentoring programs, British criminologists Darrick Jolliffe and David Farrington found that the average effect across the studies corresponded to a significant 10 percent reduction in delinquency. 77  The authors also found that mentoring was more effective in reducing delinquency when the average duration of each contact between mentor and mentee was greater, in smaller-scale studies, and when mentoring was combined with other interventions. A second systematic review and meta-analysis by Patrick Tolan and his colleagues examined the effects of mentoring on a wide range of areas, including delinquency, academic achievement, drug use, and aggression. 78  The review included 39 programs, some of which were included in the Jolliffe and Farrington review. The authors found that mentoring had a positive effect in all four areas, but the largest effects involved reductions in delinquency and aggression.

We have reported on some of the most effective mentoring programs ( Chapter 8  also profiles two successful programs). But not all mentoring programs work. So why do some mentoring programs work and not others? The biggest issue has to do with what the mentors actually do and how they do it. Mentors should be a source of support and guidance to help young people deal with a broad range of issues that have to do with their family, school, and future career. They work one-on-one with young people, in many cases forming strong bonds. Care is taken in matching the mentor and young person. Other research on effective mentoring relationships between adults and teens points to the need for the mentors to display empathy, pay particular attention to and nurture the strengths of the young person, and treat them “as a person of equal worth and value.” 79

To learn more about effective mentoring programs operated by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, visit their website ( http://www.bbbs.org/ ), or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

School Programs for Teens

Safety of students takes on a much higher profile in middle schools and high schools than in the early grades because of a larger number of school shootings and other violent incidents. However, the role of schools in the prevention of delinquency in the wider community remains prominent. A wide range of programs to deal with juvenile delinquency in the community have been set up in middle schools and high schools across the United States and in other countries. We review just a couple of the most influential school-based delinquency prevention programs.

Project PATHE

Positive Action Through Holistic Education (PATHE) is a comprehensive program used in secondary schools that reduces school disorder and aims to improve the school environment. The goal is to enhance students’ experiences and attitudes about school by increasing their bonds to the school, enhancing their self-esteem, and improving educational and occupational attainment. These improvements will help reduce juvenile delinquency.

PATHE was initially operated in four middle schools and three high schools in South Carolina. It focused on four elements: strengthening students’ commitment to school, providing successful school experiences, encouraging attachment to the educational community, and increasing participation in school activities. By increasing students’ sense of belonging and usefulness, the project sought to promote a positive school experience. The PATHE program has undergone extensive evaluation by sociologist Denise Gottfredson, who found that the schools in which it was used experienced a moderate reduction in delinquency. Replications of the project are currently under development. 80

Violence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents

Violence prevention curricula as part of health education classes is one type of school-based prevention program that has received much attention in recent years in the United States. 81  However, few rigorous evaluations of these programs or other instructional-based violence prevention programs in schools have assessed effects on juvenile violence. 82  One of these evaluations assessed the impact of this type of program on high school students in a number of locations across the country. The curriculum was designed to do five main things in the following order:

· 1. Provide statistical information on adolescent violence and homicide

· 2. Present anger as a normal, potentially constructive emotion

· 3. Create a need in the students for alternatives to fighting by discussing the potential gains and losses from fighting

· 4. Have students analyze the precursors to a fight and practice avoiding fights using role-play and videotape

· 5. Create a classroom ethos that is nonviolent and values violence prevention behavior 83

The curriculum was administered in 10 sessions. The sessions were very interactive between the teacher and the students, relying on many different techniques, including brainstorming and role-playing. Like many school-based delinquency prevention programs, the violence prevention curriculum was concerned with reducing delinquency, specifically fighting, in schools and in the larger community. An evaluation of the program in four major urban areas showed that fighting had been significantly reduced among the young people who attended the sessions compared to a control group that did not receive the curriculum. 84

The review of what works in preventing delinquency in schools by Denise Gottfredson and her colleagues (refer to  Exhibit 12.2 ) is not limited to the early grades, but also includes programs in middle schools and high schools. And the conclusion on the effectiveness of school-based delinquency prevention programs in the later grades is the same as for the early grades: some programs work and some programs do not work. But what are the key features of successful school-based delinquency prevention programs? As with the successful school programs in the early grades, successful programs in the later grades are those that target a number of important risk factors. For the two programs described here, this meant a focus on reducing school disorder and improving the school environment. Two additional components of successful school-based delinquency prevention programs in the later grades are improving the family environment by engaging parents in helping the student to learn, and reducing negative peer influences through information about the downsides of gun carrying, drug use, and gang involvement.

After-School Programs

More than two-thirds of all married couples with school-age children (ages 6 to 17) have both parents working outside the home, and the proportion of single parents with school-age children working outside the home is even higher. 85  This leaves many unsupervised young people in communities during the after-school hours (2:00 pm to 6:00 pm), which is believed to be the main reason for the elevated rates of delinquency during this period of time. 86  After-school programs have become a popular response to this problem in recent years. While recreation is just one form of after-school program—other options include child care centers, tutoring programs at schools, dance groups, and drop-in clubs—it plays an important role in young people’s lives, especially for a large number who do not have access to organized sport and other recreational opportunities. State and federal budgets for education, public safety, delinquency prevention, and child care provide some funding for after-school programs.

In a large-scale study of after-school programs in Maryland, Denise Gottfredson and her colleagues found that participation in the programs reduced delinquent behavior among children in middle school but not elementary school. The researchers found that increasing intentions not to use drugs as well as positive peer associations were the key reasons for the favorable effects on delinquency among the older children. Interestingly, decreasing the time spent unsupervised or increasing the involvement in constructive activities was found to play no significant role. 87  In another evaluation of an after-school program—the All Stars program for middle school students—by Denise Gottfredson and her colleagues, no differences were observed in delinquency, substance use, and other problem behaviors among youths who received the program compared to a similar group of youths who did not get the program. 88  The authors identified limited time to achieve full implementation and potential deviance training as key factors for the program’s inability to produce positive change.

Boys and Girls Clubs of America

One of the most successful after-school programs in preventing delinquency (and substance abuse) is provided by the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Founded in 1902, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America is a nonprofit organization with a membership today of more than 1.3 million boys and girls nationwide. Boys and Girls Clubs (BGCs) provide programs in six main areas:

·  Cultural enrichment

·  Health and physical education

·  Social recreation

·  Personal and educational development

·  Citizenship and leadership development

·  Environmental education 89

One study examined the effectiveness of BGCs for high-risk youths in public housing developments at five sites across the country. The usual services of BGCs, which include reading classes, sports, and homework assistance, were offered, as well as a program to prevent substance abuse, known as SMART Moves (Self-Management and Resistance Training). This program targets the specific pressures that young people face to try drugs and alcohol. It also provides education to parents and the community at large to assist young people in learning about the dangers of substance abuse and strategies for resisting the pressures to use drugs and alcohol. 90  Evaluation results showed that housing developments with BGCs, with and without SMART Moves, had fewer damaged units and less delinquency in general than housing developments without the clubs. There was also an overall reduction in substance abuse, drug trafficking, and other drug-related delinquency activity. 91

To learn more about the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, visit their website ( http://www.bgca.org/ ), or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Participate and Learn Skills

A Canadian program implemented in a public housing development in the nation’s capital, Ottawa, recruited low-income young people to participate in after-school activities, such as sports (ice hockey), music, dance, and scouting. Known as Participate and Learn Skills (PALS), the program ran for almost three years and aimed to advance young people toward higher skill levels in the activities they chose and to integrate them into activities in the wider community. PALS was based on the belief that skill development in sports, music, dance, and so on could affect other areas of young people’s lives, such as prosocial attitudes and behaviors, which in turn could help them avoid engaging in delinquent activities.

At the end of the program, it was found that those who participated in the after-school activities were much better off than their control counterparts on a range of measures. The strongest impact of the program was found for juvenile delinquency, with an 80 percent reduction in police arrests. This positive effect was diminished somewhat in the 16 months after the program ended. The researchers speculated that the effects of the program may wear off. Substantial gains were also observed in skill acquisition, as measured by the number of levels advanced in an activity, and in integration in the wider community. These benefits translated into impressive cost savings. For every dollar that was spent on the program, more than $2.50 was saved to the juvenile justice system (fewer arrests), the housing development (less need for private security services), and the city government. 92

While there appears to be some support for after-school recreation as a promising approach to preventing juvenile delinquency, a number of concerns have been raised about the effectiveness of after-school programs in general, including their ability to provide sufficient and rewarding activities, reach high-risk youths who could benefit the most from the program, and reduce substantially the amount of unsupervised socializing. 93  There is a real need for further evaluation and testing of alternative after-school program models. 94  The fact that some (but not all) types of delinquency are elevated during the after-school hours underscores the importance of high-quality after-school programs. 95

Job Training

The effects of having an after-school job can be problematic (see  Chapter 3 ). Some research indicates that it may be associated with delinquency and substance abuse. However, helping kids to prepare for the adult workforce is an important aspect of delinquency prevention. Job training programs help improve the chances of youths’ obtaining jobs in the legal economy and thereby may reduce delinquency. 96  The developmental stage of transition to work is difficult for many young people. 97  Coming from a disadvantaged background, having poor grades in school or perhaps dropping out of school, and having some involvement in delinquency can all pose difficulties in securing a steady, well-paying job in early adulthood. Programs like the two described here are concerned not only with providing young people with employable skills, but also with helping them overcome some of these immediate obstacles.

Job Corps

The best-known and largest job training program in the United States is Job Corps, established in 1964 as a federal training program for disadvantaged, unemployed youths. The designers of the national program, the Department of Labor, were hopeful that spin-off benefits in the form of reduced dependence on social assistance and a reduction in delinquency would result from empowering at-risk youth to achieve stable, long-term employment opportunities. The program is still active today, operating out of 125 centers across the nation, and each year it provides services to more than 60,000 young people at a cost of over $1.5 billion. 98

The main goal of Job Corps is to improve the employability of participants by offering a comprehensive set of services that largely includes vocational skills training, basic education (the ability to obtain graduate equivalent degrees), and health care. Job Corps is provided to young people between the ages of 16 and 24 years. Most of the young people enrolled in the program are at high risk for delinquency, substance abuse, and social assistance dependency. Almost all of the Job Corps centers require the participants to live at the center while taking the program.

A large-scale evaluation of Job Corps, involving 15,400 young people, found that participation in the program resulted in significant reductions in criminal activity, improvements in educational attainment, and greater earnings. Program participants had an average arrest rate of 29 percent compared to 33 percent for their control counterparts. An analysis of tax data showed that earnings gains were sustained for the oldest participants eight years after they had left the program. 99  An earlier evaluation of Job Corps found it to be a worthwhile investment of public resources: for each dollar that was spent on the program, $1.45 was saved to government or taxpayers, crime victims, and program participants. 100  A later analysis of the program’s costs and benefits also found it to be a worthwhile investment of public resources, saving society at large $2 for each dollar spent on the program. 101

To read more about Job Corps, visit their website ( http://www.jobcorps.gov/ ), or go to the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then access the “Web Links” for this chapter.

Job Corps is a national program serving more than 60,000 at-risk young people each year. It seeks to help them improve their vocational skills and education, find sustainable jobs, serve their communities, and avoid lives of crime. Pictured here are teen Job Corps students removing graffiti from the Tatum Waterway near Biscayne Bay, Florida.

YouthBuild U.S.A.

Another job training program for disadvantaged, unemployed youths is YouthBuild U.S.A. Started in 1978 by a group of young people in New York City. YouthBuild has become a national program with offices in 46 states, Washington, DC, and the Virgin Islands. Since 1994, it has helped more than 110,000 youths between the ages of 16 and 24 years in the 273 programs across the country. 102  The program’s focus is on building or renovating affordable housing—more than 21,000 units have been built since 1994—and through this, young people learn skills in carpentry and construction. YouthBuild also provides educational services, such as help in achieving a high school diploma or preparing for college, and promotes the development of leadership skills. The program’s impact on delinquency varies from site to site, with some sites reporting reductions as high as 40 percent among youths enrolled in the program compared to similar youths who did not receive the program. 103  The latest, most rigorous evaluation of YouthBuild so far, which involved an 18-month follow-up after the completion of the program, reports significant reductions in offending and improvements in educational attainment—graduating from high school or obtaining a GED—for those who graduated from the program compared to those who dropped out. 104

Comprehensive Community-Based Programs

Experimentation with comprehensive community-based delinquency prevention programs began with Shaw and McKay’s Chicago Area Project in the 1930s (see  Chapter 4 ). The Mobilization for Youth program of the 1960s is another example of this type of initiative to prevent juvenile delinquency. Neither of these programs was found to be overly successful in reducing delinquency, but few of these types of programs have been evaluated. Typically implemented in neighborhoods with high delinquency and crime rates, they are made up of a range of different types of interventions and usually involve an equally diverse group of community and government agencies that are concerned with the problem of juvenile delinquency, such as the YMCA/YWCA, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and social and health services. The CASASTART program, as well as the Communities That Care (CTC) program (discussed in  Chapter 4 ) rely on a systematic approach or comprehensive planning model to develop preventive interventions. This includes analyzing the delinquency problem, identifying available resources in the community, developing priority delinquency problems, and identifying successful programs in other communities and tailoring them to local conditions and needs. 105  Not all comprehensive community-based prevention programs follow this model, but the evidence suggests that this approach will produce the greatest reductions in juvenile delinquency. 106  One of the main drawbacks to this approach is the difficulty in sustaining the level of resources and the cooperation between agencies that are necessary to lower the rates of juvenile delinquency across a large geographical area such as a city. 107

CASASTART

Another example of a comprehensive community-based delinquency prevention program that has been evaluated is the Children At Risk (CAR) program, which is now undergoing further experimentation and is known as CASASTART, or the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse’s Striving Together to Achieve Rewarding Tomorrows. 108  The program was set up to help improve the lives of young people at high risk for delinquency, gang involvement, substance abuse, and other problem behaviors. It was delivered to a large number of young people in poor and high-crime neighborhoods in five cities across the country. It involved a wide range of preventive measures, including case management and family counseling, family skills training, tutoring, mentoring, after-school activities, and community policing. The program was different in each neighborhood. A study of all five cities showed that one year after the program ended the young people who received the program, compared to a control group, were less likely to have committed violent delinquent acts and to have used or sold drugs. Some of the other beneficial results for those in the program included less association with delinquent peers, less peer pressure to engage in delinquency, and more positive peer support. 109

Future of Delinquency Prevention

The success of delinquency prevention is shown by evaluations of individual programs (as described throughout this chapter) and larger efforts to assess what works, such as the Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development initiative, discussed in the accompanying Evidence-Based Juvenile Justice feature. Despite the success of many different types of delinquency prevention programs—from preschool to mentoring—these programs receive a fraction of what is spent on the juvenile justice system to deal with young people once they have broken the law. 110  This is also true in the adult criminal justice system. 111  To many juvenile justice officials, policy makers, and politicians, prevention is tantamount to being soft on crime, and delinquency prevention programs are often referred to as “pork,” otherwise known as pork barrel, or wasteful, spending. 112  Aside from these views, delinquency prevention programs face a number of very real obstacles:

·  Ethical concerns about early intervention. 113  Is it right to intervene in the lives of children and young people using methods that may or may not be successful?

·  Labeling and stigmatization associated with programs that target high-risk populations. 114  Children and families receiving support may be called hurtful names and/or looked down upon by fellow community members.

·  Effects of evidence-based delinquency prevention programs can attenuate or diminish when scaled up for wider public use. 115  Reductions in delinquency and other problem behaviors observed in small-scale studies are difficult to maintain when these programs are disseminated on a much larger scale. Researchers and policy makers need to understand the key factors that make these programs successful and take the necessary steps so effects can be maintained.

·  Long delay before early childhood programs can have an impact on delinquency. 116  While the saying “pay now, save later” is true for early childhood delinquency prevention programs, the length of time for this benefit to be felt can act as a deterrent. In a society and political system that demand immediate results, the building of a juvenile corrections facility is often seen as a more tangible measure than the building of a preschool.

EVIDENCE-BASED JUVENILE JUSTICE—Prevention: Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development

In 1996, the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence (CSPV) at the University of Colorado at Boulder launched the Blueprints for Violence Prevention initiative. Now known as Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development, the main goal of the initiative is to “prevent problem behaviors and promote a healthy course of youth development.” The Blueprints project identifies effective programs and helps practitioners implement them in their local communities. For programs to be labeled as effective, they must adhere to a set of strict scientific standards. The key standards include:

·  Statistical evidence of effectiveness in reducing problem behaviors, including violence and substance abuse

·  Evaluations using the most rigorous designs (e.g., randomized experiments)

·  Large sample size to allow for any changes to be detected

·  Low attrition of subjects

·  Use of reliable and accepted instruments to assess impact on problem behaviors

·  Sustained reductions in problem behaviors for at least one year after the end of the program

·  Replication: implementation of the program in at least two different sites

More than 1,100 programs have been reviewed. There are 8 model programs, or blueprints, that have proven to be effective in reducing problem behaviors. Another 36 programs have been designated as promising. Not all of the model programs are designed to prevent violence or drug use before it takes place; some are designed for offenders and involve the juvenile justice system. The 8 model programs are:

·  Nurse-Family Partnership: Prenatal and infancy home visitation by nurses

·  Promotion of alternative thinking strategies

·  Life skills training

·  Functional Family Therapy: Brings together families and juvenile offenders to address family problems and unlearn aggressive behavior

·  Multisystemic Therapy: Multiple component treatment for chronic and violent juvenile offenders, which may involve individual, family, peer, school, and community interventions

·  Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care: An alternative to incarceration that matches juvenile offenders with trained foster families

·  Project Toward No Drug Abuse

·  Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for College Students (BASICS)

These model programs are distributed to communities and serve as a prevention menu, allowing communities to select proven programs that are best suited to their needs. An OJJDP survey of state juvenile justice specialists found that 40 states have implemented one or more of these model programs, with the most widely implemented programs being Multisystemic Therapy (30 states) and Functional Family Therapy (21 states). The CSPV is engaged in a number of projects to test how well some of the programs are being implemented. Without a high level of implementation quality or fidelity to the model, programs stand little chance to make a difference in delinquency rates in communities.

CRITICAL THINKING

1.

What is the value of replicating delinquency prevention programs in multiple sites?

2.

How is the Blueprints initiative helpful to communities faced with a delinquency problem?

SOURCES: Delbert S. Elliott, “Crime Prevention and Intervention over the Life Course,” in Chris Gibson and Marvin Krohn, eds., Handbook of Life Course Criminology (New York: Springer, 2013); Peter W. Greenwood, “New Standards for Demonstrating Program Effectiveness,” Criminology and Public Policy 11:251–257 (2012); Sharon F. Mihalic, Abigail A. Fagan, and Susanne Argamaso, “Implementing the LifeSkills Training Drug Prevention Program: Factors Related to Implementation Fidelity,” Implementation Science 3(5) (2008); Peter W. Greenwood, Changing Lives: Delinquency Prevention as Crime-Control Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006); Sharon F. Mihalic, Abigail Fagan, Katherine Irwin, Diane Ballard, and Delbert Elliott, Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Washington, DC: OJJDP Report, 2004).

The future of delinquency prevention programs depends on educating the public and key decision makers about the value of preventing delinquency. One example of this is discussing the success of prevention programs in financial terms. 117  For the handful of programs that have measured costs and benefits, some of which are discussed in this chapter, the savings are substantial. 118  The costs of running prevention programs are low relative to the costly nature of delinquency. Notwithstanding these important issues, the future of delinquency prevention is likely to be bright. With many local efforts, state initiatives, and a growing list of national programs showing positive results, the prevention of delinquency is proving its worth.

SUMMARY

· 1 Know the difference between delinquency prevention and delinquency control

·  Prevention is distinguished from control or repression in that prevention seeks to reduce the risk factors for delinquency before antisocial behavior or delinquency becomes a problem.

·  Delinquency control programs, which involve the juvenile justice system, intervene in the lives of juvenile offenders with the aim of preventing the occurrence of future delinquent acts.

· 2 Have an understanding of the magnitude of cost to society caused by juvenile crime and violence

·  The costs of juvenile delinquency are considerable.

·  These costs include the responses of the juvenile justice system, losses to victims of delinquent acts, and the financial impact on offenders and their families.

·  One approach to reducing these costs that has garnered a great deal of attention in recent years is prevention.

· 3 Be able to identify some of the major historical events that gave rise to the present focus on delinquency prevention

·  The history of the prevention of juvenile delinquency in the United States is closely tied to the history of the juvenile justice system in this country.

·  A number of key events, including the Chicago Area Project and federally funded initiatives, helped shape the development of delinquency prevention today.

· 4 Be familiar with different approaches to classifying delinquency prevention programs

·  There are a number of different ways to classify or organize delinquency prevention programs, including the public health approach and the developmental perspective.

· 5 Know the key features of the developmental perspective of delinquency prevention

·  Key features of the developmental perspective of delinquency prevention include the targeting of risk factors and the promotion of protective factors, the provision of services to children and families, and programs provided over the life course.

· 6 Have an understanding of the many different types of effective delinquency prevention programs for children and teens

·  Some of the most effective delinquency prevention programs for children and teens include home visits for new mothers, parent training, enriched preschool programs, and job programs.

·  School-based programs that are intensive, cognitive-oriented, and targeted to high-risk kids have also proven effective.

· 7 Be able to identify key factors of effective programs

·  Effective delinquency prevention programs are theory-driven, intensive, target multiple risk factors for delinquency, and have a successful implementation.

· 8 Be able to discuss other benefits produced by delinquency prevention programs

·  Delinquency prevention programs have also been shown to lead to improvements in other areas of life, such as educational achievement, health, and employment.

·  These benefits often translate into substantial cost savings.

· 9 Be able to identify and comment on pressing issues facing the future of delinquency prevention

·  More attention needs to be paid to understanding what works in preventing delinquency and addressing some of the concerns with prevention programs.

·  Intervening in the lives of children, young people, and their families to prevent delinquency before it takes place is a key component of an over-all strategy to address the problem of juvenile delinquency.

KEY TERMS

delinquency control or delinquency repression,  p. 434

delinquency prevention,  p. 434

randomized experimental design,  p. 436

experimental group,  p. 437

control group,  p. 437

risk factor,  p. 440

protective factor,  p. 440

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

1.

Prevention and control are the two broad-based approaches that can be used to reduce delinquency. How do these approaches differ?

2.

The costs of juvenile delinquency are wide ranging and substantial. Do you think these costs justify spending money on delinquency prevention programs?

3.

What are some of the benefits of implementing prevention programs in childhood compared to adolescence?

4.

In addition to reducing delinquency, many prevention programs also have a positive impact on other social problems. Identify four of these problems, and give an example of a program that was successful in reducing each of them.

5.

What are comprehensive community-based delinquency prevention programs?

6.

Many programs have been successful in preventing delinquency, but many have not been successful. What are some of the reasons why a program may fail to reduce delinquency?

VIEWPOINT

You are the mayor of a medium-sized city. Juvenile delinquency is on the rise, and there have been disturbing reports of increased gang activity. The police chief informs you that some urban gangs, seeking to migrate to your city, have sent members to recruit local youth. Their appeal appears to be working, and several local chapters of the Crips, Bloods, and Latin Kings have now been formed. Street shootings, thefts of cars, and other serious delinquency problems have risen in recent weeks, and all have been linked to this new gang activity. The police, business groups in the downtown core of the city, and the public are all calling for you to take immediate action to deal with these problems.

When you meet with local community leaders, they inform you that the gangs appeal to many local kids who come from troubled homes and have no real hope of success in the conventional world. Some are doing poorly in school and receive little educational support. Others who have left school have trouble finding jobs. The gangs also appeal to kids with emotional and developmental problems.

The police chief says that you cannot coddle these hoodlums. He tells you to put more police on the streets and hire more police officers. He also argues that you should lobby the governor and legislature to pass new laws making it mandatory that kids involved in gang violence are transferred to the adult court for trial.

In contrast, community advocates ask you to spend more money on disadvantaged families so they have access to child care and health care. They suggest you beef up the educational budget to reduce class sizes, reduce dropout rates, and improve attendance rates.

·  Would you spend more money on community-based services for young people, or would you order the chief to crack down on the gangs?

·  If you choose to spend money on prevention, which programs would you support?

·  When should prevention begin? Should kids be given special help even before they get in trouble with the law?

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

To form your prevention plan, get more information at these organizations that have different approaches to preventing juvenile delinquency: The American Youth Policy Forum ( http://www.aypf.org/ ) provides high-quality information on youth issues and a forum for leaders in government, programming, and research, as well as the youths themselves, to share viewpoints and expertise. Fight Crime: Invest in Kids ( http://www.fightcrime.org/ ) is a nonprofit anti-crime organization of more than 5,000 police chiefs, sheriffs, prosecutors, attorneys general, and other law enforcement leaders and violence survivors that evaluates prevention strategies and recommends those proven effective. The National Crime Prevention Council ( http://www.ncpc.org/ ) produces tools that communities can use to learn crime prevention strategies, engage community members, and coordinate with local agencies. The Child Welfare League of America ( http://www.cwla.org/ ) is a national leader in building a public will to ensure safety, permanence, and well-being of children, youth, and their families. You can also find these websites by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at  cengagebrain.com , then accessing the “Web Links” for this chapter.

NOTES

1. Nurse-Family Partnership, Nurse-Family Partnership Snapshot (Denver, CO: NFP National Service Office, April 2013).

2. Helen Rumbelow and Alice Miles, “How to Save This Child from a Life of Poverty, Violence and Despair,” The Times, June 9, 2007; Deanna S. Gomby, Patti L. Culross, and Richard E. Behrman, “Home Visiting: Recent Program Evaluations—Analysis and Recommendations,” The Future of Children 9(1):4–26 (1999), at 5.

3. Mark A. Cohen and Alex R. Piquero, “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25:25–49 (2009).

4. Mark A. Cohen, Roland T. Rust, Sara Steen, and Simon T. Tidd, “Willingness-to-Pay for Crime Control Programs,” Criminology 42:89–109 (2004), p. 98, table 2.

5. Cohen and Piquero, “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High Risk Youth.”

6. Matt DeLisi and Jewel M. Gatling, “Who Pays for a Life of Crime? An Empirical Assessment of the Assorted Victimization Costs Posed by Career Criminals,” Criminal Justice Studies 16:283–293 (2003).

7. Brandon C. Welsh, Rolf Loeber, Bradley R. Stevens, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Mark A. Cohen, and David P. Farrington, “Costs of Juvenile Crime in Urban Areas: A Longitudinal Perspective,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 6:3–27 (2008).

8. Ted R. Miller, Deborah A. Fisher, and Mark A. Cohen, “Costs of Juvenile Violence: Policy Implications,” Pediatrics 107(1):1–7 (2001),  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org  (accessed July 2013); see also Joint State Government Commission, General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, The Cost of Juvenile Violence in Pennsylvania, staff report to the Task Force to Study the Issues Surrounding Violence as a Public Health Concern (Harrisburg, PA: Author, January 1995).

9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Understanding Youth Violence: Fact Sheet (2012),  http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/yv-factsheet-a.pdf  (accessed July 2013).

10. Barry Krisberg and James Austin, The Children of Ishmael: Critical Perspectives on Juvenile Justice (Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1978), pp. 7–45; Joseph G. Weis and J. David Hawkins, Preventing Delinquency (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1981), pp. 1–6; Richard J. Lundman, Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 23, 25.

11. Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study of Rates of Delinquents in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).

12. For an intensive look at the Chicago Area Project, see Steven Schlossman and Michael Sedlak, “The Chicago Area Project Revisited,” Crime and Delinquency 29:398–462 (1983).

13. Joan McCord and William McCord, “A Follow-up Report on the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 322:89–96 (1959).

14. Richard J. Lundman, Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency, 3rd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 50.

15. Joan McCord, “A Thirty-Year Follow-up of Treatment Effects,” American Psychologist 33:284–289 (1978).

16. Thomas J. Dishion, Joan McCord, and François Poulin, “When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior,” American Psychologist 54:755–764 (1999). See also Joan McCord, “Counterproductive Juvenile Justice,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 35:230–237 (2002); Joan McCord, “Cures that Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587:16–30 (2003).

17. See New York City Youth Board, Reaching the Fighting Gang (New York: Author, 1960).

18. Walter Miller, “The Impact of a ‘Total Community’ Delinquency Control Project,” Social Problems 10:168–191 (1962).

19. See Karol L. Kumpfer and Rose Alvarado, “Family-Strengthening Approaches for the Prevention of Youth Problem Behaviors,” American Psychologist 58:457–465 (2003).

20. Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington, “Crime Prevention and Public Policy,” in Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Trevor Bennett, “Crime Prevention,” in Michael Tonry, ed., The Handbook of Crime and Punishment (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998).

21. Paul J. Brantingham and Frederick L. Faust, “A Conceptual Model of Crime Prevention,” Crime and Delinquency 22:284–296 (1976); see also Steven P. Lab, Crime Prevention: Approaches, Practices, and Evaluations, 8th ed. (Waltham, MA: Anderson, 2014).

22. See Brandon C. Welsh, “Public Health and the Prevention of Juvenile Criminal Violence,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 3:23–40 (2005).

23. David P. Farrington, “Early Developmental Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency,” Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 4:209–227 (1994).

24. David P. Farrington, “The Development of Offending and Antisocial Behavior from Childhood: Key Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 36:929–964 (1995).

25. Richard E. Tremblay and Wendy M. Craig, “Developmental Crime Prevention,” in Michael Tonry and David P. Farrington, eds., Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 19 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 151.

26. See Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Tremblay and Craig, “Developmental Crime Prevention”; Gail A. Wasserman and Laurie S. Miller, “The Prevention of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending,” in Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, eds., Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998); Joan McCord, Cathy Spatz Widom, and Nancy A. Crowell, eds., Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice, panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001); Patrick Tolan, “Crime Prevention: Focus on Youth,” in James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, eds., Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control (Oakland, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies, 2002).

27. Gomby, Culross, and Behrman, “Home Visiting.

28. David L. Olds, Charles R. Henderson, Robert Chamberlin, and Robert Tatelbaum, “Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: A Randomized Trial of Nurse Home Visitation,” Pediatrics 78:65–78 (1986).

29. David L. Olds, Charles R. Henderson, Charles Phelps, Harriet Kitzman, and Carole Hanks, “Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation on Government Spending,” Medical Care 31:155–174 (1993).

30. David L. Olds et al., “Long-Term Effects of Nurse Home Visitation on Children’s Criminal and Antisocial Behavior: 15-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1238–1244 (1998).

31. David L. Olds et al., “Long-Term Effects of Home Visitation on Maternal Life Course and Child Abuse and Neglect: Fifteen-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association 278:637–643 (1997).

32. Peter W. Greenwood, Lynn A. Karoly, Susan S. Everingham, Jill Houbé, M. Rebecca Kilburn, C. Peter Rydell, Matthew Sanders, and James Chiesa, “Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions: Nurse Home Visits and the Perry Preschool,” in Brandon C. Welsh, David P. Farrington, and Lawrence W. Sherman, eds., Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2001), p. 133.

33. John Eckenrode, Mary Campa, Dennis W. Luckey, Charles R. Henderson, Robert Cole, Harriet Kitzman, Elizabeth Anson, Kimberly Sidora-Arcoleo, Jane Powers, and David L. Olds, “Long-Term Effects of Prenatal and Infancy Nurse Home Visitation on the Life Course of Youths: 19-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Trial,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 164:9–15 (2010).

34. Nurse-Family Partnership, Nurse-Family Partnership Snapshot.

35. Ned Calonge, “Community Interventions to Prevent Violence: Translation into Public Health Practice,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(2S1):4–5 (2005).

36. Rumbelow and Miles, “How to Save This Child from a Life of Poverty, Violence and Despair.”

37. Anne K. Duggan et al., “Evaluation of Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program,” The Future of Children 9(1):66–90 (1999); Anne K. Duggan, Amy Windham, Elizabeth McFarlane, Loretta Fuddy, Charles Rohde, Sharon Buchbinder, and Calvin Sia, “Hawaii’s Healthy Start Program of Home Visiting for At-Risk Families: Evaluation of Family Identification, Family Engagement, and Service Delivery,” Pediatrics 105:250–259 (2000).

38. Matthew Manning, Ross Homel, and Christine Smith, “A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Early Developmental Prevention Programs in At-Risk Populations on Non-Health Outcomes in Adolescence,” Children and Youth Services Review 32:506–519 (2010).

39. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, “Fast Track Intervention Effects on Youth Arrests and Delinquency,” Journal of Experimental Criminology 6:131–157 (2010); see also Richard E. Tremblay and Wendy M. Craig, “Developmental Crime Prevention,” in Tonry and Farrington, eds., Building a Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention.

40. Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, Brandon C. Welsh, Richard E. Tremblay, and Wesley G. Jennings, “Effects of Early/Family Parent Training Programs on Antisocial Behavior and Delinquency,” Journal of Experimental Criminology 5:83–120 (2009).

41. See Gerald R. Patterson, “Performance Models for Antisocial Boys,” American Psychologist 41:432–444 (1986); Gerald R. Patterson, Coercive Family Process (Eugene, OR: Castalia, 1982).

42. Gerald R. Patterson, Patricia Chamberlain, and John B. Reid, “A Comparative Evaluation of a Parent-Training Program,” Behavior Therapy 13:638–650 (1982); Gerald R. Patterson, John B. Reid, and Thomas J. Dishion, Antisocial Boys (Eugene, OR: Castalia, 1992).

43. Peter W. Greenwood, Karyn E. Model, C. Peter Rydell, and James Chiesa, Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1998).

44. Sonya Michel, Children’s Interests/Mother’s Rights: The Shaping of America’s Child Care Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999).

45. J. Ronald Lally, Peter L. Mangione, and Alice S. Honig, “The Syracuse University Family Development Research Program: Long-Range Impact of an Early Intervention with Low-Income Children and their Families,” in D. R. Powell, ed., Parent Education as Early Childhood Intervention: Emerging Directions in Theory, Research and Practice (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1988).

46. Dale L. Johnson and Todd Walker, “Primary Prevention of Behavior Problems in Mexican-American Children,” American Journal of Community Psychology 15:375–385 (1987).

47. Tremblay and Craig, “Developmental Crime Prevention.”

48. Farrington, “Early Developmental Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency,” pp. 216–217.

49. Schindler and Yoshikawa, “Preventing Crime through Intervention in the Preschool Years”; Greg J. Duncan and Katherine Magnuson, “Individual and Parent-Based Intervention Strategies for Promoting Human Capital and Positive Behavior,” in P. Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Kathleen Kiernan, and Ruth J. Friedman, eds., Human Development Across Lives and Generations: The Potential for Change (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

50. Lawrence J. Schweinhart, Helen V. Barnes, and David P. Weikart, Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27 (Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1993), p. 3

51. Lawrence J. Schweinhart and David P. Weikart, Young Children Grow Up: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program through Age 15 (Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1980).

52. Schweinhart, Barnes, and Weikart, Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27, p. xv.

53. W. Steven Barnett, Lives in the Balance: Age 27 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program (Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1996); W. Steven Barnett, “Cost-Benefit Analysis,” in Schweinhart, Barnes, and Weikart, eds., Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27.

54. Greenwood et al., “Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions: Nurse Home Visits and the Perry Preschool.”

55. Lawrence J. Schweinhart, “Crime Prevention by the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program,” Victims and Offenders 2:141–160 (2007); Lawrence J. Schweinhart, Jeanne Montie, Xiang Zongping, W. Steven Barnett, Clive R. Belfield, and Milagros Nores, Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 40 (Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 2005).

56. Arthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. Temple, Dylan L. Robertson, and Emily A. Mann, “Long-Term Effects of an Early Childhood Intervention on Educational Achievement and Juvenile Arrest: A 15-Year Follow-up of Low-Income Children in Public Schools,” Journal of the American Medical Association 285:2339–2346 (2001).

57. Arthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. Temple, Suh-Ruu Ou, Dylan L. Robertson, Joshua P. Mersky, James W. Topitzes et al., “Effects of a School-Based, Early Childhood Intervention on Adult Health and Well-Being,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 161:730–739 (2007).

58. Arthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. Temple, Suh-Ruu Ou, Irma A. Arteaga, and Barry White, “School-Based Early Childhood Education and Age-28 Well-Being: Effects by Timing Dosage and Subgroups,” Science 333: 360–364 (2011).

59. Arthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. Temple, and Suh-Ruu Ou, “School-Based Early Intervention and Child Well-Being in the Chicago Longitudinal Study,” Child Welfare 82:633–656 (2003).

60. Carolyn Webster-Stratton, “Preventing Conduct Problems in Head Start Children: Strengthening Parenting Competencies,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66:715–730 (1998).

61. Schindler and Yoshikawa, “Preventing Crime through Intervention in the Preschool Years”; Edward Zigler and Sally J. Styfco, “Extended Childhood Intervention Prepares Children for School and Beyond,” Journal of the American Medical Association 285:2378–2380 (2001).

62. Delbert S. Elliott, Beatrix Hamburg, and Kirk R. Williams, “Violence in American Schools: An Overview,” in Delbert S. Elliott, Beatrix Hamburg, and Kirk R. Williams, eds., Violence in American Schools: A New Perspective (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 16.

63. Denise C. Gottfredson, Philip J. Cook, and Chongmin Na, “Schools and Prevention,” in Welsh and Farrington, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention.

64. J. David Hawkins, Brian H. Smith, Karl G. Smith, Rick Kosterman, and Richard F. Catalano, “Promoting Social Development and Preventing Health and Behavior Problems during the Elementary Grades: Results from the Seattle Social Development Project,” Victims and Offenders 2:161–181 (2007).

65. J. David Hawkins, Rick Kosterman, Richard F. Catalano, Karl G. Hill, and Robert D. Abbott, “Effects of Social Development Intervention in Childhood 15 Years Later,” Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 162:1133–1141 (2008).

66. Richard E. Tremblay et al., “Parent and Child Training to Prevent Early Onset of Delinquency: The Montréal Longitudinal-Experimental Study,” in Joan McCord and Richard E. Tremblay, eds., Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions from Birth through Adolescence (New York: Guilford, 1992); Richard E. Tremblay, Linda Pagani-Kurtz, Louise C. Mâsse, Frank Vitaro, and Robert O. Pihl, “A Bimodal Preventive Intervention for Disruptive Kindergarten Boys: Its Impact through Mid-Adolescence,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 63:560–568 (1995); Richard E. Tremblay, Louise C. Mâsse, Linda Pagani-Kurtz, and Frank Vitaro, “From Childhood Physical Aggression to Adolescent Maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment,” in R. DeV. Peters and R. J. McMahon, eds., Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1996).

67. Rachel Boisjoli, Frank Vitaro, Eric Lacourse, Edward D. Barker, and Richard E. Tremblay, “Impact and Clinical Significance of a Preventive Intervention for Disruptive Boys: 15-Year Follow-up,” British Journal of Psychiatry 191:415–419 (2007).

68. Sheppard G. Kellam, George W. Rebok, Nicholas Ialongo, and Lawrence S. Mayer, “The Course and Malleability of Aggressive Behavior from Early First Grade into Middle School: Results of a Developmental Epidemiologically Based Preventive Trial,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 35:259–282 (1994).

69. Sheppard G. Kellam, C. Hendricks Brown, Jeanne M. Poduska, Nicholas S. Ialongo, Wei Wang, Peter Toyinbo, Hanno Petras, Carla Ford, Amy Windham, and Holly C. Wilcox, “Effects of a Universal Classroom Behavior Management Program in First and Second Grades on Young Adult Behavioral, Psychiatric, and Social Outcomes,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95S:5–28 (2008); Hanno Petras, Sheppard G. Kellam, C. Hendricks Brown, Bengt Muthén, Nicholas S. Ialongo, and Jeanne M. Poduska, “Developmental Epidemiological Courses Leading to Antisocial Personality Disorder and Violent and Criminal Behavior: Effects by Young Adulthood of a Universal Preventive Intervention in First- and Second-Grade Classrooms,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95S:45–59 (2008).

70. Alexander T. Vazsonyi, Lara B. Belliston, and Daniel J. Flannery, “Evaluation of a School-Based, Universal Violence Prevention Program: Low-, Medium-, and High-Risk Children,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2:185–206 (2004).

71. James C. Howell, ed., Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice, 1995), p. 90.

72. Office of Justice Programs, “Mentoring,” OJP Fact Sheet (Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice, November 2011).

73. Edith Fairman Cooper, Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal Government Dedicated to Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities. CRS Report for Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, March 20, 2006), p. 15.

74. Office of Justice Programs, “Mentoring.”

75. Thomas J. Dishion, Joan McCord, and François Poulin, “When Interventions Harm: Peer Groups and Problem Behavior,” American Psychologist 54:755–764 (1999).

76. Information Technology International, Jump Annual Report, 2003 (Alexandria, VA: Author, 2003).

77. Darrick Jolliffe and David P. Farrington, The Influence of Mentoring on Reoffending (Stockholm: National Council for Crime Prevention, 2008).

78. Patrick Tolan, David Henry, Michael Schoeny, and Arin Bass, Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems (Campbell Collaboration, 2008),  http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/download/238/  (accessed July 2013).

79. Renée Spencer, “Understanding the Mentoring Process between Adolescents and Adults,” Youth and Society 37:287–315 (2006), pp. 309–311.

80. Denise C. Gottfredson, “An Empirical Test of School-Based Environmental and Individual Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Delinquent Behavior,” Criminology 24:705–731 (1986); Denise C. Gottfredson, “Changing School Structures to Benefit High-Risk Youth,” in Peter Leone, ed., Understanding Troubled and Troubling Youth (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990); Denise C. Gottfredson, Schools and Delinquency (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).

81. Debra Galant, “Violence Offers Its Own Lessons,” New York Times, June 15, 2003.

82. Gottfredson et al., “School-Based Crime Prevention.”

83. James Larson, “Violence Prevention in the Schools: A Review of Selected Programs and Procedures,” School Psychology Review 23:151–164 (1994).

84. Ibid., p. 153.

85. Denise C. Gottfredson, Gary D. Gottfredson, and Stephanie A. Weisman, “The Timing of Delinquent Behavior and Its Implications for After-School Programs,” Criminology and Public Policy 1:61–86 (2001), at 61.

86. Ibid., p. 63.

87. Denise C. Gottfredson, Stephanie A. Gerstenblith, David A. Soulé, Shannon C. Womer, and Shaoli Lu, “Do After School Programs Reduce Delinquency?” Prevention Science 5:253–266 (2004), at 263–264.

88. Denise C. Gottfredson, Amanda Cross, Denise Wilson, Melissa Rorie, and Nadine Connell, “An Experimental Evaluation of the All Stars Prevention Curriculum in a Community After School Setting,” Prevention Science 11:142–154 (2010).

89. Steven P. Schinke, Mario A. Orlandi, and Kristin C. Cole, “Boys and Girls Clubs in Public Housing Developments: Prevention Services for Youth at Risk,” Journal of Community Psychology, Office of Substance Abuse Prevention Special Issue:118–128 (1992).

90. Ibid., p. 120.

91. Ibid., pp. 125–127.

92. Marshall B. Jones and David R. Offord, “Reduction of Anti-Social Behavior in Poor Children by Nonschool Skill Development,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 30:737–750 (1989).

93. Amanda Brown Cross, Denise C. Gottfredson, Denise M. Wilson, Melissa Rorie, and Nadine Connell, “The Impact of After-School Programs on the Routine Activities of Middle-School Students: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Criminology and Public Policy 8:391–412 (2009).

94. Ibid.; Gottfredson, Gerstenblith, Soulé, Womer, and Lu, “Do After School Programs Reduce Delinquency?”

95. Denise C. Gottfredson and David A. Soulé, “The Timing of Property Crime, Violent Crime, and Substance Abuse among Juveniles,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 42:110–120 (2005).

96. McCord, Widom, and Crowell, eds., Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice, pp. 150–151.

97. Rolf Loeber and David P. Farrington, eds., From Juvenile Delinquency to Adult Crime: Criminal Careers, Justice Policy, and Prevention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

98. US Department of Labor, “Job Corps: Success Lasts a Lifetime,” February 7, 2013,  http://www.jobcorps.gov/centers.aspx  (accessed July 2013).

99. Peter Z. Schochet, John Burghardt, and Sheena McConnell, “Does Job Corps Work? Impact Findings from the National Job Corps Study,” American Economic Review 98:1864–1886 (2008).

100. David A. Long, Charles D. Mallar, and Craig V. D. Thornton, “Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of the Job Corps,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1:55–76 (1981).

101. Sheena McConnell and Steven Glazerman, National Job Corps Study: The Benefits and Costs of Job Corps (Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, US Department of Labor, 2001).

102. YouthBuild U.S.A., “YouthBuild Programs,”  http://www.youthbuild.org/youthbuild-programs  (accessed July 2013); Tim Cross and Daryl Wright, “What Works with At-Risk Youths,” Corrections Today 66:64–68 (2004), at 64.

103. Ibid., p. 65.

104. Mark A. Cohen and Alex R. Piquero, “An Outcome Evaluation of the YouthBuild USA Offender Project,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8:373–385 (2009).

105. Margaret R. Kuklinski, John S. Briney, J. David Hawkins, and Richard F. Catalano, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Communities That Care Outcomes at Eighth Grade,” Prevention Science 13:150–161 (2012); see also J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, and Associates, Communities That Care: Action for Drug Abuse (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992).

106. Dennis P. Rosenbaum and Amie M. Schuck, “Comprehensive Community Partnerships for Preventing Crime,” in Welsh and Farrington, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

107. Abraham Wandersman and Paul Florin, “Community Interventions and Effective Prevention,” American Psychologist 58:441–448 (2003).

108. Lawrence F. Murray and Steven Belenko, “CASASTART: A Community-Based, School-Centered Intervention for High-Risk Youth,” Substance Use and Misuse 40:913–933 (2005); National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, CASASTART (New York: Columbia University, 2007).

109. Adele V. Harrell, Shannon E. Cavanagh, and Sanjeev Sridharan, Evaluation of the Children At Risk Program: Results 1 Year after the End of the Program (Washington, DC: NIJ Research in Brief, 1999).

110. Brandon C. Welsh and David P. Farrington, “Science, Politics, and Crime Prevention: Toward a New Crime Policy,” Journal of Criminal Justice 40:128–133 (2012); see also Bryan J. Vila, “Human Nature and Crime Control: Improving the Feasibility of Nurturant Strategies,” Politics and the Life Sciences 16:3–21 (1997).

111. Francis T. Cullen and Paula Smith, “Treatment and Rehabilitation,” in Michael Tonry, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Crime and Criminal Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).

112. Richard A. Mendel, Prevention or Pork? A Hard-Headed Look at Youth-Oriented Anti-Crime Programs (Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum, 1995), p. 1.

113. McCord, “Cures that Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs.” See also Thomas Gabor, “Prevention into the Twenty-First Century: Some Final Remarks,” Canadian Journal of Criminology 32:197–212 (1990).

114. David R. Offord, Helena Chmura Kraemer, Alan E. Kazdin, Peter S. Jensen, and Richard Harrington, “Lowering the Burden of Suffering from Child Psychiatric Disorder: Trade-Offs among Clinical, Targeted, and Universal Interventions,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 37:686–694 (1998).

115. Brandon C. Welsh, Christopher J. Sullivan, and David L. Olds, “When Early Crime Prevention Goes to Scale: A New Look at the Evidence,” Prevention Science 11:115–125 (2010); Kenneth A. Dodge, “The Science of Youth Violence Prevention: Progressing from Developmental Epidemiology to Efficacy to Effectiveness to Public Policy,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20(1S):63–70 (2001).

116. David P. Farrington and Brandon C. Welsh, Saving Children from a Life of Crime: Early Risk Factors and Effective Interventions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

117. National Crime Prevention Council, “Saving Money While Stopping Crime,” Topics in Crime Prevention (Washington, DC: NCPC, Fall 1999).

118. S. Lee, Steve Aos, Elizabeth K. Drake, Anne Pennucci, Marna G. Miller, and L. Anderson, Return on Investment: Evidence-Based Options to Reduce Statewide Outcomes (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2012).