Week 1.1

2.2 What We Know About Crime and Delinquency That Policy Should Consider

Research has taught us some important “facts” about crime and delinquency that should be taken into account when developing criminal justice responses and policy. To begin, crime is disproportionally committed by young people, specifically adolescents and young adults. Self-report studies reveal that more than 90% of juveniles admit to committing some minor delinquency (Agnew & Brezina, 2012; Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2011). While many people engage in minor delinquency during their youth, the vast majority of people desist by their early to mid-20s (on their own, without any criminal justice intervention) (Shader, 2003). Many scholars theorize why antisocial behavior peaks during adolescence and propose that it may result from individual characteristics (such as a latent trait or biological vulnerabilities), social and environmental experiences, and/or other significant changes during the life course (graduation, marriage, birth of a child). Recent brain imaging research that indicates that the brain is not fully developed until early adulthood is also part of the explanation.

While persons who dabble in illegal behaviors during their youth account for the bulk of delinquents, they do not commit the majority of crimes. A small percent of individuals, sometimes called career criminals, commit a large proportion of crimes. So, while a lot of people commit a little crime for a short period of time, a small number of individuals start their “criminal careers” early, and continue to offend at a high rate for a long period of time (decades or more); the former are referred to as low-rate, minor, or adolescent-limited offenders while the latter are referred to as high-rate, serious, chronic, or life-course- persistent offenders (Moffitt, 1993). Another fact is that males commit more crime and delinquency than females. Approximately 70% of juveniles arrested are male, while approximately 30% are female (this gap used to be much larger) (Chesney-Lind, Morash, & Stevens, 2008). Although both genders commit a broad array of crimes, males commit more serious delinquency than females and females commit more larceny/theft offenses than males (Agnew & Brezina, 2012; Shader (OJJDP), 2006).

There are also some crime differences by race and class. Specifically, some research indicates that the rate of involvement in minor crime is consistent between juveniles of different races and social classes, but African American and lower class youths are more likely to engage in serious delinquency. This correlation exists because there are more high-rate offenders in lower class communities than in middle class communities and more high-rate offenders of African American descent than any other race (Agnew & Brezina, 2012). The question is: why?

We now know that some people are at greater risk of becoming delinquent than others—these individuals often have certain traits or life circumstances in common. These traits, which increase the risk of a person committing delinquent/criminal acts, are known as risk factors and include biological and psychological risk factors, family risk factors, social risk factors (e.g., the schools they attend, or their peer associates), and environmental risk factors (their residential community). It is also believed that there are some traits, known as protective factors, which decrease the likelihood of delinquency. Each of these contributes to an individual’s risk profile and is discussed below.

Risk factors are often clustered in people and places. Life-course-persistent offenders tend to have the most risk factors, but there is not a single “key” risk factor that means someone is going to be a criminal. Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors that increases the likelihood of a person engaging in antisocial/criminal behavior. Similarly, neighborhoods of concentrated disadvantage can “activate” risk factors that might remain dormant if the child lived in a middle-class neighborhood (possibly due to the increased presence of delinquent peers and/or opportunities for crime in disadvantaged communities) (Wikström & Loeber, 2000).

Biological and Psychological Risk Factors

The nature-nurture debate has captivated humans for hundreds of years. Scientists have learned that while half of the variance in antisocial behavior is influenced by genes (nature), environment (nurture) can and does play an important role in determining whether, and to what degree, a person engages in antisocial behaviors (Moffitt, Ross, & Raine, 2011). For example, the MAOA gene, which is associated with moderating the effect of childhood maltreatment on violence, is affected by environmental factors. Thus, two people who have the MAOA gene and have experienced childhood maltreatment may be more (or less) affected by the childhood maltreatment based on how the MAOA gene interacts with environmental and other factors unique to the person and his or her life (Moffitt et al., 2011).

We know that many antisocial individuals are chronically underaroused (as indicated by low resting heart rate, slow EEG, and minimal sweating). There is also strong evidence that impaired communication between the frontal lobes of the brain (which regulate self-control) and the temporal lobes of the brain (which regulate emotions) can result in higher risk- seeking behavior and criminality (Moffitt et al., 2011). This finding is consistent with, and helps explain, the elevated offending levels found in youth around the globe, and the standard decline in offending during early adulthood (once the brain is fully developed). Other consistent individual risk factors that have a biological basis are low intelligence (verbal IQ), lack of empathy (the ability to understand and relate to another person’s thoughts/feelings), and irritability (having a heightened sensitivity to stressors, a tendency to overreact and blame others for personal misfortune, and exhibiting overtly antagonistic behavior).

People who are considered chronic, life-course-persistent offenders tend to have multiple “biological vulnerabilities” (risk factors). These biological vulnerabilities affect people living in criminogenic environments more powerfully than they affect people living in stable, healthy environments. Some of these biological influences can be counteracted through proper nutrition, healthy living, and the presence of protective factors. One important note: biological influences predispose a person to antisocial behavior; they do not predetermine who will or will not be antisocial or criminal (just as a near-sighted mother predisposes her children to poor vision).

What should we do with this knowledge? Does this evidence mean that criminals are born, and therefore not responsible for their actions? Should criminals with specific genes be sentenced less severely than criminals without these same genes? Should all people get tested to ascertain whether they have any “criminal genes”? This information has significant implications for criminal justice policy.

As importantly, what does research mean for crime prevention policies? The evidence that biological vulnerabilities can be switched on/off (or at least turned up/down) by the environment tells us that money spent to create and/or expand healthy environments (families, schools, communities) is likely to decrease criminality, especially in communities that experience concentrated disadvantage. At the very least, programs and policies that help women (from all socioeconomic backgrounds and healthcare insurance statuses) have healthy pregnancies, that allow children and adolescents to obtain proper nutrition and to grow up in toxin-free neighborhoods, and that decrease the number and severity of traumatic brain injuries should be incorporated into our national criminal justice policy agenda because they help prevent delinquency, along with a host of other issues (cancer, obesity, and suicide, for example).

Family Risk Factors

Crime is concentrated in families; in other words, a small percentage of families account for a large proportion of offenders (Farrington, Barnes, & Lambert, 1996; Loeber & Southhamer-Loeber, 1986). There are several possible reasons for this observation. First, it is possible that parents pass on criminogenic predispositions through shared genes that incline their offspring to antisocial behavior. Second, parents may role-model antisocial behavior and thought processes. Third, parents and children may be exposed to similar, multiple risk factors across generations that repeat and increase the likelihood of offending (such as poverty, abuse, or teenage parenthood). Finally, antisocial parents may be ineffective parents and raise antisocial children. Having antisocial parents (picture drug users, alcoholics, and individuals engaged in other antisocial or criminal behavior) is one of many major risk factors for delinquency; large family size, poor child rearing methods, and high conflict homes are others.

Research consistently confirms that having a large number of siblings is correlated with delinquency. Although researchers are still debating the reasons for this correlation, a favorite among academics is that the amount of parental supervision each child receives decreases as the number of children in a family increases, and supervision is tightly tied to delinquency. It is also held that families with many children may be highly stressful environments due to resource strain and personal space challenges (overcrowding). West and Farrington (1973) found that families that were less crowded (had more rooms than children) had fewer delinquent children.

Poor child rearing methods is another major family risk factor for delinquency. Specifically, parents who use harsh and/or erratic discipline, do not properly supervise their children, do not have a warm relationship with their children, and/or are not involved in their children’s lives are more likely to raise delinquent children. The most important aspect of child rearing from a delinquency prevention standpoint is parental supervision, as it is the risk factor that most strongly and consistently predicts future offending. Researchers found that juveniles are twice as likely to offend if their parent(s) do not conscientiously and consistently monitor their activities (Farrington & Welsh, 2007). Likewise, physical punishment of elementary school age and older children (not spanking toddlers), predicts later offending as does unpredictable and inconsistent discipline. While cold and rejecting parents increase the likelihood of delinquency, warm and caring parents decrease the amount of offending and may serve as a protective factor against the effects of harsh discipline (Farrington & Welsh, 2007). For example, McCord (1997) found that boys with a cold, physically punishing mother were 2.5 times more likely to be convicted of delinquency than boys with a warm, physically punishing mother (she noted a similar effect for fathers). Although most physically abused or neglected children do not go on to become delinquents, they are more likely to become offenders than are children who were not physically abused or neglected (Maxfield & Widom, 1996).

The quality of home life is also very important, as high conflict families produce more than their representative share of delinquents. It is often popular to blame “broken homes” for delinquency; the truth is that the amount of conflict within the family unit is much more important than the number of “parents” who reside in the house (Farrington & Welsh, 2007; McCord, 1982). According to research, the best parenting style is authoritative, which is a style that is both warm and firm (also defined as “firm but fair”).

Given these findings, policy should focus on funding cost-effective programs that improve parenting practices. Also, while it would be unethical to dictate how many children a family may have, policy could be used to ensure that all families (large families included) have access to the necessary resources (adequate child care, appropriate housing, proper nutrition, etc.) to ensure the healthiest childhood and family situation possible.

Social Risk Factors

The main social risk factor for delinquency is having delinquent friends. Unlike adults who offend alone, juveniles tend to co-offend in small groups (usually 2–3 youth). For most youth, this means shop-lifting, vandalizing property, or being involved in a schoolyard fight. However, for some it can include much more serious crimes, such as robbery, carjacking, or homicide. In particular, youth who are gang members commit a lot more crimes and more serious crimes than do juveniles who are not in a gang. Further, there is a large increase in a person’s pattern of offending while the person is active in a gang, and a large decrease in offending after he or she leaves the gang. Only a small percent of youth join gangs (between 6% and 30%), but those in gangs commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially violent crimes (Maxson, 2011).

This means that gangs are a ripe target for policy intervention. If we can decrease the number of juveniles who join gangs, or reduce the amount of time they spend in a gang, we can reduce crime, particularly violent crime. Unfortunately, as research demonstrates, successful gang prevention and intervention programs and policies have been particularly difficult to achieve.

Schools are also correlated with delinquency; however, it is usually through factors that may not be easily influenced by school administrators, staff, or faculty. For example, the rate of delinquents who attend a school increases the likelihood of others engaging in crime. Dropping out of school is also a school-related risk factor, as are behaviors like habitual tardiness, school misbehavior, low attachment to school, poor relations with teachers, little school involvement, and having low educational/occupational goals (Agnew & Brezina, 2012). Research suggests that schools with lower than expected delinquency rates have some characteristics in common—these characteristics might be thought of as protective factors. For example, they have clear rules that are consistently enforced, have high expectations for students, praise student achievement and offer opportunities for school success, have strong community involvement and adequate resources, and are pleasant places to learn (Agnew & Brezina, 2012).

These findings suggest that school policies that encourage or incentivize administrators and faculty to identify and intervene with students recognized as chronically truant and at-risk for dropping out could have a significant impact on delinquency (as well as on students’ self- efficacy and future lifetime achievements). Also, providing a variety of opportunities and funding for students to participate in extracurricular activities (such as sports, drama, music, art, and academic programs) allows students to develop competencies in those areas as well as increasing connections to the school and their prosocial peers. Finally, policies also should focus on creating school environments that have been shown to reduce delinquency rates.

Environmental Risk Factors

There is considerable research evidence that validates the negative effects that concentrated disadvantage has on both children and adults. Concentrated disadvantage is a term used to describe ethnic minority communities that have high rates of poverty, unemployment, and family disruption. The neighborhoods themselves frequently (though not always) have high crime rates with a high proportion of probationers and parolees as residents. Among other things, children who grow up in these communities are at risk for delinquency/criminality, teenage parenthood, child neglect and maltreatment, and school failure (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002).

Not all poor, minority neighborhoods have high rates of crime and criminal justice intervention, however. Some neighborhoods, those with high levels of collective efficacy (high residential stability combined with high connectivity [mutual trust] between residents, and high levels of informal social control), have low crime rates. For example, research finds that the delinquency rate of a neighborhood is correlated with the neighborhood’s ability to maintain social control, the proportion of residents engaged in “neighboring activities” (borrowing items, helping one another, having lunch, etc.), and the level of organizational participation (belonging to organizations with other community members) in the neighborhood (Sampson, 2011).

Communities represent a key opportunity to focus comprehensive prevention programs on a large group of at-risk individuals at a single time. Though some of these neighborhoods pose numerous and significant challenges, there is a strong financial incentive to change the way we approach high crime and high criminal justice expenditure communities (“million dollar blocks”). These neighborhoods are very costly—both in terms of current criminal justice related costs (police, courts, probation, parole, incarceration, and loss to victims), other social costs (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), welfare, etc.), but also future lost productivity, wages, and tax earnings.

Research suggests that, to prevent crime, policy should attempt to create and foster collective efficacy and informal social control in neighborhoods, especially in those communities that are at a tipping point. Sampson (2011) contends that increasing positive connections between youth and adults in the community is the key to accomplishing this collective efficacy. Additionally, reducing social and physical disorder (e.g., broken windows, trash, panhandlers, graffiti, and prostitution) is important, as these have been shown to increase fear of crime (Skogan, 1990), possibly serious crime, and may influence neighborhood sustainability by inciting law-abiding people and businesses to move out of the area (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). Of course, the ultimate answer is to increase human capital interventions for children in these neighborhoods in order to decrease the individual and family-level risk factors that are more often found in children living in concentrated disadvantage. A view confirmed by Wikström and Loeber (2000) who found that boys with balanced risk/protective scores or high protective scores only became delinquent when living in disadvantaged public housing areas (in comparison to boys with high risk scores who became delinquent regardless of where they lived).

2

3

4

5

2.2 What We Know about Crime and Delinqu…

11/14/18, 11'55 PM Page 1 of 1