effects of juvenile delinquency essay

Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects

Causes and effects of juvenile delinquency: essay abstract, effects and causes of juvenile delinquency: essay introduction.

• Juvenile delinquency statistics
• Causes of juvenile delinquency
• Effects of juvenile delinquency
• Prevention of juvenile delinquency
• Solutions to juvenile delinquency

Effects and Causes of Juvenile Delinquency: Essay Conclusion

Works cited.

Given the widespread family, societal, community, and individual costs that come with high rates of juvenile delinquency, one cannot help to wonder what the government is doing about it. It is also everybody’s concern that the government may not be doing enough to make a difference.

At this point, it is important to note that one can effortlessly appear non-delinquent after a correctional program while the delinquent characteristics are intact deep inside him/her. Delinquency programs for the youth have continually focused on individual behavior while ignoring community, family, and neighborhood factors, which are the most critical factors contributing to delinquent behavior.

It is common knowledge that the problem of juvenile delinquency is immense in society, and thus a change of tact is critical if society is to overcome this problem. This paper will explore other factors that lead to juvenile delinquency and propose solutions to this problem.

Delinquency refers to the violation of a law by a child. It is analogous to the commitment of a crime by an adult. Juvenile delinquency is an issue of great concern in law enforcement and correctional circles.

Every state in the U.S. aims to reduce the number of juveniles being recruited to delinquency and the number of juvenile delinquents recidivating.

Despite the efforts taken in a bid to reduce the number of delinquents and recidivists, the U.S. continues to record high numbers of juvenile offenders in juvenile correctional facilities. This situation, therefore, calls for a nuanced approach to the issue of juvenile delinquency.

It is critical to understand the extent of the growth of juvenile offending. Statistics released by bureaus in various states indicate that the rate of juvenile offenses is increasing. Offending patterns among groups previously described as risk groups for juvenile delinquency are worsening or, at least, unchanging.

There is, therefore, the need to analyze the causes of juvenile delinquency, evaluate the effects that delinquency has on society, and develop interventions that can lead to a reduction in the rate of delinquency and recidivism among juveniles. This paper describes the problem of juvenile recidivism and suggests ways to reduce the delinquency rate.

Juvenile Delinquency Statistics

A substantial percentage of arrests made each day in the U.S. comprises people below the age of 18. It is estimated that the percentage of violent crime arrests currently stands at about 17 % (Barker 1). “Juveniles accounted for 16% of all violent crimes arrests and 32% of all property crime arrests in 1999. They accounted for 54% of all arson arrests, 42% of vandalism arrests, 31 % of larceny arrests, and 33% of burglary arrests” (“Juvenile Justice” 1).

The number of juveniles engaging in delinquent behavior in various states depends on racial disparities. Currently, black juveniles constitute the highest number of youths being held in residential custody. Their number is almost twice the number of Hispanics held in residential custody and five times the number of white juveniles held in residential custody in the United States (“Juvenile Justice” 1).

In several cases, Juveniles are tried in adult courts. In fact, the Kansas and Vermont states in the U.S. have statutory provisions that allow the trial of juveniles as young as 10 years of age in adult courts. This situation may need review. It is because youth held in adult prisons tend to have a higher recidivism rate than those in juvenile systems (“Juvenile Justice” 1).

More than 1.7 million juvenile delinquency cases in the United States were disposed of in 1997. Two thousand of the aforementioned cases were criminal homicides. Forcible rape constituted 6,500, while aggravated assault cases totaled 67,900. Out of the 1.7 million, 180,000 cases were drug-related (“Juvenile Justice” 1).

The statistics outlined above show the seriousness of the issue of delinquency in the United States. Given the effects of delinquency on society, it is vital to understand the causes of delinquency. It is also critical to develop solutions and prevention strategies for delinquency.

Causes of Juvenile Delinquency

There have been heated debates among criminologists, psychologists, and sociologists concerning the possible causes of juvenile delinquency. The causes included in the following discussion have been proven through practical research.

One of the leading causes of delinquent behavior among juveniles is peer influence. Research shows that young people who form relationships with positive individuals and groups that pursue positive commitments tend to shun delinquent behavior. However, juveniles can engage in activities that do not have concrete objectives and commitments.

These activities will likely lead to volatile relationships that may encourage delinquent behavior. Examples of these behaviors include drinking and smoking. Other behaviors without commitment that juveniles may engage in include watching television and spending too much time watching movies.

Although most people attach no harm to these activities, research has proven that the more time peers spend watching television, the more likely they are to engage in delinquent behaviors (Mandel 1).

Family influence is another factor that has been proven to contribute to juvenile delinquency. It is even suspected that family influence contributes to delinquent behavior more than peer pressure. Research has proven that families in which there is no strong emotional bonding tend to have juveniles who turn out to be delinquent.

The reason is that the juveniles may develop psychological problems like rejection and low self-esteem, leading to delinquent behavior. Other causes of psychological problems like trauma and low self-esteem are also linked to delinquency. The two can originate from sources outside the family.

Children abused or exposed to family violence are likely to be delinquents. Some studies have linked genes to delinquency, arguing that children whom criminals and drug addicts raise are likely to become delinquent. Another risk is a family in which there are no effective communication channels. Children raised in this kind of family may have issues they want to address, but they may lack an audience.

This cause is likely to make them result in delinquent behavior. Non-traditional families like reconstituted families and single-parent families may also be a factor. Research has shown that children raised by single parents or divorcees tend to be more delinquent than their counterparts raised in traditional families (Mandel 1).

Race is a significant factor in predicting delinquent behavior. The main reason why race is a determinant factor for delinquency is that minority groups are not accorded the same treatment as other races. This makes them live disgruntled lives, which may make them have delinquent behavior.

Once the delinquency trend is set in a certain race, peer influence fuels recidivism and fresh offense. It is important to note that numerous scholars argue that race is not the factor, but racism is (Mandel 1).

Effects of Juvenile Delinquency

Juvenile delinquency is a big problem that affects not only the victims of the delinquents but also the juvenile delinquents themselves, their families, and even society as a whole. Juvenile delinquents may not be able to predict the effect of their crimes on themselves, but, as stated, they are seriously affected by these crimes.

Most of these crimes make the juvenile lose his/her freedom because he/she may be placed on probation or even incarcerated. This will also affect the academic welfare of the juvenile because he or she will miss academic activities that will take place during probation or incarceration.

In cases where the juvenile is placed in a residential center for the detention of juveniles, he/she may be influenced by more experienced juvenile delinquents (Barker 1). It will make the juvenile more likely to recidivate and suffer re-offense consequences. The delinquency of the minor may even dictate his or her career choices in the future.

The trauma of having a juvenile delinquent in a family can create instability for other family members. The family has to meet the needs of the juvenile in trouble and raise lawyer’s fees. The family also has an ethical obligation to the victim of the delinquent. Families are required to attend counseling sessions as a group. This is usually costly and disruptive (Barker 1).

Juvenile delinquency is closely related to sexual behavior, drug use, gang involvement, etc. All these negatively affect the community because it makes the community unsafe and makes the government spend colossal sums of money on school safety and law enforcement.

As stated, juvenile delinquency has severe effects on some societal groups. It, therefore, affects society negatively by affecting the community, families, individuals, etc. The problem also challenges government agencies, organizations, educators, faith communities, and politicians (Barker 1).

Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

Due to the contribution of family influence to juvenile delinquent behavior, it is vital to ensure that families positively impact children. This can be achieved by ensuring strong emotional bonding in the family and by laying out effective strategies for communication.

Children raised by families that do not conform to the traditional family should be closely watched to curb the development of delinquent behavior. Schools should also ensure that they know the backgrounds of children in order to fill the gaps that may be left by the parents (Saminsky 1). For instance, teachers can help to counsel a child who witnesses violence at home or a child whose parent is a criminal.

Parents should ensure that they closely monitor the kind of company that their children keep. They should ensure their children engage in productive social activities (Saminsky 1). These measures will help reduce the chances of their children becoming delinquents. In school, teachers should keep a close eye on pupils to ensure that they know their activities.

Pupils should be appropriately searched in school to ensure they do not carry guns and drugs. This step will ensure that delinquent pupils do not influence others. It will also help identify delinquent children so they can be counseled or even sent for correctional services.

Although controversial, another way of preventing delinquency is reducing or eradicating racism. This method will target delinquents in minority groups. It will help reduce the number of juveniles in these minority groups who commit offenses because they will not commit racism-inspired crimes.

It will also help boost teenagers’ self-esteem in these minority groups. Thus instances of offenses caused by low self-esteem will be limited in these minority groups (Saminsky 1).

Solutions to Juvenile Delinquency

The best way to reduce the number of delinquency cases is by using the preventative measures outlined in the paragraph above. The preventative measures should be holistic in the sense that they should include all the people in the lives of the juveniles.

The juveniles should be monitored and guided while at home and counseled and monitored while in school. Juveniles who are at high risk of developing delinquent behavior should be watched closely and given special treatment so that they do not end up offending (Rose 1).

Another way of reducing the number of delinquency cases is by reducing the rates at which juvenile delinquents recidivate. It can be achieved by having legislation that ensures that juveniles are corrected differently and in facilities different from the ones used for adult correction.

The reason is that, from the statistics section, juveniles corrected in the same facilities as adult offenders are more likely to recidivate than their counterparts in juvenile facilities. The recidivism rates of young offenders can also be reduced by having a program to correct delinquents. This is most appropriately implemented while the delinquents are in custody.

The program should be holistic, and thus it should consist of counseling services offered by a psychologist, recreational facilities, and training (Rose 1). The counseling services will give a platform in which the juveniles can freely share their experiences, and thus their healing process can be sped up.

The recreational facilities will give the juveniles alternative hobbies that will occupy their time after they are released from custody. Thus they will have less time to consider re-offending. Lastly, the training will equip the juvenile who may have quit school with entrepreneurial skills that they can utilize to make money after they are released from custody. It will, therefore, help to reduce the number of cases where juveniles re-offend due to financial problems.

Juvenile delinquency can also be reduced by effective policing that will ensure that community criminals do not recruit juveniles into crime. It is common to hear of gangs using schoolchildren to market drugs and carry assault weapons. This practice should be discouraged by vigilance from parents and teachers and effective community policing.

From the discussion above, it is clear that delinquency is an enormous societal problem. Juvenile delinquency is caused by several factors, including peer influence, influence by the juvenile’s family, race, and other related factors like low self-esteem and trauma.

The effects of delinquency are far-reaching, and they, therefore, affect the community, victims of the delinquent, society as a whole, and even the delinquents themselves. Therefore, it is vital to address this issue to reduce the rates of offense and re-offense.

Several interventions can be used to prevent and reduce delinquency and recidivism. These interventions can be implemented in the family, school, or even correctional facilities. School and family-level interventions are mainly aimed at preventing recidivism, while the interventions implemented at correctional facilities are aimed at reducing recidivism.

Thus, these interventions must be taken seriously to reduce the number of delinquents in society. This will, in turn, reduce the number of delinquency victims, the number of affected families, and the amount of resources that the government will spend on law enforcement and correctional services. Therefore, it will lead to a better society.

Barker, Leslie. “ The Effects of Juvenile Delinquency ”. Ehow.com . 2011.

Juvenile Justice. “Basic Statistics”. Pbs.org . 2011.

Mandel, Sharon. “ What Causes Juvenile Delinquency? ” Filthylucre.com . 2008.

Rose, Nancy. “ The Solution to Juvenile Delinquency is Simple ”. Public.asu.edu . 2010.

Saminsky, Alina. “ Preventing Juvenile Delinquency : Early Intervention and Comprehensiveness as Critical Factors”. Studentpulse.com . 2011.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, January 12). Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects. https://studycorgi.com/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-effects/

"Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects." StudyCorgi , 12 Jan. 2020, studycorgi.com/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects'. 12 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects." January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-effects/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects." January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects." January 12, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-effects/.

This paper, “Juvenile Delinquency Causes and Effects”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: August 23, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Sage Choice

Effects of Awareness Programs on Juvenile Delinquency: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis

Claudia e. van der put.

1 University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Noelle F. Boekhout van Solinge

Geert jan stams, machteld hoeve, mark assink.

Juvenile awareness programs, such as Scared Straight, remain in use despite the finding that these programs provoke rather than prevent delinquency. The aim of this study was to examine what program components are associated with program effectiveness, which is important for improving these programs. A three-level meta-analysis was conducted. A literature search yielded 13 independent studies ( N = 1,536) from which 88 effect sizes could be extracted. A nonsignificant overall effect was found ( d = 0.10), indicating that juvenile awareness programs have no effect on offending behavior and other outcomes that are related to delinquency. No significant moderator effects were found for program components. The moderator analyses revealed that juvenile awareness programs are effective in reducing antisocial attitudes ( d = 0.46), which has not been meta-analytically studied before. Furthermore, larger effects were found as follow-up length increased. These results show a more nuanced view on the effectiveness of juvenile awareness programs is necessary.

In juvenile awareness programs, juvenile delinquents or youths at risk of delinquency participate in an organized visit to a prison facility ( Petrosino et al., 2013 ). The main goal of such programs is to deter youth from future criminal behavior by exposing them to realistic depictions of life in prison and presentations held by inmates. Petrosino et al. (2013) concluded in their meta-analysis that juvenile awareness programs provoke rather than prevent delinquency. Nevertheless, these programs remain in use worldwide. In the Netherlands, juvenile awareness programs have even increased in popularity, though in a slightly different form in which ex-prisoners visit schools rather than children visiting prisons ( Van Kempen et al., 2010 ). In these adapted programs, which have a similar crime prevention goal to the original programs, ex-prisoners share their life stories and describe the choices they made that led to imprisonment.

In this study, we aimed to gain knowledge on what program components are (positively or negatively) associated with program effectiveness, and what components are not related to effectiveness. This knowledge is important for improving these programs by adding effective components to existing programs and/or eliminating ineffective components from those programs. For this purpose, the meta-analysis of Petrosino and colleagues (2013) was updated and extended by (a) examining how individual program components and study characteristics influence program effectiveness, (b) including not only studies on prison tour programs but also studies on programs in which (ex-)prisoners visit schools, (c) using a three-level meta-analytic design allowing the extraction of multiple effect sizes from individual primary studies, and (d) examining program effects on not only delinquent behavior but also prodelinquent attitudes, attitudes toward punishment, and risk factors for delinquency.

Juvenile awareness programs were first developed around 1970 in the United States, with “Scared-Straight” being the most well known. In the Scared Straight program, at-risk youths and juvenile delinquents were taken to a prison facility where inmates serving life sentences held an aggressive presentation emphasizing the harsh realities of a life in prison. These presentations were mainly rude and confrontational, and included exaggerated stories about rape and murder ( Finckenauer, 1982 ). The program became highly popular and was soon picked up by multiple states as well as other countries, such as Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and Norway ( Petrosino et al., 2013 ).

The popularity of the Scared Straight program can be explained by several factors. First, in 1979, an Oscar-winning documentary about the program was aired, claiming high success rates in preventing or deterring youths from delinquency ( Cook & Spirrison, 1992 ; Finckenauer, 1982 ). Second, the program fits with some commonly held notions about how to prevent crime, and was seen as easy to implement at low costs ( Petrosino et al., 2013 ). Third, the program provides an opportunity for inmates to contribute to society in a positive way by preventing youth to end up like themselves ( Finckenauer, 1982 ). Besides the intended goal of preventing juveniles from committing offenses, there are possible benefits for (ex-)prisoners as well. Research showed that helping others can facilitate the recovery and reintegration of (ex-)prisoners ( Lebel, 2007 ).

The supposed underlying mechanism of juvenile awareness programs is grounded in deterrence theory. Deterrence is based on the theoretical notion that offenders learn from the negative experience of (fear of) punishment, and thus will deter from further offensive behavior. This criminological theory partly shaped the criminal system of the United States and various other countries ( Pratt et al., 2006 ). Both the certainty and severity of punishment are perceived to be important concepts in preventing and deterring people from involvement in crime ( Paternoster, 2010 ). Following this theory, the rationale of juvenile awareness programs is that experiences and realistic depictions of life in prison scare at-risk youths and juvenile offenders, deterring them from future involvement in crime. However, the claimed positive results of juvenile awareness programs, such as Scared Straight (i.e., Muhammed, 1999 ), were quickly rejected in multiple experimental studies ( Greater Egypt Regional Planning and Development Commission, 1979 ; Lewis, 1983 ; Yarborough, 1979 ). In fact, some studies even concluded that the program produced an adverse effect, because delinquency rates were significantly higher among program participants than among nonparticipants ( Finckenauer, 1982 ; Michigan Department of Corrections, 1967 ).

Petrosino et al. (2002) performed the first review on the effectiveness of Scared Straight and similar programs. The authors synthesized the results of nine randomized trials in which delinquency rates of participants were compared with delinquency rates of nonparticipants. The results showed that programs such as Scared Straight generally increase offending levels with a rate of 1% to 28% in the experimental group relative to a no-treatment control group. Petrosino et al. concluded that Scared Straight and similar programs result in harmful effects for participants, as they found higher delinquency rates in youth exposed to these programs than in nonexposed youth. Despite these negative results, juvenile awareness programs remained popular. In 2011, a weekly television show titled “Beyond Scared Straight” led to renewed interest in Scared Straight–type programs. In 2013, Petrosino and colleagues updated their earlier meta-analysis that was published in 2002, but in the search procedure, no new trials were found that were eligible for inclusion ( Petrosino et al., 2013 ). In contrast to the 2002 review in which no pooled or overall effect was calculated, the pooled effect in the 2013 review showed that officially measured criminal behavior was more prevalent in the treatment group than in the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.68), indicating a negative overall program effect. The authors concluded once again that juvenile awareness programs increase instead of decrease delinquency ( Petrosino et al., 2013 ).

The present review was directed at updating and extending the meta-analysis of Petrosino and colleagues (2013) for several reasons. First, the main objective was to enhance knowledge on how individual components of juvenile awareness programs are related to the effectiveness of these programs. Some awareness programs are, for instance, highly confrontational, whereas other programs are more educational in nature ( Finckenauer et al., 1999 ; Lundman, 1993 ). It is not yet clear how the components of education and confrontation are associated with program effectiveness. Therefore, we tested different program components as moderators of the (mean or overall) effect of juvenile awareness programs. Second, we aimed to synthesize studies on the effect of prison tour programs as well as studies on the effect of programs in which (ex-)prisoners visit schools. Third, Petrosino and colleagues (2013) used a classic meta-analytic design in which one effect size per primary study was included. Specifically, they only examined immediate posttreatment effects and disregarded any follow-up effects that were reported in primary studies. In the present study, a three-level meta-analytic design was used, in which effect size dependency is accounted for, so that multiple effect sizes can be extracted from individual primary studies. In this way, all relevant information can be preserved and maximum statistical power in the analyses can be achieved ( Assink & Wibbelink, 2016 ). By applying this three-level approach to meta-analysis, all follow-up effects reported in the primary studies could be included and synthesized. Fourth, Petrosino and colleagues only included effect sizes based on officially recorded offending, whereas we included effect sizes based on either officially recorded delinquency or self-reported delinquency. Both forms of delinquency measurements have their strengths and limitations, but specifically using official records involves the risk of underestimating the actual number of criminal acts, as there is more criminality than is registered in the official systems. Therefore, it is relevant to also include studies based on self-reported delinquency. Finally, we included and synthesized both delinquency outcomes and other outcomes associated with delinquency, such as attitudes toward punishment, prodelinquent attitudes, and other risk factors for delinquency.

As for the individual program components that may be associated with program effectiveness, we examined the effect of the following components: rap sessions (confrontational sessions in which adult inmates share graphic stories about prison life with juveniles), confining juveniles (locking up of juveniles in a cell for a short time), providing juveniles a guided tour of a prison facility, visitation (juveniles are [body-]searched and personal items are taken away and held during the program), dialogue (discussion with inmates), counseling, and attending presentations, for example, about drug and alcohol use or other topics related to delinquency. Regarding program characteristics, we examined the program duration (in hours), the level of confrontation (high, e.g., verbal intimidation, confrontational lectures, strutting, yelling, or bullying; moderate, some provocation and baiting of the juveniles by inmates, but not as much as in confrontational programs; or low, educational instead of confrontational sessions, in which [ex-]prisoners shared their life stories and describe the choices they made that led to imprisonment), whether a program is offered inside or outside a prison facility, and whether or not parents are involved in a program. We also examined the effect of the following study design characteristics: sample size, dropout percentage, sample type (delinquents, nondelinquents), sex of the sample (boys, girls, both), mean age of the sample, percentage of racial minorities in the sample, research design of the study (randomized controlled trial [RCT] vs. quasi-experimental), follow-up length of an assessment (in months), type of measurement (official records, self-report, parent report), and type of outcome (level of delinquency, attitudes, other nonattitude risk factors for delinquency).

Sample of Studies

For selecting relevant studies, several criteria were formulated. First, we selected studies that examined the effects of (a) programs involving organized visits to prison facilities for juvenile delinquents or youths at risk of becoming delinquent with the aim to prevent or deter them from juvenile delinquency and (b) programs in which juveniles come into contact with prisoners or ex-prisoners visiting schools, with the aim to increase (prison) awareness and thereby prevent delinquency. Second, samples of primary studies had to consist of juvenile delinquents (aged about 12–20 years) or youths at risk of delinquency. The latter group was defined as troubled youths who had not (yet) been officially adjudicated as delinquents ( Petrosino et al., 2013 ), or as youths with an increased risk of delinquency due to the presence of one or more risk factors, such as a disadvantaged neighborhood, a low family social economic status, and a low educational level. Third, primary studies had to report on levels of offending behavior after a program was ended (assessed using official records and/or self-report instruments), attitudes toward delinquency and/or punishment, or levels of risk factors for delinquency (e.g., school dropout, having delinquent friends, impulsiveness). Fourth, the study had to be experimental (i.e., a treatment group was compared with a comparison group of juveniles who did not participate in a juvenile awareness program). Fifth, RCTs and high-quality quasi-experimental studies were included. A quasi-experimental study was considered “high-quality” in case (a) participants were assigned to conditions by odd/even assignment and/or (b) an adequate matching procedure was used and group equality was measured at pretest. Although RCTs can be regarded as the “golden standard” in effectiveness studies ( Farrington, 2003 ), we decided to include both RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, as juvenile awareness programs have been examined in RCTs to a limited extent, and because of their clinical representativeness ( Shadish et al., 2000 ). Besides, by including both RCTs and quasi-experimental studies, the power in the statistical analyses can be increased, generalizability of the results is enhanced, and relevant results may be obtained that could have been missed in a synthesis of merely RCTs. Sixth, both published and unpublished studies, such as government reports and doctoral dissertations, were included to reduce the risk of (publication) bias in the results and to increase the representativeness and generalizability of our study findings. Seventh, studies had to report actual effect sizes, or sufficient statistical information that is required for calculating an effect size manually (e.g., contingency tables, mean scores and standard deviations, or proportions). Finally, no date restrictions were set in our search, and articles had to be written in English.

Search Strategy

Until October 2017, we searched for articles, book chapters, dissertations, and reports in the following five electronic databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Google, and Web of Science. In searching these databases, the following keywords were used in different combinations reflecting the study design, type of program, study outcomes, and participants that we were interested in: “experiment,” “quasi-experiment,” “randomized control*,” “RCT,” “evaluat*,” “effect*,” “prison awareness,” “prison aversion,” “juvenile awareness,” “delinquen*,” “criminal*,” “attitude,” “prisoner*,” and “detainee*.” To assess the retrieved studies against all formulated inclusion criteria, we read titles, abstracts, and, if necessary, full article texts.

Next, studies were searched by screening the reference list of the meta-analysis of Petrosino and colleagues (2013) . We also contacted several scholars by email to request for published and unpublished studies that would meet our inclusion criteria. Finally, we screened the reference list of each primary study that was eligible for inclusion for additional relevant studies. The full search procedure is depicted in the flow diagram presented in Figure 1 . The search yielded 28 relevant studies of which 13 studies met the inclusion criteria.

Flowchart of the study selection procedure.

Study Coding

A coding scheme was developed for coding all study design, sample, outcome, and intervention characteristics that we were interested in. In developing this scheme, the guidelines of Lipsey and Wilson (2001) were followed. In the first coding round, the first and second authors independently coded seven randomly selected studies that were eligible for inclusion. All codings of both raters were compared, and coding inconsistencies were discussed and resolved until both authors agreed on all final coding decisions. In case consensus on a coding could not be reached, the last author was consulted and acted as an arbitrator. This first round ended with improving the coding procedure and code form, where appropriate. In the second coding round, the second author coded the remaining six studies.

Regarding the study design characteristics , we coded publication year, publication type (peer-reviewed article, research report, dissertation, book, government report), and research design (RCT, quasi-experimental study). Next, sample characteristics were coded. Information was collected on the total sample size, dropout percentage, sample type (nondelinquents, delinquents), sex of participants in the sample (boys, girls, both boys and girls), the mean age of participants in the sample, age range (oldest−youngest participant), and percentage of racial minorities in the sample. As for the outcome characteristics , we coded follow-up length of an assessment (in months), type of measurement (official records, self-report, parent report), and type of outcome measure (delinquency [frequency or severity], attitude toward crime [e.g., attitude toward obeying the law], attitude toward punishment [e.g., attitude toward prison and the practice of punishing criminals], and other nonattitude risk factors for delinquency [e.g., school dropout, having delinquent friends, impulsiveness, hostility, low inhibition, and poor family relationship]).

Regarding intervention characteristics , we coded the duration of the program (in hours), the level of confrontation used in the program (high [e.g., verbal intimidation, confrontational lectures, strutting, yelling, or bullying], moderate [some provocation and baiting of the juveniles by inmates, but not as much as in confrontational programs], or low [educational instead of confrontational sessions, in which [ex-]prisoners shared their life stories and described the choices they made that led to imprisonment]), whether the program was offered inside or outside a prison facility, whether parents were involved in the program (yes/no), and the intervention form (only group sessions or both individual and group sessions). As for intervention content , we coded whether the following components were present or absent in a juvenile awareness program: rap session in which adult inmates shared graphic stories about prison life with juveniles, temporary confinement of juveniles, providing a guided tour of a prison facility, visitation (juveniles are [body-]searched and personal items are taken away and held during the program), dialogue (discussion with inmates), counseling, and attending a presentation, for example, about drug and alcohol use or other topics related to delinquency.

Calculation of Effect Sizes

All effects of a juvenile awareness program as reported in each primary study were transformed into Cohen’s d , as participants attending a program in the experimental group were compared with nonattending participants in the control group. For calculating Cohen’s d based on the information that was reported in primary studies, formulas of Ferguson (1966) , Lipsey and Wilson (2001) , and Rosenthal (1994) were used. In most cases, Cohen’s d was calculated by using proportions, or means and standard deviations. When raw outcome data were not reported in a study, we transformed a test statistic ( F value, z value, χ 2 value, or t value) into Cohen’s d .

In extracting and calculating effect sizes, it was important that program effects were properly expressed in d values, which could be either positive or negative. A positive d value indicated lower levels of delinquency, less negative attitudes, or lower levels of risk factors in the experimental group relative to the control group. However, a negative d value indicated higher levels of delinquency, more negative attitudes, or higher levels of risk factors in the experimental group than in the control group.

All data were entered in SPSS Version 24. In preparing the data set for the analyses, the continuous variables that were to be tested as moderators were centered around their mean, and each category of potential moderating discrete variables were recoded into a dummy variable. Next, standardized scores were calculated to search for outliers, because extreme values of effect sizes may have a disproportionate influence on the results of the statistical analyses. No d values were found with a Z score above 3.29 or lower than −3.29 ( Tabachnik & Fidell, 2013 ), so no outliers were identified.

Statistical Analyses

A three-level meta-analysis was conducted for estimating the overall effect of juvenile awareness programs, and to test variables as moderators of this effect. In this approach, there is no need for selecting or aggregating outcomes reported in primary studies, as dependency between outcomes is modeled in this three-level approach to meta-analysis. This implies that all relevant effect sizes can be extracted from each primary study (see, for instance, Assink & Wibbelink, 2016 ). In contrast, Petrosino et al. (2013) used a classical two-level approach, implying that only one effect size could be extracted from an included study. After all, a key assumption in meta-analysis is that effect sizes need to be independent, so extracting multiple effect sizes based on the same sample would violate this assumption in traditional approaches to meta-analysis (see, for instance, Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ).

To deal with dependency of effect sizes in meta-analysis, a multilevel random effects model can be used for calculating a combined effect size and conducting moderator analyses ( Hox, 2002 ; Van den Noortgate & Onghena, 2003 ). As noted by Van den Noortgate and Onghena (2003) , who compared the multilevel approach with the traditional fixed-effects approaches, the former seems to be superior in conducting meta-analyses. They also concluded that for models without moderators, the results of the multilevel approach did not differ substantially from results of the traditional random-effects approaches.

In a three-level meta-analytic model, three sources of variance are modeled: random sampling variation of observed effect sizes (Level 1), variance between effect sizes within studies (Level 2), and variance between studies (Level 3; Van den Noortgate et al., 2013 , 2015 ). For estimating the overall effect, we built an intercept-only model without any covariates. In this model, the intercept represented the overall effect. Next, we examined the significance of the variance distributed at Levels 2 and 3 of the three-level model by performing two separate one-tailed log-likelihood ratio tests. If the variance distributed at one of these levels is significant, the distribution of effect sizes can be assumed to be heterogeneous, implying that moderator analyses can be conducted to examine what study design or intervention characteristics may explain Level 2 and/or Level 3 variance. In performing these moderator analyses, the intercept-only model was extended by adding covariates (i.e., the potential moderating variables that we coded) to the model. In determining the significance of all estimated regression coefficients, the Knapp and Hartung (2003) adjustment was applied, implying that the t and F distributions (rather than the z distribution) were used. This adjustment reduces the number of unjustified significant results, as this is a problem with using the z distribution (see, for instance, Li et al., 1994 ; Ziegler et al., 2001 ).

All analyses were performed using the statistical software package R (Version 3.4.2) and the metafor package ( Viechtbauer, 2010 ). The manual written by Assink and Wibbelink (2016) was followed in writing the syntaxes. Results were considered “significant” when the 5% significance level was reached, and “nonsignificant trend” when the 10% significance level was reached.

Publication Bias

One of the problems in meta-analysis is publication bias, also referred to as the “file drawer problem” by Rosenthal (1995) , which implies that studies producing nonsignificant or negative results are less likely to be published than studies producing positive and significant results. Therefore, the studies included in a review may not be an adequate representation of all available studies relevant to a particular subject, and thus the results may be biased. To examine whether the results of the present meta-analysis were affected by (different forms of) bias, we conducted the nonparametric and funnel plot–based trim-and-fill analysis as described by Duval and Tweedie (2000a , 2000b ). In this analysis, the symmetry of the funnel plot—in which effect sizes are plotted against their standard error—is tested. Bias may be present if the funnel is asymmetric. In case of an asymmetric funnel, the symmetry can be restored by imputing “missing” effect sizes that are estimated on the basis of existing effect sizes in the data set. After imputing the “missing” effect sizes, an adjusted overall effect can be estimated.

Descriptive Characteristics

In the present meta-analysis, k = 13 studies published between 1967 and 1992 (median publication year is 1981) were included. In total, 88 effect sizes could be extracted from these studies. The included studies comprised peer-reviewed articles ( k = 5), research reports ( k = 3), dissertations ( k = 3), one book ( k = 1), and one unpublished government report ( k = 1). The total number of participants examined in all included studies was N = 1,536 youths and young adults, and the sample size of primary studies ranged from 28 to 300. The age of participants ranged from 7 to 20 years, and the mean age of participants was 15.48 years ( SD = 0.74 years). The mean percentage of boys in primary study samples was 92.1% ( SD = 6.51%). All included studies were conducted in the United States. Table 1 presents an overview of all included studies with several study characteristics.

Characteristics of Included Studies.

Note. Pub. year = publication year; N = total sample size; FU = follow-up duration in months; T-JTA = Taylor-Johnson Temperament analysis; LC = Levenson’s locus of control scale; TN = Tennesse Self Concept Scale; ATOL = attitudes toward obeying the law; ATPC = attitude toward punishment of criminals; SD = semantic differential scale; PH = Piers-Harris Childrens’s Self-Concept Scale; OSIQ = Offer Self-Image Questionnaire.

Overall Effect and Heterogeneity in Effect Sizes

A nonsignificant overall effect was found of d = 0.099, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [−0.040, 0.238], t (87) = 1.420, p = .159 (see Table 2 ). The two log-likelihood ratio tests revealed significant variance at both Level 2, χ²(1) = 13.628, p < .001, one sided, and Level 3, χ²(1) = 7.894, p < .010, one-sided, of the three-level meta-analytic model. Of the total variance, 31.0% and 29.0% were distributed at Levels 2 and 3, respectively, and 40.0% was the percentage of sampling variance that was calculated using the formula of Cheung (2014) . The results of the trim-and-fill analysis showed that bias may be present in the data, because the distribution of effect sizes was asymmetrical. Figure 2 shows that four effect sizes (from three studies) had to be imputed in the left side of the funnel to restore the symmetry of the effect size distribution. After imputing these four effect sizes and reestimating the overall effect, a lower effect was obtained of d = 0.020, 95% CI = [−0.146, 0.186], t (91) = 0.241, p = .810, Δ d = 0.079.

Results of the Moderator Analyses (Bivariate Models).

Note. # Studies = number of studies; # ES = number of effect sizes; mean d = mean effect size expressed in Cohen’s d ; CI = confidence interval; β 1 = estimated regression coefficient; df = degrees of freedom; RCT = randomized controlled trial; RC = randomized controlled.

Funnel plot.

Note. A contour enhanced funnel plot is presented with the standard error on the y axis and Cohen’s d on the x axis. The black dots denote the observed effect sizes, whereas the white dots denote the filled effect sizes. The solid vertical line represents the overall mean effect.

Moderator Effects

Table 2 shows the results of the moderator analyses. As for the study characteristics, a significant moderating effect was found for publication year. The overall effect increased as studies were published more recently (β 1 = 0.038, p < .05). Furthermore, a significant moderating effect was found for type of measurement. Official record assessments produced a lower mean effect ( d = −0.055) than self-report assessments ( d = 0.320). Furthermore, the type of outcome significantly moderated the overall effect. The mean effect was larger when delinquency risk factors ( d = 0.197), attitudes toward delinquency ( d = 0.460), and attitudes toward punishment ( d = 0.347) were assessed relative to the assessment of delinquency ( d = −0.019). Furthermore, the overall effect significantly increased as the follow-up duration increased (β 1 = 0.042, p < .05). To test this moderator separately for delinquency outcomes, delinquency attitudes and risk factors for delinquency, three additional moderator analyses were performed. In these moderator analyses, the follow-up length was tested as a binary categorical moderator with a category for a follow-up length of 0 to 6 months and a category for a follow-up length of more than 6 months. The results are shown in Table 3 . All moderator effects yielded significant results ( p < .05), meaning that for all outcome types, larger effects were found for a longer follow-up length. The mean effects for assessments with a follow-up length of more than 6 months were positive, although this mean effect did not significantly deviate from zero for delinquency outcomes (see Table 3 ). Finally, no moderating effects were found for intervention characteristics. The presence (or absence) of specific program components, the level of confrontation, and the duration and setting of programs did not significantly explain variance in effect sizes.

Results of the Moderator Analysis Testing Follow-Up Length Separately for Delinquency and Attitude Outcomes.

Note. # Studies = number of studies; # ES = number of effect sizes; mean Z = mean effect size expressed in Cohen’s Z ; CI = confidence interval; β 1 = estimated regression coefficient; df = degrees of freedom; Level 2 variance = residual variance in effect sizes within studies.

Juvenile awareness programs remain in use despite the finding that these programs provoke rather than prevent delinquency ( Petrosino et al., 2002 , 2013 ). The aim of the present study was to contribute to a better understanding of why these programs are not effective in preventing juvenile delinquency by unraveling program components that are negatively associated with program effectiveness from components that are positively associated with program effectiveness. A literature search yielded 13 independent studies ( N = 1,536) from which 88 effect sizes could be extracted. A three-level meta-analysis was conducted to determine the overall effect of juvenile awareness programs on delinquent behavior, prodelinquent attitudes, attitudes toward punishment, and other risk factors for delinquency (e.g., school dropout, having delinquent friends, being hostile). A nonsignificant overall effect was found ( d = 0.099), indicating that juvenile awareness programs have no positive or negative effect on offending behavior and other outcomes that are related to delinquency. The results of the trim-and-fill analysis suggested that bias may have been present in the data, and, therefore, a “corrected” overall effect was estimated, resulting in a smaller and also nonsignificant effect size of d = 0.020. Because there are several methodological shortcomings of the trim-and-fill method (see below), this corrected effect size should not be interpreted as an estimate of the true effect size, but only as an indicator of (possible) bias in the data.

Program effects were significantly larger when delinquency risk factors ( d = 0.197), attitudes toward delinquency ( d = 0.460), and attitudes toward punishment ( d = 0.347) were measured, relative to direct measures of delinquency ( d = −0.019). So, juvenile awareness programs have a significant positive effect on attitudes toward delinquency and attitudes toward punishment. There may also be a positive effect of juvenile awareness programs on levels of risk factors for delinquency, such as school dropout, having delinquent friends, and being hostile, as we found a nonsignificant trend. The larger effects of programs on attitudes may be explained by the observation that a change in attitude generally precedes a change in behavior (see, for example, the behavior change model of de Vries, 2017 ). Consequently, a follow-up of substantial length may be required to measure a change in delinquent behavior, whereas a follow-up of rather short length may be sufficient to measure a change in attitude. In line with this reasoning, we found that juvenile awareness programs are more effective as the follow-up length increased, indicating that relatively long follow-up periods may be necessary for properly measuring program effects on delinquent behavior. In fact, the mean follow-up duration in the included studies was only 5.12 months ( SD = 4.59 months).

There are two main differences between the meta-analysis of Petrosino and colleagues (2013) and the present study. First, Petrosino and colleagues only synthesized immediate posttreatment effects (i.e., “first-effects”), even though primary studies reported multiple follow-up measurements. In contrast, all posttreatment effects were included and synthesized in the present meta-analysis. Second, Petrosino and colleagues included only effect sizes that were based on officially recorded offending behavior, whereas the present study also included effect sizes that were based on self-reported offending behavior as well as other outcomes that are related to delinquency, such as risk factors for delinquency, attitudes toward punishment, and prodelinquent attitudes. Because we used a three-level meta-analytic design, all effect sizes could be extracted from each included primary study, implying that the maximum relevant information could be retained. Consequently, we believe that the finding of Petrosino and colleagues, that juvenile awareness programs increase instead of prevent delinquency, deserves to be nuanced for two reasons. For one, this is the first meta-analysis showing that juvenile awareness programs are effective in reducing antisocial attitudes. Perhaps these programs even reduce levels of risk factors for delinquency, but as a nonsignificant trend was found, this needs to be examined in future research before firm conclusions can be drawn. Second, program effects seem to increase as follow-up length increases. This was found in the analysis of both delinquency and antisocial attitude outcomes, with a mean positive effect for assessments that were performed with a follow-up length of more than 6 months. However, for delinquency outcomes, this mean effect did not significantly deviate from zero.

Regarding the effectiveness of program components, such as level of confrontation, involvement of parents, and individual counseling, no significant moderating effects were found, suggesting that these components are about equally associated with program effectiveness. So, for example, there is no evidence that juvenile awareness programs with high levels of confrontation (e.g., telling stories about rape and murder to depict the harsh reality of prison life) perform better or worse than programs with low levels of confrontation, which may be more educational in nature. Based on the current results, we have no better understanding of why juvenile awareness programs are not effective and how these programs can be improved, because no individual components were significantly associated with the effectiveness of juvenile awareness programs. However, the current results do show a somewhat more positive picture of program effectiveness than the previous meta-analysis ( Petrosino et al., 2013 ), given the improvements in antisocial attitudes, and the positive moderating effect of follow-up length.

Several limitations need to be addressed. First, only a small number of empirical studies on the effect of juvenile awareness programs on offending behavior and/or other outcomes related to delinquency is available. Therefore, only 13 studies were included in the current review. However, the three-level approach to meta-analysis allowed us to extract multiple effect sizes from most included studies. An important advantage of the three-level approach is that all relevant information produced in primary studies can be preserved and maximum statistical power can be achieved ( Assink & Wibbelink, 2016 ). Second, we were not able to find any recent published or unpublished study on the effectiveness of a juvenile awareness program. The included studies were published between 1967 and 1992, indicating that many years have passed since the included studies were published and that the time frame in which these studies were performed was rather long. Most probably, this affects the generalizability of the current results, because over time, social and societal changes took place that have influenced the prevalence of crime and the attitude toward (punishment of) delinquent behavior. This underlines that new rigorously designed and controlled studies examining the effectiveness of juvenile awareness programs are needed.

A third limitation is that we were not able to find any studies on the effectiveness of programs in which ex-prisoners visit schools instead of children visiting prisons, and, therefore, no conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of such programs. Furthermore, we could only find studies conducted in the United States, even though juvenile awareness programs have also been implemented in several other countries. Fourth, the reported information in some primary studies was limited. For instance, three studies reported insufficient information on specific program components and were, therefore, not valuable in the moderator analyses that were performed for examining how individual program components are associated with program effectiveness. These analyses were, therefore, based on only a small number of effect sizes, resulting in a rather low statistical power and the impossibility to perform these analyses separately for the different outcomes. Consequently, there may be a true moderating effect of several program components and/or characteristics, which we were unable to detect in the present review. Finally, due to the lack of descriptive information in the primary studies, a full and proper assessment of the risk of bias in each included study could not be performed. However, to examine whether the overall effect of juvenile awareness programs was influenced by risk of bias in individual studies, the moderating effect of three study quality variables was analyzed. Specifically, we tested whether the estimated overall effect was influenced by the research design of primary studies (quasi-experimental vs. RCT), sample size, and sample dropout. None of these variables were significant moderators, implying that our estimated overall effect was, at least to some extent, robust to bias in the results reported in the included studies.

Despite these limitations, this study provides an important contribution to our knowledge on the effectiveness of juvenile awareness programs. This review showed that juvenile awareness programs have a positive effect on attitudes toward delinquency and attitudes toward punishment. Our study also showed that the effectiveness of these programs increases as the follow-up length increases, indicating that longer follow-up periods are necessary to properly measure effects of juvenile awareness programs on delinquent behavior. It seems that most studies on the effectiveness of juvenile awareness programs that are currently available are restricted, in the sense that, the follow-up duration is too short for properly assessing program effects. In fact, in most studies, the assessment was exclusively performed immediately after the program was ended. Several studies on the effectiveness of other preventive interventions also found larger positive intervention effects in later follow-up assessments than in immediate postintervention assessments (e.g., van der Put et al., 2018 ), which may be attributed to sleeper effects of interventions ( Maurer et al., 2007 ). Sleeper effects imply that positive intervention effects—at least to some extent—need time to emerge after the interventions has ended.

This review is in particular a call for future rigorously designed RCTs on the effectiveness of juvenile awareness programs. After all, no studies have been performed in the past 25 years, despite the fact that juvenile awareness programs are still quite popular and remain in use worldwide. It is particularly important that follow-up assessments of substantial length are part of the design of future studies, so that the effectiveness of (components of) these programs can be better grasped. In addition, because of the popularity of programs in which ex-prisoners visit schools instead of children visiting prisons, it is also important that the different types of awareness programs are examined. Offering these programs may be an interesting prevention strategy, because the programs are easy to implement at low costs and may have benefits for both the juveniles and the ex-prisoners. In general, effects of preventive programs on juvenile delinquency are only small ( de Vries et al., 2015 ), because such programs are aimed at juveniles of who a considerable proportion would not have started committing offenses, regardless of attending a preventive program. However, even small effects can be very meaningful in clinical practice. Future high-quality research is needed to better grasp the effects of juvenile awareness programs, and to make more informative decisions on whether or not these programs should be implemented.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

*References marked with an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis.

Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice (2001)

Chapter: the development of delinquency, the development of delinquency.

Research over the past few decades on normal child development and on development of delinquent behavior has shown that individual, social, and community conditions as well as their interactions influence behavior. There is general agreement that behavior, including antisocial and delinquent behavior, is the result of a complex interplay of individual biological and genetic factors and environmental factors, starting during fetal development and continuing throughout life (Bock and Goode, 1996). Clearly, genes affect biological development, but there is no biological development without environmental input. Thus, both biology and environment influence behavior.

Many children reach adulthood without involvement in serious delinquent behavior, even in the face of multiple risks. Although risk factors may help identify which children are most in need of preventive interventions, they cannot identify which particular children will become serious or chronic offenders. It has long been known that most adult criminals were involved in delinquent behavior as children and adolescents; most delinquent children and adolescents, however, do not grow up to be adult criminals (Robins, 1978). Similarly, most serious, chronically delinquent children and adolescents experience a number of risk factors at various levels, but most children and adolescents with risk factors do not become serious, chronic delinquents. Furthermore, any individual factor contributes only a small part to the increase in risk. It is, however, widely recognized that the more risk factors a child or adolescent experiences, the higher their risk for delinquent behavior.

A difficulty with the literature on risk factors is the diversity of the outcome behaviors studied. Some studies focus on behavior that meets diagnostic criteria for conduct disorder or other antisocial behavior disorders; others look at aggressive behavior, or lying, or shoplifting; still others rely on juvenile court referral or arrest as the outcome of interest. Furthermore, different risk factors and different outcomes may be more salient at some stages of child and adolescent development than at others.

Much of the literature that has examined risk factors for delinquency is based on longitudinal studies, primarily of white males. Some of the samples were specifically chosen from high-risk environments. Care must be taken in generalizing this literature to girls and minorities and to general populations. Nevertheless, over the past 20 years, much has been learned about risks for antisocial and delinquent behavior.

This chapter is not meant to be a comprehensive overview of all the literature on risk factors. Rather it focuses on factors that are most relevant to prevention efforts. (For reviews of risk factor literature, see, for example, Hawkins et al., 1998; Lipsey and Derzon, 1998; Rutter et al., 1998.) The chapter discusses risk factors for offending, beginning with risks at the individual level, including biological, psychological, behavioral, and cognitive factors. Social-level risk factors are discussed next; these include family and peer relationships. Finally, community-level risk factors, including school and neighborhood attributes, are examined. Although individual, social, and community-level factors interact, each level is discussed separately for clarity.

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL RISK FACTORS

A large number of individual factors and characteristics has been associated with the development of juvenile delinquency. These individual factors include age, gender, complications during pregnancy and delivery, impulsivity, aggressiveness, and substance use. Some factors operate before birth (prenatal) or close to, during, and shortly after birth (perinatal); some can be identified in early childhood; and other factors may not be evident until late childhood or during adolescence. To fully appreciate the development of these individual characteristics and their relations to delinquency, one needs to study the development of the individual in interaction with the environment. In order to simplify presentation of the research, however, this section deals only with individual factors.

Studies of criminal activity by age consistently find that rates of offending begin to rise in preadolescence or early adolescence, reach a peak in

late adolescence, and fall through young adulthood (see, e.g., Farrington, 1986a; National Research Council, 1986). Some lawbreaking experience at some time during adolescence is nearly universal in American children, although much of this behavior is reasonably mild and temporary. Although the exact age of onset, peak, and age of desistance varies by offense, the general pattern has been remarkably consistent over time, in different countries, and for official and self-reported data. For example, Farrington (1983, 1986a), in a longitudinal study of a sample of boys in London (the Cambridge Longitudinal Study), found an eightfold increase in the number of different boys convicted of delinquent behavior from age 10 to age 17, followed by a decrease to a quarter of the maximum level by age 24. The number of self-reported offenses in the same sample also peaked between ages 15 and 18, then dropped sharply by age 24. In a longitudinal study of boys in inner-city Pittsburgh (just over half the sample was black and just under half was white), the percentage of boys who self-reported serious delinquent behavior rose from 5 percent at age 6 to about 18 percent for whites and 27 percent for blacks at age 16 (Loeber et al., 1998). A longitudinal study of a representative sample from high-risk neighborhoods in Denver also found a growth in the self-reported prevalence of serious violence from age 10 through late adolescence (Kelley et al., 1997). Females in the Denver sample exhibited a peak in serious violence in midadolescence, but prevalence continued to increase through age 19 for the boys. The study is continuing to follow these boys to see if their prevalence drops in early adulthood. Laub et al. (1998), using the Gluecks' data on 500 juvenile offenders from the 1940s, found that only 25 percent of them were still offending by age 32.

Much research has concentrated on the onset of delinquency, examining risk factors for onset, and differences between those who begin offending early (prior to adolescence) versus those who begin offending in midadolescence. There have been suggestions that early-onset delinquents are more likely than later-onset delinquents to be more serious and persistent offenders (e.g., Moffitt, 1993). There is evidence, however, that predictors associated with onset do not predict persistence particularly well (Farrington and Hawkins, 1991). There are also important problems with the choice of statistical models to create categories of developmental trajectories (Nagin and Tremblay, 1999).

Research by Nagin and Tremblay (1999) found no evidence of late-onset physical aggression. Physical aggression was highest at age 6 (the earliest age for which data were collected for this study) and declined into adolescence. The available data on very young children indicates that frequency of physical aggression reaches a peak around age 2 and then slowly declines up to adolescence (Restoin et al., 1985; Tremblay et al., 1996a).

Those who persist in offending into adulthood may differ from those who desist in a number of ways, including attachment to school, military service (Elder, 1986; Sampson and Laub, 1996), sex, age of onset of offending, incarceration, and adult social bonds (e.g., marriage, quality of marriage, job stability) (Farrington and West, 1995; Quinton et al., 1993; Quinton and Rutter, 1988; Sampson and Laub, 1990). Sampson and Laub (1993) found that marital attachment and job stability significantly reduced deviant behavior in adulthood. Farrington and West (1995) found that offenders and nonoffenders were equally likely to get married, but those who got married and lived with their spouse decreased their offending more than those who remained single or who did not live with their spouse. They also found that offending increased after separation from a spouse. Similarly, Horney et al. (1995) found that married male offenders decreased their offending when living with their spouses and resumed it when not living with them. Within marriages, only good marriages predicted reduction in crime, and these had an increasing effect over time (Laub et al., 1998). Warr (1998) also found that offending decreased after marriage but attributed the decrease to a reduction in the time spent with peers and a reduction in the number of deviant peers following marriage rather than to increased attachment to conventional society through marriage.

Laub et al. (1998) found no difference between persisters and desisters in most family characteristics during childhood (e.g., poverty, parental alcohol abuse or crime, discipline, supervision) or in most individual differences in childhood (e.g., aggression, tantrums, difficult child, verbal IQ). Brannigan (1997) points out that crime is highest when males have the fewest resources, and it lasts longest in those with the fewest investments in society (job, wife, children). Crime is not an effective strategy for getting resources. There is evidence that chronic offenders gain fewer resources than nonoffenders, after the adolescent period (Moffitt, 1993).

The evidence for desistance in girls is not clear. One review of the literature suggests that 25 to 50 percent of antisocial girls commit crimes as adults (Pajer, 1998). There is also some evidence that women are less likely to be recidivists, and that they end their criminal careers earlier than men (Kelley et al., 1997). However, the sexes appear to become more similar with time in rates of all but violent crimes. There is a suggestion that women who persist in crime past adolescence may be more disturbed than men who persist (Jordan et al., 1996; Pajer, 1998).

Prenatal and Perinatal Factors

Several studies have found an association between prenatal and perinatal complications and later delinquent or criminal behavior (Kandel et

al., 1989; Kandel and Mednick, 1991; Raine et al., 1994). Prenatal and perinatal risk factors represent a host of latent and manifest conditions that influence subsequent development.

Many studies use the terms “prenatal or perinatal complications” to describe what is a very heterogeneous set of latent and clinical conditions. Under the heading of prenatal factors, one finds a broad variety of conditions that occurs before birth through the seventh month of gestation (Kopp and Krakow, 1983). Similarly, perinatal factors include conditions as varied as apnea of prematurity (poor breathing) to severe respiratory distress syndrome. The former condition is relatively benign, while the latter is often life-threatening. Although they are risk factors, low birthweight and premature birth do not necessarily presage problems in development.

Prenatal and perinatal risk factors may compromise the nervous system, creating vulnerabilities in the child that can lead to abnormal behavior. Children with prenatal and perinatal complications who live in impoverished, deviant, or abusive environments face added difficulties. According to three major large-scale, long-term studies: (1) developmental risks have additive negative effects on child outcomes, (2) most infants with perinatal complications develop into normally functioning children, and (3) children with long-term negative outcomes who suffered perinatal complications more often than not came from socially disadvantaged backgrounds (Brennan and Mednick, 1997; Broman et al., 1975; Drillien et al., 1980; Werner et al., 1971).

Mednick and colleagues (Brennan and Mednick, 1997; Kandel and Mednick, 1991; Raine et al., 1994) have conducted several investigations in an attempt to elucidate the relationship between criminal behavior and perinatal risk. These and other studies have been unable to identify specific mechanisms to account for the fact that the number of prenatal and perinatal abnormalities tend to correlate with the probability that a child will become a criminal. In addition to the lack of specificity regarding the predictors and the mechanisms of risk, similar measures predict learning disabilities, mental retardation, minimal brain dysfunction, and others (Towbin, 1978). An association between perinatal risk factors and violent offending is particularly strong among offenders whose parents are mentally ill or very poor (Raine et al., 1994, 1997).

Most measures indicate that males are more likely to commit crimes. They are also more vulnerable to prenatal and perinatal stress, as is shown through studies of negative outcomes, including death (Davis and Emory, 1995; Emory et al., 1996).

Hyperactivity, attention problems, and impulsiveness in children have been found to be associated with delinquency. These behaviors can be assessed very early in life and are associated with certain prenatal and perinatal histories (DiPietro et al., 1996; Emory and Noonan, 1984; Lester

et al., 1976; Sameroff and Chandler, 1975). For example, exposure to environmental toxins, such as prenatal lead exposure at very low levels, tends to adversely affect neonatal motor and attentional performance (Emory et al., 1999). Hyperactivity and aggression are associated with prenatal alcohol exposure (Brown et al., 1991; Institute of Medicine, 1996). Prenatal exposure to alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and nicotine appear to have similar effects. Each tends to be associated with hyperactivity, attention deficit, and impulsiveness (Karr-Morse and Wiley, 1997).

Individual Capabilities, Competencies, and Characteristics

In recent investigations, observable behaviors, such as duration of attention to a toy and compliance with mother's instructions not to touch an object, that are particularly relevant to later misbehavior are observable in the first year of life (Kochanska et al., 1998). However, the ability to predict behavior at later ages (in adolescence and adulthood) from such traits early in life is not yet known. Aggressive behavior is nevertheless one of the more stable dimensions, and significant stability may be seen from toddlerhood to adulthood (Tremblay, 2000).

The social behaviors that developmentalists study during childhood can be divided into two broad categories: prosocial and antisocial. Prosocial behaviors include helping, sharing, and cooperation, while antisocial behaviors include different forms of oppositional and aggressive behavior. The development of empathy, guilt feelings, social cognition, and moral reasoning are generally considered important emotional and cognitive correlates of social development.

Impulsivity and hyperactivity have both been associated with later antisocial behavior (Rutter et al., 1998). The social behavior characteristics that best predict delinquent behavior, however, are physical aggression and oppositionality (Lahey et al., 1999; Nagin and Tremblay, 1999). Most children start manifesting these behaviors between the end of the first and second years. The peak level in frequency of physical aggression is generally reached between 24 and 36 months, an age at which the consequences of the aggression are generally relatively minor (Goodenough, 1931; Sand, 1966; Tremblay et al., 1996a, 1999a). By entry into kindergarten, the majority of children have learned to use other means than physical aggression to get what they want and to solve conflicts. Those who have not learned, who are oppositional and show few prosocial behaviors toward peers, are at high risk of being rejected by their peers, of failing in school, and eventually of getting involved in serious delinquency (Farrington and Wikstrom, 1994; Huesmann et al., 1984; Miller and Eisenberg, 1988; Nagin and Tremblay, 1999; Tremblay et al., 1992a, 1994; White et al., 1990).

The differentiation of emotions and emotional regulation occurs during the 2-year period, from 12 months to 36 months, when the frequency of physical aggression increases sharply and then decreases almost as sharply (Tremblay, 2000; Tremblay et al., 1996a, 1999a). A number of longitudinal studies have shown that children who are behaviorally inhibited (shy, anxious) are less at risk of juvenile delinquency, while children who tend to be fearless, those who are impulsive, and those who have difficulty delaying gratification are more at risk of delinquent behavior (Blumstein et al., 1984; Ensminger et al., 1983; Kerr et al., 1997; Mischel et al., 1989; Tremblay et al., 1994).

A large number of studies report that delinquents have a lower verbal IQ compared with nondelinquents, as well as lower school achievement (Fergusson and Horwood, 1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Moffitt, 1997). Antisocial youth also tend to show cognitive deficits in the areas of executive functions 1 (Moffitt et al., 1994; Seguin et al., 1995), perception of social cues, and problem-solving processing patterns (Dodge et al., 1997; Huesmann, 1988). The association between cognitive deficits and delinquency remains after controlling for social class and race (Moffitt, 1990; Lynam et al., 1993). Few studies, however, have assessed cognitive functioning during the preschool years or followed the children into adolescence to understand the long-term link between early cognitive deficits and juvenile delinquency. The studies that did look at children 's early cognitive development have shown that poor language performance by the second year after birth, poor fine motor skills by the third year, and low IQ by kindergarten were all associated with later antisocial behavior (Kopp and Krakow, 1983; Stattin and Klackenberg-Larsson, 1993; White et al., 1990). Stattin and Klackenberg-Larsson (1993) found that the association between poor early language performance and later criminal behavior remained significant even after controlling for socioeconomic status.

Epidemiological studies have found a correlation between language delay and aggressive behavior (Richman et al., 1982). Language delays may contribute to poor peer relations that, in turn, result in aggression (Campbell, 1990a). The long-term impact of cognitively oriented preschool programs on the reduction of antisocial behavior is a more direct indication that fostering early cognitive development can play an important role in the prevention of juvenile delinquency (Schweinhart et al., 1993; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997). It is important to note that since poor cognitive abilities and problem behaviors in the preschool years also

lead to poor school performance, they probably explain a large part of the association observed during adolescence between school failure and delinquency (Fergusson and Horwood, 1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Tremblay et al., 1992).

Several mental health disorders of childhood have been found to put children at risk for future delinquent behavior. Conduct disorder is often diagnosed when a child is troublesome and breaking rules or norms but not necessarily doing illegal behavior, especially at younger ages. This behavior may include lying, bullying, cruelty to animals, fighting, and truancy. Most adolescents in U.S. society at some time engage in illegal behaviors, whether some kind of theft, aggression, or status offense. Many adolescents, in the period during which they engage in these behaviors, are likely to meet formal criteria for conduct disorder. Behavior characterized by willful disobedience and defiance is considered a different disorder (oppositional defiant disorder), but often occurs in conjunction with conduct disorder and may precede it.

Several prospective longitudinal studies have found that children with attention and hyperactivity problems, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, show high levels of antisocial and aggressive behavior (Campbell, 1990b; Hechtman et al., 1984; Loney et al., 1982; Sanson et al., 1993; Satterfield et al., 1982). Early hyperactivity and attention problems without concurrent aggression, however, appear not to be related to later aggressive behavior (Loeber, 1988; Magnusson and Bergman, 1990; Nagin and Tremblay, 1999), although a few studies do report such relationships (Gittelman et al., 1985; Mannuzza et al., 1993, 1991).

Another disorder that is often associated with antisocial behavior and conduct disorder is major depressive disorder, particularly in girls (Kovacs, 1996; Offord et al., 1986; Renouf and Harter, 1990). It is hypothesized that depression during adolescence may be “a central pathway through which girls' serious antisocial behavior develops ” (Obeidallah and Earls, 1999:1). In girls, conduct disorder may be a kind of manifestation of the hopelessness, frustration, and low self-esteem that often characterizes major depression.

For juveniles as well as adults, the use of drugs and alcohol is common among offenders. In 1998, about half of juvenile arrestees in the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program tested positive for at least one drug. In these same cities, 2 about two-thirds of adult arrestees tested

positive for at least one drug (National Institute of Justice, 1999). Of course, drug use is a criminal offense on its own, and for juveniles, alcohol use is also a status delinquent offense. A number of studies have consistently found that as the seriousness of offending goes up, so does the seriousness of drug use as measured both by frequency of use and type of drug (see Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998). In the longitudinal studies of causes and correlates of delinquency in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester (see Thornberry et al., 1995), serious offenders had a higher prevalence of drug and alcohol use than did minor offenders or nonoffenders. In addition, about three-quarters of drug users in each sample were also involved in serious delinquency (Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998). Similarly, in the Denver Youth Survey, serious offenders had the highest prevalence and frequency of use of alcohol and marijuana of all youth in the study. Nevertheless, only about one-third of serious delinquents were problem drug users (Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998).

Although there appears to be a relationship between alcohol and drug use and criminal delinquency, not all delinquents use alcohol or drugs, nor do all alcohol and drug users commit delinquent acts (other than the alcohol or drug use itself). Those who are both serious delinquents and serious drug users may be involved in a great deal of crime, however. Johnson et al. (1991) found that the small group (less than 5 percent of a national sample) who were both serious delinquents and serious drug users accounted for over half of all serious crimes. Neverthless, it would be premature to conclude that serious drug use causes serious crime (McCord, 2001).

Whatever characteristics individuals have, resulting personalities and behavior are influenced by the social environments in which they are raised. Characteristics of individuals always develop in social contexts.

SOCIAL FACTORS

Children's and adolescents' interactions and relationships with family and peers influence the development of antisocial behavior and delinquency. 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. This section will first consider factors within the family that have been found to be associated with the development of delinquency and then consider peer influences on delinquent behavior. Note that issues concerning poverty and race are dealt with under the community factors section of this chapter. Chapter 7 deals specifically with issues concerning race.

Family Influences

In assigning responsibility for childrearing to parents, most Western cultures place a heavy charge on families. Such cultures assign parents the task of raising children to follow society's rules for acceptable behavior. It should be no surprise, therefore, when families have difficulties with the task laid on them, that the product often is juvenile delinquency (Kazdin, 1997). Family structure (who lives in a household) and family functioning (how the family members treat one another) are two general categories under which family effects on delinquency have been examined.

Family Structure

Before embarking on a review of the effects of family structure, it is important to raise the question of mechanisms (Rutter et al., 1998). It may not be the family structure itself that increases the risk of delinquency, but rather some other factor that explains why that structure is present. Alternatively, a certain family structure may increase the risk of delinquency, but only as one more stressor in a series; it may be the number rather than specific nature of the stressors that is harmful.

Historically, one aspect of family structure that has received a great deal of attention as a risk factor for delinquency is growing up in a family that has experienced separation or divorce. 3 Although many studies have found an association between broken homes and delinquency (Farrington and Loeber, 1999; Rutter and Giller, 1983; Wells and Rankin, 1991; Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985), there is considerable debate about the meaning of the association. For example, longitudinal studies have found an increased level of conduct disorder and behavioral disturbance in children of divorcing parents before the divorce took place (Block et al., 1986; Cherlin et al., 1991). Capaldi and Patterson (1991) showed that disruptive parenting practices and antisocial personality of the parent(s) accounted for apparent effects of divorce and remarriage. Thus, it is likely that the 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). In their longitudinal study of family disruption, Juby and Farrington (2001) found that boys who stayed with their mothers following disruption had delinquency rates that were almost identical to those reared in intact families.

Being born and raised in a single-parent family has also been associated with increased risk of delinquency and antisocial behavior. Research that takes into account the socioeconomic conditions of single-parent households and other risks, including disciplinary styles and problems in supervising and monitoring children, show that these other factors account for the differential outcomes in these families. The important role of socioeconomic conditions is shown by the absence of differences in delinquency between children in single-parent and two-parent homes within homogeneous socioeconomic classes (Austin, 1978). Careful analyses of juvenile court cases in the United States shows that economic conditions rather than family composition influenced children 's delinquency (Chilton and Markle, 1972). Statistical controls for the mothers' age and poverty have been found to remove effects attributed to single-parent families (Crockett et al., 1993). Furthermore, the significance of being born to a single mother has changed dramatically over the past 30 years. In 1970, 10.7 percent of all births in the United States were to unmarried women (U.S. Census Bureau, 1977). By 1997, births to unmarried women accounted for 32.4 percent of U.S. births (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). As Rutter and colleagues (1998:185) noted about similar statistics in the United Kingdom: “It cannot be assumed that the risks for antisocial behavior (from being born to a single parent) evident in studies of children born several decades ago will apply to the present generation of births. ” Recent work seems to bear out this conclusion. Gorman-Smith and colleagues found no association between single parenthood and delinquency in a poor, urban U.S. community (Gorman-Smith et al., 1999).

Nevertheless, children in single-parent families are more likely to be exposed to other criminogenic influences, such as frequent changes in the resident father figure (Johnson, 1987; Stern et al., 1984). Single parents often find it hard to get assistance (Ensminger et al., 1983; Spicer and Hampe, 1975). If they must work to support themselves and their families, they are likely to have difficulty providing supervision for their children. Poor supervision is associated with the development of delinquency (Dornbusch et al., 1985; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Hirschi, 1969; Jensen, 1972; Maccoby, 1958; McCord, 1979, 1982). Summarizing their work on race, family structure, and delinquency in white and black families, Matsueda and Heimer (1987:836) noted: “Yet in both racial groups non-intact homes influence delinquency through a similar process—by attenuating parental supervision, which in turn increases delinquent companions, prodelinquent definitions, and, ultimately, delinquent behavior.” It looks as if the effects of living with a single parent vary with the amount of supervision, as well as the emotional and economic resources that the parent is able to bring to the situation.

A number of studies have found that children born to teenage mothers

are more likely to be not only delinquent, but also chronic juvenile offenders (Farrington and Loeber, 1999; Furstenberg et al., 1987; Kolvin et al., 1990; Maynard, 1997; Nagin et al., 1997). An analysis of children born in 1974 and 1975 in Washington state found that being born to a mother under age 18 tripled the risk of being chronic offender. Males born to unmarried mothers under age 18 were 11 times more likely to become chronic juvenile offenders than were males born to married mothers over the age of 20 (Conseur et al., 1997).

What accounts for the increase in risk from having a young mother? Characteristics of women who become teenage parents appear to account for some of the risk. Longitudinal studies in both Britain and the United States have found that girls who exhibit antisocial behavior are at increased risk of teenage motherhood, of having impulsive liaisons with antisocial men, and of having parenting difficulties (Maughan and Lindelow, 1997; Quinton et al., 1993; Quinton and Rutter, 1988). In Grogger's analysis of data from the National Longitudinal Study of youth, both within-family comparisons and multivariate analysis showed that the characteristics and backgrounds of the women who became teenage mothers accounted for a large part of the risk of their offsprings' delinquency (Grogger, 1997), but the age at which the mother gave birth also contributed to the risk. A teenager who becomes pregnant is also more likely than older mothers to be poor, to be on welfare, to have curtailed her education, and to deliver a baby with low birthweight. Separately or together, these correlates of teenage parenthood have been found to increase risk for delinquency (Rutter et al., 1998). Nagin et al. (1997), in an analysis of data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, found that the risk of criminality was increased for children in large families born to women who began childbearing as a teenager. They concluded that “the onset of early childbearing is not a cause of children's subsequent problem behavior, but rather is a marker for a set of behaviors and social forces that give rise to adverse consequences for the life chances of children” (Nagin et al., 1997:423).

Children raised in families of four or more children have an increased risk of delinquency (Farrington and Loeber, 1999; Rutter and Giller, 1983). It has been suggested that large family size is associated with less adequate discipline and supervision of children, and that it is the parenting difficulties that account for much of the association with delinquency (Farrington and Loeber, 1999). Work by Offord (1982) points to the influence of delinquent siblings rather than to parenting qualities. Rowe and Farrington (1997), in an analysis of a London longitudinal study, found that there was a tendency for antisocial individuals to have large families. The effect of family size on delinquency was reduced when parents' criminality was taken into account.

Family Interaction

Even in intact, two-parent families, children may not receive the supervision, training, and advocacy needed to ensure a positive developmental course. A number of studies have found that poor parental management and disciplinary practices are associated with the development of delinquent behavior. Failure to set clear expectations for children 's behavior, inconsistent discipline, excessively severe or aggressive discipline, and poor monitoring and supervision of children predict later delinquency (Capaldi and Patterson, 1996; Farrington, 1989; Hawkins et al., 1995b; McCord, 1979). As Patterson (1976, 1995) indicates through his research, parents who nag or use idle threats are likely to generate coercive systems in which children gain control through misbehaving. Several longitudinal studies investigating the effects of punishment on aggressive behavior have shown that physical punishments are more likely to result in defiance than compliance (McCord, 1997b; Power and Chapieski, 1986; Strassberg et al., 1994). Perhaps the best grounds for believing that family interaction influences delinquency are programs that alter parental management techniques and thereby benefit siblings as well as reduce delinquent behavior by the child whose conduct brought the parents into the program (Arnold et al., 1975; Kazdin, 1997; Klein et al., 1977; Tremblay et al., 1995).

Consistent discipline, supervision, and affection help to create well-socialized adolescents (Austin, 1978; Bender, 1947; Bowlby, 1940; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Goldfarb, 1945; Hirschi, 1969; Laub and Sampson, 1988; McCord, 1991; Sampson and Laub, 1993). Furthermore, reductions in delinquency between the ages of 15 and 17 years appear to be related to friendly interaction between teenagers and their parents, a situation that seems to promote school attachment and stronger family ties (Liska and Reed, 1985). In contrast, children who have suffered parental neglect have an increased risk of delinquency. Widom (1989) and McCord (1983) both found that children who had been neglected were as likely as those who had been physically abused to commit violent crimes later in life. In their review of many studies investigating relationships between socialization in families and juvenile delinquency, Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) concluded that parental neglect had the largest impact.

Child abuse, as well as neglect, has been implicated in the development of delinquent behavior. In three quite different prospective studies from different parts of the country, childhood abuse and neglect have been found to increase a child's risk of delinquency (Maxfield and Widom, 1996; Smith and Thornberry, 1995; Widom, 1989; Zingraff et al., 1993). These studies examined children of different ages, cases of childhood abuse and neglect from different time periods, different definitions of

child abuse and neglect, and both official and self-reports of offending, but came to the same conclusions. The findings are true for girls as well as boys, and for black as well as for white children. In addition, abused and neglected children start offending earlier than children who are not abused or neglected, and they are more likely to become chronic offenders (Maxfield and Widom, 1996). Victims of childhood abuse and neglect are also at higher risk than other children of being arrested for a violent crime as a juvenile (Maxfield and Widom, 1996).

There are problems in carrying out scientific investigations of each of these components as predictors of juvenile delinquency. First, these behaviors are not empirically independent of one another. Parents who do not watch their young children consistently are less likely to prevent destructive or other unwanted behaviors and therefore more likely to punish. Parents who are themselves unclear about what they expect of their children are likely to be inconsistent and to be unclear in communications with their children. Parenting that involves few positive shared parent-child activities will often also involve less monitoring and more punishing. Parents who reject their children or who express hostility toward them are more likely to punish them. Parents who punish are more likely to punish too much (abuse).

Another problem is the lack of specificity of effects of problems in childrearing practices. In general, problems in each of these areas are likely to be associated with problems of a variety of types —performance and behavior in school, with peers, with authorities, and eventually with partners and offspring. There are also some children who appear to elicit punishing behavior from parents, and this may predate such parenting. Therefore, it is necessary to take account of children's behavior as a potential confounder of the relationship between early parenting and later child problems, because harsh parenting may be a response to a particular child's behavior (Tremblay, 1995). It is also possible that unnecessarily harsh punishment is more frequently and intensely used by parents who are themselves more aggressive and antisocial. Children of antisocial parents are at heightened risk for aggressive, antisocial, and delinquent behavior (e.g., McCord, 1991; Serbin et al., 1998).

Social Setting

Where a family lives affects the nature of opportunities that will be available to its members. In some communities, public transportation permits easy travel for those who do not own automobiles. Opportunities for employment and entertainment extend beyond the local boundaries. In other communities, street-corner gatherings open possibilities for illegal activities. Lack of socially acceptable opportunities leads to frustra-

tion and a search for alternative means to success. Community-based statistics show high correlations among joblessness, household disruption, housing density, infant deaths, poverty, and crime (Sampson, 1987, 1992).

Community variations may account for the fact that some varieties of family life have different effects on delinquency in different communities (Larzelere and Patterson, 1990; Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz, 1986). In general, consistent friendly parental guidance seems to protect children from delinquency regardless of neighborhoods. But poor socialization practices seem to be more potent in disrupted neighborhoods (McCord, 2000).

Neighborhoods influence children's behavior by providing examples of the values that people hold, and these examples influence children's perception of what is acceptable behavior. Communities in which criminal activities are common tend to establish criminal behavior as acceptable. Tolerance for gang activities varies by community (Curry and Spergel, 1988; Horowitz, 1987).

In sum, family life influences delinquency in a variety of ways. Children reared by affectionate, consistent parents are unlikely to commit serious crimes either as juveniles or as adults. Children reared by parents who neglect or reject them are likely to be greatly influenced by their community environments. When communities offer opportunities for and examples of criminal behavior, children reared by neglecting or rejecting parents are more likely to become delinquents. And delinquents are likely to become inadequate parents.

Peer Influences

A very robust finding in the delinquency literature is that antisocial behavior is strongly related to involvement with deviant peers. One longitudinal study reported that involvement with antisocial peers was the only variable that had a direct effect on subsequent delinquency other than prior delinquency (Elliott et al., 1985). Factors such as peer delinquent behavior, peer approval of deviant behavior, attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with adolescent antisocial behavior (Hoge et al., 1994; Thornberry et al., 1994). In other words, the effects of deviant peers on delinquency are heightened if adolescents believe that their peers approve of delinquency, if they are attached to those peers, if they spend much time with them, and if they perceive pressure from those peers to engage in delinquent acts.

There is a dramatic increase during adolescence in the amount of time adolescents spend with their friends, and peers become increasingly

important during this developmental period. Moreover, peers appear to be most important during late adolescence, with their importance peaking at about age 17 and declining thereafter (Warr, 1993). Thus the decline in delinquency after about age 18 parallels the decline in the importance of peers, including those with deviant influences. Consistent with this view, in the longitudinal research of antisocial British youth by West and Farrington (1977), deviant youth reported that withdrawal from delinquent peer affiliations was an important factor in desistance from offending.

Peer influences appear to have a particularly strong relationship to delinquency in the context of family conflict. For example, adolescents ' lack of respect for their parents influenced their antisocial behavior only because it led to increases in antisocial peer affiliations (Simmons et al., 1991). Patterson et al. (1991) showed that association with deviant peers in 6th grade could be predicted from poor parental monitoring and antisocial activity in 4th grade. And 6th grade association with deviant peers, in turn, predicted delinquency in 8th grade. In adolescence, susceptibility to peer influence is inversely related to interaction with parents (Kandel, 1980; Kandel and Andrews, 1987; Steinberg, 1987).

Other research suggests that adolescents usually become involved with delinquent peers before they become delinquent themselves (Elliott, 1994b; Elliott et al., 1985; Simons et al., 1994). In those cases in which an adolescent was delinquent prior to having delinquent friends, the delinquency was exacerbated by association with deviant peers (Elliott, 1994b; Elliott and Menard, 1996; Thornberry et al., 1993).

The influence of peers varies depending on the influence of parents. In general, peer influence is greater among children and adolescents who have little interaction with their parents (Kandel et al., 1978; Steinberg, 1987). Parents seem to have more influence on the use of drugs among working-class than among middle-class families, and among blacks more than whites (Biddle et al., 1980). Parents also appear to be more influential for the initial decision whether to use any drugs than for ongoing decisions about how and when to use them (Kandel and Andrews, 1987). Patterson and his coworkers emphasize both family socialization practices and association with deviant peers as having strong influences on the onset of delinquency. He hypothesized that “the more antisocial the child, the earlier he or she will become a member of a deviant peer group” (Patterson and Yoerger, 1997:152).

Adolescents report an increasing admiration of defiant and antisocial behavior and less admiration of conventional virtues and talents from age 10 to age 18. They also consistently report that their peers are more antisocial and less admiring of conventional virtues than they are. At age 11, boys report peer admiration of antisocial behavior at a level that is equivalent to what peers actually report at age 17 (Cohen and Cohen,

1996). Adolescents may be more influenced by what they think their peers are doing than by what they actually are doing (Radecki and Jaccard, 1995).

Not only may association with delinquent peers influence delinquent behavior, but also committing a crime with others—co-offending—is a common phenomenon among adolescents (Cohen, 1955; Reiss and Farrington, 1991; Reiss, 1988; Sarnecki, 1986). Much of this behavior occurs in relatively unstable pairings or small groups, not in organized gangs (Klein, 1971; Reiss, 1988). The fact that teenagers commit most of their crimes in pairs or groups does not, of course, prove that peers influence delinquency. Such an influence may be inferred, however, from the increase in crime that followed successful organization of gangs in Los Angeles (Klein, 1971). More direct evidence comes from a study by Dishion and his colleagues. Their research points to reinforcement processes as a reason why deviance increases when misbehaving youngsters get together. Delinquent and nondelinquent boys brought a friend to the laboratory. Conversations were videotaped and coded to show positive and neutral responses by the partner. Among the delinquent pairs, misbehavior received approving responses—in contrast with the nondelinquent dyads, who ignored talk about deviance (Dishion et al., 1996). In addition, reinforcement of deviant talk was associated with violent behavior, even after statistically controlling the boys ' histories of antisocial behavior and parental use of harsh, inconsistent, and coercive discipline (Dishion et al., 1997).

The powerful influence of peers has probably not been adequately acknowledged in interventions designed to reduce delinquency and antisocial behavior. Regarding school-based interventions, among the least effective, and at times harmful, are those that aggregate deviant youth without adult supervision, such as in peer counseling and peer mediation (Gottfredson et al., 1998). Furthermore, high-risk youth are particularly likely to support and reinforce one another 's deviant behavior (e.g., in discussions of rule breaking) when they are grouped together for intervention. Dishion and his colleagues have labeled this process “deviancy training,” which was shown to be associated with later increases in substance use, delinquency, and violence (see the review in Dishion et al., 1999). They argued that youth who are reinforced for deviancy through laughter or attention, for example, are more likely to actually engage in deviant behavior. It is evident that intervenors need to give serious attention to the composition of treatment groups, especially in school settings. It may be more fruitful to construct intervention groups so that low- and moderate-risk youth are included with their high-risk counterparts to minimize the possibility of deviancy training and harmful intervention effects.

Studies of gang participants suggest that, compared with offenders who are not gang members, gang offenders tend to be younger when they begin their criminal careers, are more likely to be violent in public places, and are more likely to use guns (Maxson et al., 1985). Several studies have shown that gang membership is associated with high rates of criminal activities (e.g., Battin et al., 1998; Esbensen et al., 1993; Huff, 1998; Thornberry, 1998; Thornberry et al., 1993). These and other studies (e.g., Pfeiffer, 1998) also suggest that gangs facilitate violence. The heightened criminality and violence of gang members seem not to be reducible to selection. That is, gang members do tend to be more active criminals prior to joining a gang than are their nonjoining, even delinquent peers. During periods of gang participation, however, gang members are more criminally active and more frequently violent than they were either before joining or after leaving gangs. Furthermore, some evidence suggests that gang membership had the greatest effects on those who had not previously committed crimes (Zhang et al., 1999). The literature on gang participation, however, does not go much beyond suggesting that there is a process that facilitates antisocial, often violent, behavior. Norms and pressure to conform to deviant values have been suggested as mechanisms. How and why these are effective has received little attention.

COMMUNITY FACTORS

School policies that affect juvenile delinquency.

Delinquency is associated with poor school performance, truancy, and leaving school at a young age (Elliott et al., 1978; Elliott and Voss, 1974; Farrington, 1986b; Hagan and McCarthy, 1997; Hawkins et al., 1998; Huizinga and Jakob-Chien, 1998; Kelly, 1971; Maguin and Loeber, 1996; Polk, 1975; Rhodes and Reiss, 1969; Thornberry and Christenson, 1984). To what extent do school policies contribute to these outcomes for high-risk youngsters? This section outlines what is known about the effects of some of the major school policies that have a particular impact on adolescent delinquents and those at risk for delinquency. The topics covered are grade retention, suspension, and expulsion as disciplinary techniques and academic tracking. These are complex topics about which there is a large literature. This section does not attempt to summarize that literature, but rather to highlight issues that appear to affect juvenile criminality.

Grade Retention

Grade retention refers to the practice of not promoting students to the next grade level upon completion of the current grade at the end of the

school year. Low academic achievement is the most frequent reason given by teachers who recommend retention for their students (Jimerson et al., 1997).

There is no precise national estimate of the number of youths who experience grade retention, but the practice was widespread in the 1990s. Contrary to the public perception that few students fail a grade (Westbury, 1994), it is estimated that approximately 15 to 19 percent of students experience grade retention.

Despite the intuitive appeal of retention as a mechanism for improving student performance, the retention literature overwhelmingly concludes that it is not as effective as promotion. Smith and Shepard (1987:130) summarize the effects of grade retention as follows:

The consistent conclusion of reviews is that children make progress during the year in which they repeat a grade, but not as much progress as similar children who were promoted. In controlled studies of the effect of nonpromotion on both achievement and personal adjustment, children who repeat a grade are worse off than comparable children who are promoted with their age-mates. Contrary to popular belief, the average negative effect of retention on achievement is even greater than the negative effect on emotional adjustment and self-concept.

Aside from the effectiveness issue, there are other negative consequences of retention. Retention increases the cost of educating a pupil (Smith and Shepard, 1987). According to Smith and Shepard (1987), alternatives to retention, such as tutoring and summer school, are both more effective and less costly. Retention has negative effects on the emotional adjustment of retainees. For example, Yamamoto and Byrnes (1984) reported that next to blindness and the death of a parent, children rated the prospect of retention as the most stressful event they could suffer. Retained students have more negative attitudes about school and develop characteristics of “learned helplessness,” whereby they blame themselves for their failure and show low levels of persistence. There is a consistent relationship between retention and school dropout (Roderick, 1994; Shepard and Smith, 1990). Dropouts are five times more likely to have repeated a grade than nondropouts, and students who repeat two grades have nearly a 100 percent probability of dropping out. Finally, there are issues of fairness and equity, in that males and ethnic minority children are more likely to be retained (Jimerson et al., 1997).

School Suspension and Expulsion

Unlike grade retention, which is a school policy primarily for young children in the early elementary grades who display academic problems,

suspension and expulsion are mainly directed toward older (secondary school) students whose school difficulties manifest themselves as behavioral problems. Both suspension and expulsion are forms of school exclusion, with the latter being presumably reserved for the most serious offenses.

Supporters of suspension argue that, like any other disciplinary action, suspension reduces the likelihood of misbehavior for the period immediately after suspension and that it can serve as a deterrent to other potentially misbehaving students. Opponents of suspension view the consequences of this disciplinary action as far outweighing any potential benefits. Some of the consequences cited include loss of self-respect, increased chances of coming into contact with a delinquent subculture, the vicious cyclical effects of being unable to catch up with schoolwork, and the stigma associated with suspension once the target child returns to school (Williams, 1989). Furthermore, most investigations of school suspensions have found that serious disciplinary problems are quite rarely the cause of suspension (Cottle, 1975; Kaeser, 1979; McFadden et al., 1992). The majority of suspensions in districts with high suspension rates are for behavior that is not threatening or serious.

The probability of being suspended is unequal among students. Urban students have the highest suspension rates, suburban students have the second highest rates, and rural school students have the lowest rates (Wu et al., 1982). Suspension rates also vary according to sex, race, socioeconomic background, and family characteristics. Male students in every kind of school and education level are about three times more likely to be suspended as females. Suspension rates also vary by race. Statistics indicate that minority students are suspended disproportionately compared with their share in the population and their share of misbehavior, and these racial disparities have the greatest impact on black students; their rate of suspension is over twice that of other ethnic groups, including whites, Hispanics, and Asians (Williams, 1989). Furthermore, black students are likely to receive more severe forms of suspension than other students, even for similar behaviors requiring disciplinary action. In one study, for example, white students were more likely to receive in-school suspension than out-of-school suspension, whereas the reverse pattern was true for black students who had violated school rules (McFadden et al., 1992). This inequality in treatment exists even when factors such as poverty, behavior and attitudes, academic performance, parental attention, and school governance are considered. Students at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum tend to be more frequently suspended. Many suspended students come from single-parent families in which the parent had less than a 10th grade education.

Suspended students frequently have learning disabilities or inad-

equate academic skills. Wu et al. (1982) noted a positive relationship between the student suspension rate in a school and the average percentage of students of low ability reported by all teachers in a school. Low-ability students are suspended more than expected, given the number of incidents of misbehavior attributed to them. According to Wu et al. (1982), this phenomenon appears to work in either of two ways. If a student's academic performance is below average, the probability of being suspended increases. And if a school places considerable emphasis on the academic ability of its students, the probability of suspension increases.

Although there is not very much recent empirical research on the effects of school suspension, it appears to be especially detrimental to low-achieving students who may misbehave because they are doing poorly in school. Nor does suspension appear to reduce the behavior it is designed to punish. For example, McFadden et al. (1992) reported that the rate of recidivism remained extremely high across all groups of suspended students in their large study of a Florida school district. Less than 1 percent of disciplined youngsters were one-time offenders, 75 percent were cited for one to five subsequent events during the school year, and 25 percent engaged in more than five serious misbehaviors.

There appear to be clear biases in the use of suspension as a disciplinary action, with black students more likely to be the target of this bias. In the McFadden et al. (1992) study, white students were more likely than their black counterparts to be referred for such misbehaviors as truancy, defiance of authority, and fighting. However, it was the black students who were disproportionately more likely to receive the most severe sanctions, including corporal punishment and out-of-school suspension. As these authors state: “Even though black pupils accounted for only 36.7% of the disciplinary referrals, they received 54.1% of the corporal punishment and 43.9% of the school suspensions, but only 23.1% of the internal suspensions. Additionally, 44.6% of all black pupils referred received corporal punishment, compared to only 21.7% of white pupils and 22.7% of Hispanic pupils” (p. 144).

In sum, the literature reveals that school suspension is academically detrimental, does not contribute to a modification of misbehavior, and is disproportionately experienced by black males, among students who misbehave.

In recent years, expulsion has become a part of the debate on school discipline that has accompanied the rising concern about school violence, particularly that related to weapons possession and increasingly defiant, aggressive behavior by students in school. One result of this debate has been what Morrison et al. (1997) refer to as “zero-tolerance ” disciplinary policies. In California, for example, principals and superintendents are legally obligated to recommend expulsion from the school district for any

student who commits certain offenses, such as bringing weapons to school, brandishing a knife at another person, or unlawfully selling illegal drugs (California Department of Education, 1996-Education Code Section 48900). Such a policy may be expected to increase expulsion given that school officials are required to recommend it in these cases.

Characteristics of children who are expelled parallel those of children who are suspended from school. Students who are expelled tend to be in grades 8 through 12 (Bain and MacPherson, 1990; Hayden and Ward, 1996). There is a fairly substantial group of younger schoolchildren expelled from school; most of them come from the higher age range of students in elementary school. Expulsion is, however, primarily a secondary school phenomenon. About 80 to 90 percent of expelled students are boys, urban students are expelled at a higher rate that students from suburban and rural areas, and minority students are more likely to be expelled than white students.

Morrison and D'Incau (1997) specified four factors related to school adjustment that predicted behavior resulting in recommendation for expulsion. The first is academic performance; poor grade point average, particularly in English and math, and low achievement scores appear to be related to behavior that leads to expulsion. The second is attendance; many expelled students were habitual truants. The third is discipline; many students who experienced expulsion had records of previous suspension. The last factor is special education history; approximately 25 percent of expelled students were either currently, in the past, or in the process of being determined as eligible for special education services.

When children are suspended or expelled from school, their risk for delinquency increases. Exclusion from school makes it more difficult for a child to keep up with academic subjects. Furthermore, with extra time out of school, children are likely to have more time without supervision, and therefore be in a situation known to encourage crime. Effects of school suspension seem to extend beyond childhood. Even after accounting for juvenile criminality, in a national sample of male high school graduates, those who had been suspended were more likely to be incarcerated by the age of 30 (Arum and Beattie, 1999).

School Tracking

Academic tracking, also known as “ability grouping” or “streaming,” describes teaching practices whereby students who seem to be similar in ability are grouped together for instruction. The idea is to reduce the range of individual differences in class groups in order to simplify the task of teaching. Informal tracking is common in elementary schools. For example, teachers may divide children into reading groups based on their

reading skills. Some schools divide students into classrooms based on their assumed ability to learn. These groupings typically also set off upper- and middle-class white children from all others. Because of the fluidity of learning, the particular group into which a child is placed reflects the opinions of the person making the placement at least as much as the ability of the child (see Ball et al., 1984).

Unlike retention, which has been employed mostly in elementary school, and suspension and expulsion, which are largely secondary school phenomena, tracking has proliferated at all levels of schooling in American education. According to Slavin (1987), the practice is nearly universal in some form in secondary schools and very common in elementary schools. A good deal of informal evidence shows that when children considered to be slow learners are grouped together, they come to see themselves in an unfavorable light. Such self-denigration contributes to dislike for school, to truancy, and even to delinquency (Berends, 1995; Gold and Mann, 1972; Kaplan and Johnson, 1991).

Reviews of the effects of tracking in secondary school reach four general conclusions, all suggesting that the impact is largely negative for students in low tracks (see Oakes, 1987). Students in the low-track classes show poorer achievement than their nontracked counterparts. Slavin (1990) found no achievement advantage among secondary school students in high- or average-track classes over their peers of comparable ability in nontracked classes. Rosenbaum (1976) studied the effects of tracking on IQ longitudinally and found that test scores of students in low tracks became homogenized, with a lower mean score over time. Furthermore, he found that students in low tracks tend to be less employable and earn lower wages than other high school graduates; they also often suffer diminished self-esteem and lowered aspirations, and they come to hold more negative attitudes about school. These emotional consequences greatly increase the likelihood of dropping out of school and engaging in delinquent behavior (both in and out of school). One of the clearest findings in research on academic tracking in secondary school is that disproportionate numbers of poor and ethnic minority youngsters (particularly black and Hispanic) are placed in low-ability or noncollege prep tracks (Oakes, 1987). Even within the low-ability (e.g., vocational) tracks, minority students are frequently trained for the lowest-level jobs. At the same time, minority youngsters are consistently underrepresented in programs for the talented and gifted. These disparities occur whether placements are based on standardized test scores or on counselor and teacher recommendations. Oakes and other sociologists of education (e.g., Gamoran, 1992; Kilgore, 1991; Rosenbaum, 1976) have argued that academic tracking frequently operates to perpetuate racial inequality and social stratification in American society.

It is quite evident that all of the policies reviewed here are associated with more negative than positive effects on children at risk for delinquency. As policies to deal with low academic achievement or low ability, neither retention nor tracking leads to positive benefits for students who are experiencing academic difficulty and may reinforce ethnic stereotypes among students who do well. As policies to deal with school misbehavior, neither suspension nor expulsion appears to reduce undesired behavior, and both place excluded children at greater risk for delinquency. Furthermore, every policy covered in this overview has been found to impact ethnic minority youngsters disproportionately.

Neighborhood

Growing up in an adverse environment increases the likelihood that a young person will become involved in serious criminal activity during adolescence. Existing research points strongly to the relationship between certain kinds of residential neighborhoods and high levels of crime among young people. Research also points to a number of mechanisms that may account for this association between neighborhood and youth crime. While more research is needed to improve understanding of the mechanisms involved, the link between neighborhood environment and serious youth crime is sufficiently clear to indicate a need for close attention to neighborhood factors in the design of prevention and control efforts.

Two different kinds of research point to the importance of social environment in the generation of antisocial behavior and crime. First, research on the characteristics of communities reveals the extremely unequal geographic distribution of criminal activity. Second, research on human development points consistently to the importance of environment in the emergence of antisocial and criminal behavior. While researchers differ on their interpretation of the exact ways in which personal factors and environment interact in the process of human development, most agree on the continuous interaction of person and environment over time as a fundamental characteristic of developmental processes. Although certain persons and families may be strongly at risk for criminal behavior in any environment, living in a neighborhood where there are high levels of poverty and crime increases the risk of involvement in serious crime for all children growing up there.

This section reviews various strands of research on neighborhoods and crime and on the effects of environment on human development for the purpose of evaluating the contributions of neighborhood environment to patterns of youth crime and prospects for its prevention and control.

Neighborhood Concentrations of Serious Youth Crime

Crime and delinquency are very unequally distributed in space. The geographic concentration of crime occurs at various levels of aggregation, in certain cities and counties and also in certain neighborhoods within a given city or county. For example, cities with higher levels of poverty, larger and more densely settled populations, and higher proportions of unmarried men consistently experience higher homicide rates than those that do not share these characteristics (Land et al., 1990). Serious youth crime in recent years has also been concentrated in certain urban areas. At the peak of the recent epidemic of juvenile homicide, a quarter of all apprehended offenders in the entire United States were arrested in just five counties, containing the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, and New York. In contrast, during that same year, 84 percent of counties in the United States reported no juvenile homicides (Sickmund et al., 1997).

The concentration of serious crime, especially juvenile crime, in certain neighborhoods within a given city is just as pronounced as the concentration in certain cities. A great deal of research over a period of many decades employing a wide range of methods has documented the geographic concentration of high rates of crime in poor, urban neighborhoods. Classic studies established the concentration of arrests (Shaw and McKay, 1942) and youth gang activity (Thrasher, 1927) in poor neighborhoods located in inner cities. This relationship has been confirmed in replication studies over the years (Bordua, 1958; Chilton, 1964; Lander, 1954; Sampson and Groves, 1989).

In addition to this correlation of neighborhood poverty levels and high crime rates at any given time, research has also found that change in neighborhood poverty levels for the worse is associated with increasing rates of crime and delinquency (Schuerman and Kobrin, 1986; Shannon, 1986). The causal relationship between increases in neighborhood poverty and increases in crime can move in either direction. In the earlier stages of the process of neighborhood deterioration, increases in poverty may cause increases in crime, while, in later stages, crime reaches such a level that those who can afford to move out do so, thereby increasing the poverty rate even further.

Other social characteristics of poor urban neighborhoods change over time and between nations. In the early part of the 20th century in the United States, poor urban neighborhoods tended to be quite mixed in ethnicity (e.g., Italian, Irish, Polish, Jewish), reflecting an era of immigration, and were often located in the older, central parts of cities that were expanding rapidly in outward, concentric waves (Shaw and McKay, 1942). Since the 1950s, poor, urban neighborhoods in the United States have

been much more likely to be dominated by a single cultural group. Blacks and Hispanics, in particular, have experienced an extraordinary degree of residential segregation and concentration in the poorest areas of large cities as a result of racial discrimination in labor and housing markets (Massey and Denton, 1993). In their reanalysis of the Chicago data collected by Shaw and McKay (1942), Bursik and Webb (1982) found that after 1950, changing rates of community racial composition provided a better predictor of juvenile delinquency rates than did the ecological variables.

Poverty and residential segregation are not always urban phenomena. American Indians also experience a great degree of residential segregation and poverty, but rather than in cities, they are segregated on poor, rural reservations. Elsewhere in the developed world, residential concentrations of poor people occur on the periphery of large urban areas, rather than in the center. The construction of large public housing estates in England following World War II produced this kind of urban configuration (Bottoms and Wiles, 1986), in contrast to the concentration on inner-city public housing projects in the United States.

Two important qualifications must be noted with respect to the well-documented patterns of local concentrations of crime and delinquency. First, these patterns do not hold true for minor forms of delinquency. Since a large majority of all adolescent males break the law at some point, such factors as neighborhood, race, and social class do not differentiate very well between those who do or do not commit occasional minor offenses (Elliott and Ageton, 1980).

Second, although some areas have particularly high rates of deviance, in no area do all or most children commit seroius crimes (Elliott et al., 1996; Furstenburg et al., 1999). Still, the concentration of serious juvenile crime in a relatively few residential neighborhoods is well documented and a legitimate cause for concern, both to those living in these high-risk neighborhoods and to the wider society.

Neighborhoods as Mediators of Race and Social Class Disparities in Offending

While studies using differing methods and sources of data are not in agreement on the magnitude of differences in rates of involvement in youth crime across racial, ethnic, and social class categories, most research shows that race, poverty, and residential segregation interact to predict delinquency rates. For example, the three most common approaches to measurement—self-report surveys, victimization surveys, and official arrest and conviction statistics—all indicate high rates of serious offending among young black Americans. There is substantial reason to believe

that these disparate offending rates are directly related to the community conditions under which black children grow up. There is no other racial or ethnic group in the United States of comparable size whose members are nearly as likely to grow up in neighborhoods of concentrated urban poverty (Wilson, 1987). Summarizing this situation, Sampson (1987:353-354) wrote: “the worst urban contexts in which whites reside with respect to poverty and family disruption are considerably better off than the mean levels for black communities.” Although there are more poor white than black families in absolute number, poor white families are far less likely to live in areas where most of their neighbors are also poor. Studies that show stronger effects of race than of class on delinquency must be interpreted in light of the additional stresses suffered by poor blacks as a result of residential segregation.

In comprehensive reviews, scholars have found that adding controls for concentrated neighborhood poverty can entirely eliminate neighborhood-level associations between the proportion of blacks and crime rates. Without controls for concentrated poverty, this relationship is quite strong (Sampson, 1997; Short, 1997). Such research strongly indicates that the unique combination of poverty and residential segregation suffered by black Americans is associated with high rates of crime through the mediating pathway of neighborhood effects on families and children.

These deleterious neighborhood effects have been studied mostly with respect to blacks, but, as the United States has experienced renewed immigration, evidence has also begun to point to similar problems among newer groups of immigrants from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Much of the evidence at this point is contained in ethnographic studies of youthful gang members and drug dealers (Bourgois, 1995; Chin, 1996; Moore, 1978, 1991; Padilla, 1992; Pinderhughes, 1997; Sullivan, 1989; Vigil, 1988; Vigil and Yun, 1990).

Neighborhood-Level Characteristics Associated with High Rates of Crime and Delinquency

Although the relationship between neighborhood poverty and crime is robust over time and space, a number of other social characteristics of neighborhoods are also associated with elevated levels of crime and delinquency. Factors such as concentrations of multifamily and public housing, unemployed and underemployed men, younger people, and single-parent households tend to be linked to higher crime rates (Sampson, 1987; Wilson, 1985). These social characteristics frequently go along with overall high levels of poverty, but they also vary among both poor and nonpoor neighborhoods and help to explain why neighborhoods with similar average income levels can have different rates of crime.

Recent research has also begun to examine the social atmosphere of neighborhoods and has found significant relationships with crime rates. Neighborhoods in which people tell interviewers that they have a greater sense of collective efficacy—the sense that they can solve problems in cooperation with their neighbors if they have to —have lower crime rates, even when controlling for poverty levels and other neighborhood characteristics (Sampson et al., 1997).

The number and type of local institutions have often been thought to have an effect on neighborhood safety, and some research seems to confirm this. High concentrations of barrooms are clearly associated with crime (Roncek and Maier, 1991). One recent study has also found a crime-averting effect of youth recreation facilities when comparing neighborhoods with otherwise very high rates of crime and criminogenic characteristics to one another (Peterson et al., 2000). Since assessing the number, characteristics, and quality of neighborhood institutions is quite difficult, this remains an understudied area of great importance, given its considerable theoretical and practical interest.

One type of pernicious neighborhood institution, the youth gang, has been studied extensively and is clearly associated with, though by no means synonymous with, delinquency and crime. Although it is true that an adolescent's involvement with youth gangs is associated with a greatly increased risk of criminal behavior, that risk also accompanies association with delinquent peer groups more generally. A very high proportion of youth crime, much higher than for adults, is committed by groups of co-offenders (Elliott and Menard, 1996; Miller, 1982). Most of these delinquent peer groups do not fit the popular stereotypes of youth gangs, with the attendant ritual trappings of distinctive group names, costumes, hand signs, and initiation ceremonies (Sullivan, 1983, 1996). The broader category of delinquent peer groups, most of which are not ritualized youth gangs, drives up neighborhood delinquency rates.

Comparative neighborhood studies, examining the presence of delinquent and unsupervised adolescent peer groups, have found that these groups are more likely to be found in poor neighborhoods. The strength of this finding is such that the presence of these groups appears to be one of the major factors connecting neighborhood poverty and delinquency (Elliott and Menard, 1996; Sampson and Groves, 1989).

Although most adolescent co-offending is committed in the context of delinquent peer groups that are not ritualized youth gangs, the emergence of ritualized gangs in a neighborhood appears to be associated with even higher levels of offending than occur when ritualized gangs are not present (Spergel, 1995; Thornberry, 1998). For this reason, the recent spread of youth gangs across the United States is cause for serious concern. In the decade from the mid-1980s through the mid-1990s, youth

gangs emerged in a growing number of cities in the United States, not only in large cities, but also in smaller cities and towns (Klein, 1995; National Youth Gang Center, 1997).

Despite widespread rumors and mass media allegations, this spread of youth gangs does not appear to be the result of systematic outreach, recruitment, and organization from one city to another. The fact that groups calling themselves by similar names, such as Bloods and Crips, have been spreading from city to city may have very little to do with conscious efforts by members of those groups in Los Angeles to build criminal organizations in other cities. Movies and popular music, rather than direct connections between cities, seem to be at least partly responsible for this copying of gang terminology between cities (Decker and Van Winkle, 1996).

Ethnographic Perspectives on Neighborhoods and Development

A second stream of research that examines adolescent development from the perspective of neighborhood environment consists of ethnographic field studies of delinquent individuals and groups growing up in high-crime neighborhoods. These studies range from classic studies conducted in the 1920s and 1930s (Shaw, 1930; Whyte, 1943), through a second wave in the 1960s (Short and Strodtbeck, 1965; Suttles, 1968) and a more recent wave since the late 1980s (Bourgois, 1995; Chin, 1996; Moore, 1978, 1991; Padilla, 1992; Pinderhughes, 1997; Sullivan, 1989; Vigil, 1988; Vigil and Yun, 1990).

Drawing conclusions from these studies about neighborhood effects on child and adolescent development must be approached carefully, because these studies were primarily designed to describe systems of activity and interaction rather than processes of personal development. As a result, there are many limitations on using this body of research for the purpose of examining neighborhood effects on development, chief among them the predominant focus on single, high-crime areas and the focus within those areas on those engaged in delinquent and criminal activity. Because of this double selection on the dependent variables of both area and individual criminal behavior, these studies generally do not allow systematic comparison between high-crime and low-crime areas or between nondelinquent and delinquent youth within areas.

Despite these limitations, the authors of the studies virtually always end up attributing the ongoing nature of delinquent activity in the areas studied to the influences of the local area on development, particularly among males. In other words, studies not designed primarily to examine development appeal to neighborhood-level influences on development in order to explain their findings. These conclusions about neighborhood

influence on development generally emerge from a much closer scrutiny of the social contexts of development made possible by the in-depth approach of case study and qualitative methods (Sullivan, 1998; Yin, 1989).

One exception to the general lack of comparisons across neighborhoods in the ethnographic studies of development is Sullivan's systematic comparison of three groups of criminally active youths in different neighborhoods of New York City. Using this comparative approach, he demonstrated close links between the array of legitimate and illegitimate opportunities in each place and the developmental trajectories of boys who became involved in delinquency and crime. Even though the early stages of involvement were similar in all three areas, youths from the white, working-class area aged out of crime much faster than their black and Hispanic peers living in neighborhoods characterized by racial and ethnic segregation, concentrated poverty, adult joblessness, and single-parent households. The youths from the more disadvantaged areas had less access to employment and more freedom to experiment with illegal activity as a result of lower levels of informal social control in their immediate neighborhoods (Sullivan, 1989).

Neighborhood-Level Concentrations of Developmental Risk Factors

If neighborhood effects are defined as the influence of neighborhood environment on individual development net of personal and family characteristics, then the amount of variation left over to be attributed to neighborhood in a given study can vary a great deal according to the data and methods used. As many researchers note, neighborhood effects may be mediated by personal and family factors (see, e.g., Farrington and Loeber, 1999); however, it is also necessary to examine whether personal and family characteristics are themselves affected by neighborhood environment. To the extent that this is the case, then neighborhoods affect individual development through their effects on such things as the formation of enduring personal characteristics during early childhood and the family environments in which children grow up. From this perspective, efforts such as those described earlier to measure neighborhood effects net of personal and family characteristics may substantially underestimate neighborhood effects as a result of artificially separating personal and family characteristics from those neighborhood environments. Similarly, if the subsets are not separately analyzed, neighborhood effects will be artificially minimized if some, but not all, types of family constellations increase the impact of neighborhood conditions (McCord, 2000).

A number of studies demonstrate neighborhood concentrations of risk factors for impaired physical and mental health and for the development of antisocial behavior patterns. To date, little research has been able

to trace direct pathways from these neighborhood risk factors through child and adolescent development, although some of the larger ongoing studies, such as the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, are collecting the kind of comprehensive data on biological and social aspects of individual development as well as on the characteristics of a large number of ecological areas that could make this kind of analysis possible (Tonry et al., 1991). Nonetheless, existing research does indicate a number of ways in which deleterious conditions for individual development are concentrated at the neighborhood level. Furthermore, the neighborhoods in which they are concentrated are the same ones that have concentrations of serious youth crime. The risks involved begin for individuals in these areas before birth and continue into adulthood. They include child health problems, parental stress, child abuse, and exposure to community violence.

Neighborhoods with high rates of poverty and crime are often also neighborhoods with concentrations of health problems among children. In New York City, for example, there is a high degree of correlation at the neighborhood level of low birthweight and infant mortality with rates of violent death (Wallace and Wallace, 1990). Moffitt (1997) has pointed to a number of conditions prevalent in inner-city neighborhoods that are capable of inflicting neuropsychological damage, including fetal exposure to toxic chemicals, which are disproportionately stored in such areas, and child malnutrition. Thus, even to the extent that some neighborhoods have larger proportions of persons with clinically identifiable physical and psychological problems, these problems may themselves be due to neighborhood conditions. Thus it can be difficult to disentangle individual developmental risk factors from neighborhood risk factors.

Similarly, some parenting practices that contribute to the development of antisocial and criminal behavior are themselves concentrated in certain areas. McLloyd (1990) has reviewed a wide range of studies documenting the high levels of parental stress experienced by low-income black mothers who, as we have already seen, experience an extremely high degree of residential segregation (Massey and Denton, 1993). This parental stress may in turn lead, in some cases, to child abuse, which contributes to subsequent delinquent and criminal behavior (Widom, 1989). Child abuse is also disproportionately concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Korbin and Coulton's studies of the distribution of child maltreatment in Cleveland neighborhoods have shown both higher rates in poorer neighborhoods and a moderating effect of age structure. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, they showed that neighborhoods with a younger age structure experienced higher rates of child maltreatment, as measured by reported child abuse cases and inter-

views in a subset of the neighborhoods, than other neighborhoods with similar average family income levels (Korbin and Coulton, 1997).

Recent research has begun to demonstrate high levels of exposure to community violence across a wide range of American communities (Singer et al., 1995), but the degree of exposure also varies by community and reaches extraordinary levels in some neighborhoods. Studies in inner-city neighborhoods have found that one-quarter or more of young people have directly witnessed confrontations involving serious, life-threatening acts of violence, while even larger proportions have witnessed attacks with weapons (Bell and Jenkins, 1993; Osofsky et al., 1993; Richters and Martinez, 1993; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998). Various outcomes of this kind of exposure to community violence have been identified. The most commonly cited of these include depressive disorders and posttraumatic stress syndrome, but some links have also been found to increases in aggressive and antisocial behavior (Farrell and Bruce, 1997). Experimental research has shown a pathway from exposure to violence to states of mind conducive to and associated with aggressive behavior, particularly a pattern of social cognition characterized as hostile attribution bias, in which people erroneously perceive others' behavior as threatening (Dodge et al., 1990).

Taken together, these studies point to a multitude of physical, psychological, and social stressors concentrated in the same, relatively few, highly disadvantaged neighborhood environments. Besides affecting people individually, these stressors may combine with and amplify one another, as highly stressed individuals encounter each other in crowded streets, apartment buildings, and public facilities, leading to an exponential increase in triggers for violence (Bernard, 1990). Agnew (1999), having demonstrated the effects of general psychological strain on criminal behavior in previous research, has recently reviewed a wide range of studies that point to just such an amplification effect at the community level.

Environmental and Situational Influences

Other aspects of the environment that have been examined as factors that may influence the risk of offending include drug markets, availability of guns, and the impact of violence in the media.

The presence of illegal drug markets increases the likelihood for violence at the points where drugs are exchanged for money (Haller, 1989). The rise in violent juvenile crime during the 1980s has been attributed to the increase in drug markets, particularly open-air markets for crack cocaine (Blumstein, 1995; National Research Council, 1993). Blumstein (1995) points out the coincidence in timing of the rise in drug arrests of

nonwhite juveniles, particularly blacks, beginning in 1985, and the rise in juvenile, gun-related homicide rates, particularly among blacks. As mentioned earlier, Blumstein argues that the introduction of open-air crack cocaine markets in about 1985 may explain both trends. The low price of crack brought many low-income people, who could afford to buy only one hit at a time, into the cocaine market. These factors led to an increase in the number of drug transactions and a need for more sellers. Juveniles provided a ready labor force and were recruited into crack markets. Blumstein (1995:30) explains how this led to an increase in handgun carrying by juveniles:

These juveniles, like many other participants in the illicit-drug industry, are likely to carry guns for self-protection, largely because that industry uses guns as an important instrument for dispute resolution. Also, the participants in the industry are likely to be carrying a considerable amount of valuable product—drugs or money derived from selling drugs—and are not likely to be able to call on the police if someone tries to rob them. Thus, they are forced to provide for their own defense; a gun is a natural instrument.

Since the drug markets are pervasive in many inner-city neighborhoods, and the young people recruited into them are fairly tightly networked with other young people in their neighborhoods, it became easy for the guns to be diffused to other teenagers who go to the same school or who walk the same streets. These other young people are also likely to arm themselves, primarily for their own protection, but also because possession of a weapon may become a means of status-seeking in the community. This initiates an escalating process: as more guns appear in the community, the incentive for any single individual to arm himself increases.

Other researchers concur that juveniles responded to the increased threat of violence in their neighborhoods by arming themselves or joining gangs for self-protection and adopting a more aggressive interpersonal style (Anderson, 1990, 1994; Fagan and Wilkinson, 1998; Hemenway et al., 1996; Wilkinson and Fagan, 1996). The number of juveniles who report carrying guns has increased. In 1990, approximately 6 percent of teenage boys reported carrying a firearm in the 30 days preceding the survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1991). By 1993, 13.7 percent reported carrying guns (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1995). Hemenway et al. (1996) surveyed a sample of 7th and 10th graders in schools in high-risk neighborhoods in a Northeastern and a Midwestern city. Of these, 29 percent of 10th grade males and 23 percent of 7th grade males reported having carried a concealed gun, as did 12 percent of 10th grade females and 8 percent of 7th grade females. The overwhelm-

ing majority gave self-defense or protection as their primary reason for carrying weapons. Moreover, juveniles who reported living in a neighborhood with a lot of shootings or having a family member who had been shot were significantly more likely to carry a gun than other students. Additional student surveys also have found that protection is the most common reason given for carrying a gun (e.g., Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993; Sheley and Wright, 1998).

By studying trends in homicide rates, several researchers have concluded that the increase in juvenile homicides during the late 1980s and early 1990s resulted from the increase in the availability of guns, in particular handguns, rather than from an increase in violent propensities of youth (Blumstein and Cork, 1996; Cook and Laub, 1998; Zimring, 1996). Certainly, assaults in which guns are involved are more likely to turn deadly than when other weapons or just fists are involved. The increase in gun use occurred for all types of youth homicides (e.g., family killings, gang-related killings, brawls and arguments). Furthermore, the rates of nonhandgun homicides remained stable; only handgun-related homicides increased.

Public concern about the role of media in producing misbehavior is as old as concern regarding the socialization of children. Although few believe that the media operate in isolation to influence crime, scientific studies show that children may imitate behavior, whether it is shown in pictures of real people or in cartoons or merely described in stories (Bandura, 1962, 1965, 1986; Maccoby, 1964, 1980). Prosocial as well as aggressive antisocial behavior has been inspired through the use of examples (Anderson, 1998; Eisenberg and Mussen, 1989; Eron and Huesmann, 1986; Huston and Wright, 1998; Staub, 1979). Thus media models can be seen as potentially influencing either risk or protectiveness of environments.

In addition to modeling behavior, exposure to media violence has been shown to increase fear of victimization and to desensitize witnesses to effects of violence (Slaby, 1997; Wilson et al., 1998). Children seem particularly susceptible to such effects, although not all children are equally susceptible. Violent video games, movies, and music lyrics have also been criticized as inciting violence among young people. Cooper and Mackie (1986) found that after playing a violent video game, 4th and 5th graders exhibited more aggression in play than did their classmates who had been randomly assigned to play with a nonviolent video game or to no video game. Anderson and Dill (2000) randomly assigned college students to play either a violent or a nonviolent video game that had been matched for interest, frustration, and difficulty. Students played the same game three times, for a total of 45 minutes, after which they played a competitive game that involved using unpleasant sound blasts against

the rival player. After the second time, measures of the accessibility of aggressive concepts showed a cognitive effect of playing violent video games. After the third time, those who had played the violent video game gave longer blasts of the unpleasant sound, a result mediated by accessibility of aggression as a cognitive factor. The authors concluded that violent video games have adverse behavioral effects and that these occur through increasing the aggressive outlooks of participants.

None of these studies, however, finds direct connections between media exposure to violence and subsequent serious violent behavior. Steinberg (2000:37) summarized the literature on media and juvenile violence by noting: “exposure to violence in the media plays a significant, but very small, role in adolescents' actual involvement in violent activity. The images young people are exposed to may provide the material for violent fantasies and may, under rare circumstances, give young people concrete ideas about how to act out these impulses. But the violent impulses themselves, and the motivation to follow through on them, rarely come from watching violent films or violent television or from listening to violent music . . . . I know of no research that links the sort of serious violence this working group is concerned about with exposure to violent entertainment.”

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DELINQUENCY IN GIRLS

Research on the development of conduct disorder, aggression, and delinquency has often been confined to studies of boys. Many of the individual factors found to be related to delinquency have not been well studied in girls. For example, impulsivity, which has been linked to the development of conduct problems in boys (Caspi et al., 1994; White et al., 1994), has scarcely been studied in girls (Keenan et al., in press).

Behavioral differences between boys and girls have been documented from infancy. Weinberg and Tronick (1997) report that infant girls exhibit better emotional regulation than infant boys, and that infant boys are more likely to show anger than infant girls. This may have implications for the development of conduct problems and delinquency. Although peer-directed aggressive behavior appears to be similar in both girls and boys during toddlerhood (Loeber and Hay, 1997), between the ages of 3 and 6, boys begin to display higher rates of physical aggression than do girls (Coie and Dodge, 1998). Girls tend to use verbal and indirect aggression, such as peer exclusion, ostracism, and character defamation (Bjorkqvist et al., 1992; Crick and Grotpeter, 1995), rather than physical aggression. Research by Pepler and Craig (1995), however, found that girls do use physical aggression against peers, but tend to hide it from adults. Through remote audiovisual recordings of children on a play-

ground, they found the rates of bullying by girls and boys to be the same, although girls were less likely than boys to admit to the behavior in interviews.

Internalizing disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are more frequent in girls and may well overlap with their conduct problems (Loeber and Keenan, 1994; McCord and Ensminger, 1997). Theoreticians have suggested that adolescent females may direct rage and hurt inward as a reaction to abuse and maltreatment. These inward-directed feelings may manifest themselves in conduct problems, such as drug abuse, prostitution, and other self-destructive behaviors (Belknap, 1996).

Whether or not the rate of conduct problems and conduct disorder in girls is lower than that in boys remains to be definitively proven. Girls who do exhibit aggressive behavior or conduct disorder exhibit as much stability in that behavior and are as much at risk for later problems as are boys. Tremblay et al. (1992) found equally high correlations between aggression in early elementary school and later delinquency in boys and girls. Boys and girls with conduct disorder are also equally likely to qualify for later antisocial personality disorder (Zoccolillo et al., 1992).

Delinquency in girls, as well as boys, is often preceded by some form of childhood victimization (Maxfield and Widom, 1996; Smith and Thornberry, 1995; Widom, 1989). Some have speculated that one of the first steps in female delinquency is status offending (truancy, running away from home, being incorrigible), frequently in response to abusive situations in the home (Chesney-Lind and Shelden, 1998). Indeed, Chesney-Lind (1997) has written that status offenses, including running away, may play an important role in female delinquency. In what she refers to as the “criminalization of girls' survival strategies,” Chesney-Lind (1989:11) suggests that young females run away from the violence and abuse in their homes and become vulnerable to further involvement in crime as a means of survival. In one community-based longitudinal study, however, a larger proportion of boys than of girls had left home prior to their sixteenth birthday (McCord and Ensminger, 1997). In a long-term follow-up of a sample of documented cases of childhood abuse and neglect, Kaufman and Widom (1999) reported preliminary results indicating that males and females are equally likely to run away from home, and that childhood sexual abuse was not more often associated with running away than other forms of abuse or neglect. However, the motivation for running away may differ for males and females. For example, females may be running away to escape physical or sexual abuse or neglect in their homes. For boys, running away may be an indirect consequence of childhood victimization or may be part of a larger constellation of antisocial and problem behaviors (Luntz and Widom, 1994).

From the small amount of research that has been done on girls, it appears that they share many risk factors for delinquency with boys. These risk factors include early drug use (Covington, 1998), association with delinquent peers (Acoca and Dedel, 1998), and problems in school (Bergsmann, 1994). McCord and Ensminger (1997) found, however, that, on average, girls were exposed to fewer risk factors (e.g., aggressiveness, frequent spanking, low I.Q., first-grade truancy, early leaving home, and racial discrimination) than were boys.

Delinquent girls report experiencing serious mental health problems, including depression and anxiety, and suicidal thoughts. In a study of delinquent girls conducted by Bergsmann (1994), fully half said that they had considered suicide, and some 64 percent of these had thought about it more than once.

In a survey of mental disorders in juvenile justice facilities, Timmons-Mitchell and colleagues (1997) compared the prevalence of disorders among a sample of males and females and found that the estimated prevalence of mental disorders among females was over three times that among males (84 versus 27 percent). The females in the sample scored significantly higher than males on scales of the Milton Adolescent Clinical Inventory, which measure suicidal tendency, substance abuse proneness, impulsivity, family dysfunction, childhood abuse, and delinquent predisposition. Timmons-Mitchell et al. (1997) concluded from these data that incarcerated female juveniles had significantly more mental health problems and treatment needs than their male counterparts.

Teen motherhood and pregnancy are also concerns among female juvenile offenders. Female delinquents become sexually active at an earlier age than females who are not delinquent (Greene, Peters and Associates, 1998). Sexual activity at an early age sets girls up for a host of problems, including disease and teenage pregnancy, that have far-reaching impacts on their lives and health. Teen mothers face nearly insurmountable challenges that undermine their ability to take adequate care of themselves and their families. Dropping out of school, welfare dependence, and living in poor communities are only a few of the consequences of teen motherhood. And the effects are not limited to one generation. Teen mothers are more likely than women who have children in their early 20s to have children who are incarcerated as adults (Grogger, 1997; Nagin et al., 1997; Robin Hood Foundation, 1996).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a large proportion of adolescents gets arrested and an even larger proportion commits illegal acts, only a small proportion commits

serious crimes. Furthermore, most of those who engage in illegal behavior as adolescents do not become adult criminals.

Risk factors at the individual, social, and community level most likely interact in complex ways to promote antisocial and delinquent behavior in juveniles. Although there is some research evidence that different risk factors are more salient at different stages of child and adolescent development, it remains unclear which particular risk factors alone, or in combination, are most important to delinquency. It appears, however, that the more risk factors that are present, the higher the likelihood of delinquency. Particular risk factors considered by the panel are poor parenting practices, school practices that may contribute to school failure, and community-wide settings.

Poor parenting practices are important risk factors for delinquency. Several aspects of parenting have been found to be related to delinquency:

neglect or the absence of supervision throughout childhood and adolescence;

the presence of overt conflict or abuse;

discipline that is inconsistent or inappropriate to the behavior; and

a lack of emotional warmth in the family.

School failure is related to delinquency, and some widely used school practices are associated with school failure in high-risk children. These practices include tracking and grade retention, as well as suspension and expulsion. Minorities are disproportionately affected by these educational and social practices in schools.

Both serious crime and developmental risk factors for children and adolescents are highly concentrated in some communities. These communities are characterized by concentrated poverty. Residents of these communities often do not have access to the level of public resources available in the wider society, including good schools, supervised activities, and health services. Individual-level risk factors are also concentrated in these communities, including health problems, parental stress, and exposure to family and community violence. The combination of concentrated poverty and residential segregation suffered by ethnic minorities in some places contributes to high rates of crime.

Although risk factors can identify groups of adolescents whose probabilities for committing serious crimes are greater than average, they are not capable of identifying the particular individuals who will become criminals.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Delinquency is associated with poor school performance, truancy, and leaving school at a young age. Some pedagogical practices may exacerbate these problems. The available research on grade retention and tracking and the disciplinary practices of suspension and expulsion reveal that such policies have more negative than positive effects. For students already experiencing academic difficulty, tracking and grade retention have been found to further impair their academic performance. Furthermore, tracking does not appear to improve the academic performance of students in high tracks compared with similar students in schools that do not use tracking. Suspension and expulsion deny education in the name of discipline, yet these practices have not been shown to be effective in reducing school misbehavior. Little is known about the effects of these policies on other students in the school. Given the fact that the policies disproportionately affect minorities, such policies may unintentionally reinforce negative stereotypes.

Recommendation: Federal programs should be developed to promote alternatives to grade retention and tracking in schools.

Given that school failure has been found to be a precursor to delinquency, not enough research to date has specifically examined school policies, such as tracking, grade retention, suspension, and expulsion in terms of their effects on delinquent behavior in general. It is important that evaluations of school practices and policies consider their effects on aggressive and antisocial behavior, incuding delinquency. This type of research is particularly salient given the concern over school violence. Research on tracking should examine the effects on children and adolescents in all tracks, not only on those in low tracks.

Recommendation: A thorough review of the effects of school policies and pedagogical practices, such as grade retention, tracking, suspension, and expulsion, should be undertaken. This review should include the effects of such policies on delinquency, as well as the effects on educational attainment and school atmosphere and environment.

Prenatal exposure to alcohol, cocaine, heroin, and nicotine is associated with hyperactivity, attention deficit, and impulsiveness, which are risk factors for later antisocial behavior and delinquency. Biological insults suffered during the prenatal period may have some devastating effects on development. Consequently, preventive efforts during the pre-

natal period, such as preventing fetal exposure to alcohol and drugs, may have great benefits. Reducing alcohol and drug abuse among expectant parents may also improve their ability to parent, thus reducing family-related risk factors for delinquency.

Recommendation: Federal, state, and local governments should act to provide treatment for drug abuse (including alcohol and tobacco use) among pregnant women, particularly, adolescents.

Most longitudinal studies of delinquent behavior have begun after children enter school. Yet earlier development appears to contribute to problems that become apparent during the early school years. Much remains to be known about the extent to which potential problems can be identified at an early age.

Recommendation: Prospective longitudinal studies should be used to increase the understanding of the role of factors in prenatal, perinatal, and early infant development on mechanisms that increase the likelihood of healthy development, as well as the development of antisocial behavior.

Research has shown that the greater the number of risk factors that are present, the higher the likelihood of delinquency. It is not clear, however, whether some risk factors or combinations of risk factors are more important than other risk factors or combinations in the development of delinquency. Furthermore, the timing, severity, and duration of risk factors, in interaction with the age, gender, and the environment in which the individual lives undoubtedly affect the behavioral outcomes. A better understanding of how risk factors interact is important for the development of prevention efforts, especially efforts in communities in which risk factors are concentrated.

Recommendation: Research on risk factors for delinquency needs to focus on effects of interactions among various risk factors. In particular, research on effects of differences in neighborhoods and their interactions with individual and family conditions should be expanded.

The panel recommends the following areas as needing particular research attention to increase understanding of the development of delinquency:

Research on the development of language skills and the impact of delayed or poor language skills on the development of aggressive and antisocial behavior, including delinquency;

Research on children's and adolescents' access to guns, in particular handguns, and whether that access influences attitudes toward or fear of crime;

Research on ways to increase children's and adolescents' protective factors; and

Research on the development of physical aggression regulation in early childhood.

Research on delinquency has traditionally focused on boys. Although boys are more likely to be arrested than girls, the rate of increase in arrest and incarceration has been much larger in recent years for girls than boys, and the seriousness of the crimes committed by girls has increased.

Recommendation: The Department of Justice should develop and fund a systematic research program on female juvenile offending. At a minimum, this program should include:

Research on etiology, life course, and societal consequences of female juvenile offending;

Research on the role of childhood experiences, neighborhoods and communities, and family and individual characteristics that lead young females into crime; and

Research on the role of psychiatric disorders in the etiology of female juvenile crime, as well as its role as a consequence of crime or the justice system's response.

Even though youth crime rates have fallen since the mid-1990s, public fear and political rhetoric over the issue have heightened. The Columbine shootings and other sensational incidents add to the furor. Often overlooked are the underlying problems of child poverty, social disadvantage, and the pitfalls inherent to adolescent decisionmaking that contribute to youth crime. From a policy standpoint, adolescent offenders are caught in the crossfire between nurturance of youth and punishment of criminals, between rehabilitation and "get tough" pronouncements. In the midst of this emotional debate, the National Research Council's Panel on Juvenile Crime steps forward with an authoritative review of the best available data and analysis. Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice presents recommendations for addressing the many aspects of America's youth crime problem.

This timely release discusses patterns and trends in crimes by children and adolescents—trends revealed by arrest data, victim reports, and other sources; youth crime within general crime; and race and sex disparities. The book explores desistance—the probability that delinquency or criminal activities decrease with age—and evaluates different approaches to predicting future crime rates.

Why do young people turn to delinquency? Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice presents what we know and what we urgently need to find out about contributing factors, ranging from prenatal care, differences in temperament, and family influences to the role of peer relationships, the impact of the school policies toward delinquency, and the broader influences of the neighborhood and community. Equally important, this book examines a range of solutions:

• Prevention and intervention efforts directed to individuals, peer groups, and families, as well as day care-, school- and community-based initiatives.
• Intervention within the juvenile justice system.
• Role of the police.
• Processing and detention of youth offenders.
• Transferring youths to the adult judicial system.
• Residential placement of juveniles.

The book includes background on the American juvenile court system, useful comparisons with the juvenile justice systems of other nations, and other important information for assessing this problem.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

12 Communities and Delinquency

Charis E. Kubrin is Professor of Criminology, Law and Society and (by courtesy) Sociology at the University of California, Irvine. Kubrin’s research focuses on neighborhood correlates of crime, with an emphasis on race and violent crime. In addition to her work in peer-reviewed journals, Kubrin is coauthor of Researching Theories of Crime ↵and Deviance (Oxford University Press 2008) and coeditor of Introduction to Criminal Justice (Stanford University Press, 2013).

• Published: 18 September 2012
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The community or neighborhood in which juvenile lives constitute an important context and it influences juvenile delinquency. This article describes the role of communities in the production of delinquency. It begins by identifying community characteristics of importance and describes why researchers have most frequently been examining these. Following this, it discusses the various theoretical mechanisms proposed to account for the link between community characteristics and rates of delinquency. It then presents two critical weaknesses in the communities and delinquency literature, and explains how they have been addressed to some degree in contextual studies of delinquency. Furthermore, it reviews the main findings from the contextual effects literature. Finally, the article concludes by identifying more general issues that warrant attention in communities and delinquency studies and by charting some promising new directions for research.

Much of the research on juvenile delinquency focuses on individual dispositional characteristics of youth like impulsivity and feelings of guilt. In these studies, social context often takes a back seat or is ignored altogether. When context is considered, the community context is seldom the focus. The most traditionally examined contexts with respect to juvenile offending include family, school, peers, youth gangs, and even the workplace. Rightly so, these are important contexts with far-reaching consequences for youth, as the other chapters in this section convincingly demonstrate.

Yet the community or neighborhood in which a juvenile lives also constitutes an important context. Neighborhoods vary along multiple dimensions including socioeconomic status, racial composition, access to resources—to name just a few. Given their features, some communities represent high-risk environments for youths (i.e., they generate temptations, provocations, and have low levels of social control), while others are more protective (i.e., they generate low levels of temptation, provocation, and have high levels of social control) (Wikstrom and Loeber 2000 , p. 1114).

Apart from serving as a socially meaningful context for youth, communities and their characteristics are important to account for in delinquency studies because to the extent that individual-level studies identify a relationship between, for example, a familial social characteristic (economic status or parental composition) and delinquency, the link remains most often uninterpretable. That is, “no attempt is made to clarify the extent to which the relationship is inherently on the individual-familial level or is moderated by the contexts in which families live (for example, lower- versus middle-class neighborhoods; predominantly two- versus one-parent family neighborhoods)” (Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz 1986 :669; see also Hay et al. 2007 :594).

The goal of this chapter is to describe the role of communities in the production of delinquency. In the first part of this chapter, I identify community characteristics of importance and describe why these have been most frequently examined by researchers. In the second part, I discuss the various theoretical mechanisms proposed to account for the link between community characteristics and rates of delinquency. In part three, I present two critical weaknesses in the communities and delinquency literature, and explain how they have been addressed to some degree in contextual studies of delinquency. In part four, I review the main findings from the contextual effects literature. And in part five, I conclude by identifying more general issues that warrant attention in communities and delinquency studies and by charting some promising new directions for research.

I. Ecological Conditions of Importance

The idea that communities differ with consequences for delinquency is not a new one. Shaw and McKay ( 1942 ) were among the first researchers to document that rates of delinquency varied across communities in Chicago. Their groundbreaking study led to a host of what are often referred to as “delinquency area studies.” Early delinquency area studies (e.g., Bordua ( 1958 ); Chilton ( 1964 ); Gordon ( 1967 ); Lander ( 1954 ); Polk ( 1957 )) attempted to correlate a collective property of neighborhoods with juvenile delinquency rates for neighborhoods, also a collective property. Many presented evidence that local delinquency rates were associated with underlying community dimensions of socioeconomic status, racial and ethnic composition, and/or anomie. Delinquency area studies continue today, and collectively this literature has identified numerous ecological conditions of importance.

The most common ecological characteristic investigated, dating back to the early Chicago School researchers, is neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), which has proven a robust predictor of delinquency rates. According to Bursik ( 2001 , p. 395), “It would appear that … multicity evidence strongly supports the existence of a fundamental socioeconomic status factor that may be called a general component of the community context of delinquency.” Most often SES is reflected in the neighborhood's poverty level, but more recent studies have broadened this concept to consider the combined effects of social and economic indicators of disadvantage. In many inner-city communities, as a result of macro-economic changes that have disproportionately affected the urban poor, scholars claim it is the combination of poverty, unemployment, and family disruption that defines the socioeconomic context for residents (Sampson and Wilson 1995 ; Wilson 1987 ). They posit that “concentration effects” contribute to social disorganization, which in turn leads to delinquency. They additionally assert that residents living in areas of concentrated disadvantage are geographically and socially isolated, which gives rise to ghetto-specific cultural beliefs that undermine conventional values (e.g., crime is the way to resolve personal disputes). Such cultural beliefs readily develop in the gap created by joblessness, the exodus of middle-class residents, disruptions in the family, and the lack of government support for inner-city institutions. Beyond these claims, “A multidimensional focus on neighborhood disadvantage is … important because it allows for the possibility that not all high-poverty neighborhoods are characterized by high mobility, broken families, chronic unemployment, or excessive cultural heterogeneity; and that these conditions of disadvantage may interact with poverty to produce certain deleterious effects on adolescent development” (Elliott et al. 1996 , p. 393).

Consistent with these arguments, researchers typically measure the multiple disadvantages that characterize areas by incorporating several measures (e.g., poverty, unemployment, single-parent families with children) into an overarching index of concentrated disadvantage. Researchers consistently find that neighborhood SES generally, and concentrated disadvantage in particular, are positively associated with rates of juvenile delinquency (Elliott et al. 1996 ; Haynie et al. 2006 ; Kupersmidt et al. 1995 ; Simons et al. 2005 ; Wikstrom and Loeber 2000 ). But the effects of concentrated disadvantage are not limited to delinquency. Sampson and colleagues ( 2002 , p. 446) claim, “The range of child and adolescent outcomes associated with concentrated disadvantage is quite wide and includes infant mortality, low birthweight, teenage childbearing, dropping out of high school, child maltreatment, and adolescent delinquency.”

Another ecological characteristic often examined in delinquency area studies is neighborhood racial composition. Frequently the focus is on racial heterogeneity or diversity within neighborhoods. Racial heterogeneity has been hypothesized to affect the strength and salience of informal social control. Theorists have posited that in communities with diverse racial groups living in close proximity, interaction between members will be low, or at least lower than in racially homogeneous neighborhoods (Gans 1968 ). Heterogeneity can also undermine ties between neighbors, limiting their ability to agree on a common set of values or to solve “commonly experienced problems” (Bursik 1988 , p. 521; Kornhauser 1978 ) due to cultural differences between racial groups, language incompatibility, and the fact that individuals prefer members of their own race to members of different races (Blau and Schwartz 1984 , p. 14; Gans 1968 ). As a result, residents will be less likely to look out for one another and will not, to the same extent as in racially homogeneous communities, take an interest in their neighbors’ activities. Informal social interactions will be limited, and crime and delinquency rates in such neighborhoods can be expected to be higher. As Kornhauser ( 1978 , p. 78) notes, “Heterogeneity impedes communication and thus obstructs the quest to solve common problems and reach common goals..” Studies of racial heterogeneity and changes in racial heterogeneity find that, in fact, both are associated with increased delinquency rates in communities (Heitgard and Bursik 1987 ; Kapsis 1978 ).

The “religious ecology of communities” (Regnerus 2003 ; Stark, Kent, and Doyle 1982 ) constitutes a third local dimension of neighborhoods thought to affect delinquency. Religion is theorized to impact the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of youths through several mechanisms, including social control, social support, and values/identity. Some examples include religious norms that promote marriage, legitimate sexual relationships, and childbearing, and norms that restrict alcohol sales, access to abortion, or curb Sunday athletic events (Regnerus 2003 , p. 527). A key assumption is that religion is a living, salient feature of the larger group. In using the term “moral communities,” Stark and colleagues ( 1982 ) argue that religion ought to be understood sociologically as a group property more than an individual one. Along these lines, religion is not said to make youth afraid to sin but to bind its adherents to a “moral community” (e.g., a community integrated by shared religious beliefs), compared to a secularized social climate.

It is often argued that religion only serves to bind youth to the moral order if religious influences permeate the culture and social interactions of individuals within communities. In social groups where a religious sanctioning system is the mode and is expressed in daily life, the propensity to deviate from norms will be influenced substantially by the degree of one's commitment to the religious sanctioning system. Where the religious sanctioning system is not pervasive, it is argued, the effects of the youth's religious commitment will be curtailed. In delinquency studies that examine the religious ecology of communities, religion is thought to directly affect the behavior of the group's members as well as indirectly moderate how individuals’ religious traits shape their behavior (Regnerus 2003 , p. 524; Stark, Kent, and Doyle 1982 ).

To a lesser degree, the social-ecological literature has considered additional aspects of neighborhood differentiation including life-cycle status, residential stability, home ownership, and density. Whatever neighborhood characteristic under investigation, the argument advanced in this literature is that ecological characteristics either enhance or disrupt the social organizational processes in the community, with implications for juvenile delinquency rates.

II. Intervening Theoretical Mechanisms

The ecological characteristics of communities such as those just discussed are expected to both directly and indirectly affect juvenile delinquency. Indirectly, socioeconomic status, racial composition, and the religious ecology of communities, among other characteristics, are theorized to influence the attitudes, relationships, and behavior of residents through various intervening theoretical mechanisms.

According to the systemic model, closely related to social disorganization theory, community characteristics affect delinquency because they deter neighborhood residents from establishing relationships with one another and thus diminish a neighborhood's capacity for informal social control (Bursik 1988 ; Bursik and Grasmick 1993 ). This model is predicated on the notion that neighborhoods are complex systems of friendship and kinship networks and associational ties rooted in families and ongoing social processes (Bursik and Grasmick 1993 ). Residents living in neighborhoods with large and active social networks are better able to generate social trust and enforce shared community values, including the desire to live in a crime- and delinquency-free neighborhood. As a result, residents have an easier time supervising youths within the neighborhood, socializing them toward conventional values, and preventing them from becoming involved with delinquent peers. When associational ties and local social controls are weak, youths have greater opportunities to engage in delinquency and to become involved with delinquent peers in whose presence delinquency is experienced as highly rewarding (Haynie et al. 2006 ).

More recently, researchers have discussed the concept of collective efficacy, which combines concepts of social ties, social integration, and social control. Sampson et al. ( 1997 ) claim that although social ties are important, the willingness of residents to intervene on behalf of children may depend in large part on conditions of mutual trust and shared expectations among residents. One is unlikely to intervene in a neighborhood context where the rules are unclear and people mistrust or fear one another. It is thus the linkage of mutual trust and the shared willingness to intervene for the public good that captures the neighborhood context of collective efficacy.

Social ties, informal control, and collective efficacy are directly affected by ecological characteristics of neighborhoods, such as those identified in delinquency area studies. Kornhauser ( 1978 , p. 81) notes, “Institutions that cannot supply the means to valued goals fail in all types of control. The attachments and commitments that enmesh the child in interlocking controls cannot be formed. Need satisfaction and goal achievement are conditions for the establishment of indirect control. When they are absent, affective and instrumental bonds to persons and institutions are likewise weak or absent.” The result, according to Kornhauser, is heightened delinquency within communities.

Expanding on the systemic model, Elliott et al. ( 1996 , p. 396) identify two additional theoretically relevant organizational and cultural characteristics that link ecological conditions and delinquency rates in neighborhoods. Beyond weak neighborhood organization (e.g., low social integration, weak informal networks, weak informal controls), they cite attenuated neighborhood culture (e.g., low consensus on values, low consensus on norms, normlessness) and illegitimate opportunities (e.g., delinquent gangs, deviant role models, illegitimate job networks) as critical.

Concerning neighborhood culture, Shaw and McKay ( 1942 ) long ago discussed the extent to which communities tolerate or sustain social disorder and deviant subcultures. Socially disorganized neighborhoods, in particular, have a diversity (rather than consensus) of norms. Ecological characteristics such as poverty, racial heterogeneity, and residential mobility foster a diverse citizenry so that individuals with all types of values, beliefs, and behaviors are clustered together; that is, “socially disorganized neighborhoods provide ‘room’ for both conventional and unconventional groups” (Cattarello 2000 , p. 36). Youths living in disorganized neighborhoods are thus exposed both to conventional and unconventional groups and norms regarding standards of behavior. In essence, deviant subcultures affect adolescents’ normative values as well as the probability of association with delinquent peers which, in turn, results in delinquency. Community deviant subculture, therefore, can affect delinquent behavior via its effect on youth normative values and via the probability of association with delinquent peers. Deviant subcultures can also provide illegitimate opportunities for youth, as suggested by Cloward and Ohlin ( 1960 ). For example, delinquent gangs and organized crime provide jobs, food and clothing, role models, and self-affirmation for youths; “they satisfy basic individual and social needs in the same way that stable families, prosocial peers, and legitimate employment satisfy these needs and reinforce conventional behavior” (Elliott et al. 1996 , p. 394). In sum then, there are several intervening theoretical mechanisms that help explain why ecological characteristics of communities are found to be associated with juvenile delinquency rates in delinquency area studies.

III. Weaknesses in the Literature

One major problem in the communities and delinquency literature, at least with respect to delinquency area studies, is that studies often assume these mediating processes exist without actually measuring them. Sampson et al. ( 2002 . p. 447) claim: “Although concern with neighborhood mechanisms goes back at least to the early Chicago School of sociology, only recently have we witnessed a concerted attempt to theorize and empirically measure the social-interactional and institutional dimensions that might explain how neighborhood effects are transmitted.” Thus, many studies document associations between poverty, racial heterogeneity, and so forth, and rates of juvenile delinquency yet are only able to theorize they occur due to intervening processes related to social ties, social control, collective efficacy, attenuated neighborhood culture, and illegitimate opportunities.

One implication of this is that we actually know very little about how neighborhood effects are transmitted to youth—that is, how neighborhoods impact juveniles and encourage or discourage delinquency. The key question remains: What are the relationships among ecological characteristics, family and peer processes, and rates of juvenile delinquency in neighborhoods? Some have suggested that family processes mediate much of the effect of community context on youths (Simons et al. 2005 ). Others have suggested that involvement in peer networks is the primary mediating factor (Haynie et al. 2006 ). And still others have claimed that community and family and peer processes interact in ways that amplify delinquency in some communities. Hay et al. ( 2007 , p. 594), for example, argue that community poverty amplifies the effects of family poverty on delinquency, such that these effects become greater when community poverty is also high.

The latter example of an interaction effect suggests complex relationships among the mechanisms at play. An example is illustrative. With respect to community characteristics and their effects on family processes, Simons et al. ( 2005 ) describe the potential combined effects of collective efficacy and authoritative parenting on delinquency. Recall that a community is high on collective efficacy to the extent that residents share values, mutual trust, and a disposition to intervene for the public good (i.e., to reduce crime and delinquency). Authoritative parents combine warmth and support with firm monitoring and control. Both authoritative parenting and collective efficacy, according to Simons et al. ( 2005 ), function as supportive control, albeit at different levels of analysis (the family and the community), which has a theorized effect on a youth's risk of affiliating with deviant peers and thus engaging in delinquent behavior. Stated another way, just as parental control is an expression of parental affection and concern for the child, so community control appears to be an expression of the residents’ concerns and commitment to the community (p. 994). According to these researchers, adults living in communities marked by high levels of collective efficacy exert subtle, as well as not so subtle, pressures upon parents of delinquent youth to become more responsible caretakers. When they witness a child misbehaving, they tend to contact the child's parents or authorities (e.g., school or police). Therefore, parents living in communities with high collective efficacy are apt to be approached by neighbors, school authorities, other parents, or the police when their child misbehaves. Parents might be expected to respond to these complaints by increasing the quality of their parenting in an effort to minimize further difficulties. Uninvolved or permissive parents may be prodded into adopting a more authoritative parenting style in response to the collective efficacy displayed by adult residents in their community (p. 1018). In this way, family- and community-level processes are often correlated and work together to influence juvenile delinquency. Unfortunately, without empirically measuring intervening theoretical mechanisms, our ability to fully and accurately specify how communities and delinquency are related remains limited.

A second problem is apparent in the communities and delinquency literature. Decades ago, Kornhauser ( 1978 , p. 114) asked: “How do we know that area differences in delinquency rates result from aggregative characteristics of communities rather than characteristics of individuals selectively aggregated into communities?” Here Kornhauser raises the possibility that “what appears as a neighborhood effect in the … study could actually be an artifact of not having adequately controlled for neighborhood differences in the background characteristics of local residents” (Kapsis 1978 , p. 470). This latter point, often referred to as a selective migration interpretation of the finding (Kapsis 1978 , p. 470), implies that residential mobility decisions can artificially create “generative neighborhood effects” when in fact differences across neighborhoods are due, instead, to individual selection effects. Elliott et al. ( 1996 , p. 397) explain: “People are not randomly assigned to neighborhoods but make personal choices that are related to their education, income, race/ ethnicity, and perceived characteristics of the neighborhood …. This selection process produces a compositional effect that is independent of the emerging organizational and cultural effects….”

Researchers are thus left asking: Are neighborhood effects artifactual, reflecting either individual-level compositional effects or self-selection by parents into particular neighborhoods (Haynie et al. 2006 )? Some argue yes, and others no, prompting a contextual versus compositional debate. A contextual explanation involves the proposition that the social organization of an area influences the individuals who inhabit it, above and beyond the individuals who reside there. A compositional explanation involves the proposition that variation in delinquency rates across areas is primarily a result of the aggregate characteristics of the individuals who inhabit the areas (e.g., certain kinds of neighborhoods attract persons predisposed to criminality). A challenge for ecological researchers, then, is to demonstrate that neighborhood structure affects adolescent behavior net of compositional and selection factors, and to show that such effects operate through measurable mediating processes.

This has been achieved, to some degree, in neighborhood or contextual effects studies of delinquency, which have proliferated over the last couple of decades (Cattarello 2000 ; Elliott et al. 1996 ; Haynie et al. 2006 ; Gottfredson et al. 1991 ; Regnerus 2003 ; Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz 1986 ; Simons et al. 2005 ). As Sampson et al. ( 2002 , p. 445) noted in a review of this literature, “the study of neighborhood effects has generated a multidisciplinary research agenda with a strong focus on child and adolescent development.” Contextual effects studies address the contextual versus compositional debate because they control for the relevant individual-level traits of residents (e.g., single-parent family, social class, etc.) in order to ensure that a neighborhood-level effect (e.g., disadvantage) is not due to compositional differences among the individuals within neighborhoods. If neighborhood effects on adolescent delinquency are observed net of the individual characteristics on which the neighborhood measure is based, it is argued, we can be more confident that a neighborhood-level effect has indeed been observed (Haynie et al. 2006 ). Thus, researchers incorporate controls for background demographic characteristics, parental resources, and parenting practices in most neighborhood effects studies.

As noted earlier, parents may choose to reside in a particular neighborhood in part because of the level of crime or delinquency occurring in the area, reflecting selection bias. Selection bias may also produce spurious neighborhood effects because more conscientious parents (an unmeasured trait) may be more likely to select neighborhoods with less crime. If not accounted for, observed neighborhood effects would simply reflect the decision-making of conscientious parents, rather than a true neighborhood effect. In this literature, to help reduce the possibility of selection effects operating in analyses, researchers attempt to incorporate variables indicating parents’ reasons for moving into their current neighborhood (Haynie et al. 2006 ), although this is often difficult to accomplish given data constraints.

IV. Neighborhood Effects Studies and Their Findings

Challenges aside, the neighborhood effects literature has produced many significant findings with respect to communities and delinquency. One set of findings reveals that neighborhood ecological characteristics directly affect rates of juvenile delinquency, even after controlling for a variety of individual-level characteristics of residents—findings that speak directly to the contextual versus compositional debate. For example, Kapsis ( 1978 ) tests Shaw and McKay's ideas regarding neighborhood racial change and delinquency using 1960–1966 data on a sample of 721 black adolescent males from adjacent low-income neighborhoods that had undergone varying rates of black population change. He finds that delinquency is positively correlated with the rate of racial change of neighborhoods, in line with Shaw and McKay. But perhaps more important, he finds this neighborhood effect remains after controlling for individual attributes of the residents. Similarly, Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz ( 1986 ), using survey data from neighborhoods in New York City, find that two neighborhood-level factors—organizational participation and extent of disorder and criminal subculture—significantly affect delinquency, even after controlling for individual-level correlates. Finally, in a contextual study of delinquency using data on 3,729 adolescents who are clustered within diverse social areas in Baltimore, Gottfredson et al. ( 1991 ) find that social areas have an independent effect on individual delinquent behavior, although the size of this effect is rather small.

A second set of findings from this literature reveals that neighborhood ecological characteristics indirectly affect rates of juvenile delinquency through various intervening processes, such as those identified earlier. That is, according to these studies, community levels of social ties, informal social control, collective efficacy, attenuated neighborhood subculture, and illegitimate opportunities mediate much of the effect of ecological characteristics on juvenile delinquency. Elliott et al. ( 1996 ), for example, find that a variety of organizational and cultural features of neighborhoods mediate the effects of concentrated disadvantage on adolescent development and behavior in their study of Chicago and Denver neighborhoods. Likewise, using data on a national sample of youth, Haynie et al. ( 2006 ) not only find that neighborhood disadvantage is associated with adolescent violence net of compositional and selection effects, but also that disadvantage is associated with adolescents’ exposure to violent and prosocial peers and that peer exposure mediates, in part, the neighborhood disadvantage-adolescent violence association.

A third set of findings documents an interaction effect between individual- and community-level characteristics and processes. Neighborhood effects studies of interactions demonstrate that characteristics at both levels matter in unison for understanding and predicting juvenile delinquency. Along these lines, Regnerus ( 2003 , p. 523) notes that “a proper understanding of … delinquency included the joint consideration of individual traits and the social contexts in which those traits have meaning.” Likewise, a central premise in Furstenberg ( 1993 ) and Furstenberg et al. ( 1999 , p. 6) is that “[adolescent] development results from an ongoing process of social change between individuals and their immediate milieus.” The work of Furstenberg and his colleagues focuses, in particular, on the interface between the family and the community, and how this interaction affects the course of adolescent development, particularly for disadvantaged youth. Collectively, interaction studies consider a range of social milieus, and as is evident in the Simons et al. ( 2005 ) and Hay et al. ( 2007 ) research discussed earlier, interaction studies produce perhaps the most complex statements regarding the relationship between communities and delinquency.

As another example, Stark and colleagues ( 1982 ) demonstrate how the “religious ecology” of communities affects the individual-level correlation between religiosity and delinquency. Using a national sample of 16-year-old boys from eighty-seven high schools, they find there is a substantial negative relationship between religious commitment and delinquency, but that the relationship vanishes in the most highly secularized West Coast schools. Based on this, they argue that in communities where religious commitment is the norm, the more religious an individual, the less likely he or she will be delinquent. The larger point is that religious effects on delinquency vary according to ecological conditions, namely, the religious climate of the community; religion inhibits a youth from norm violations to the degree that he or she is embedded in a moral community (p. 15).

In a similar study on “religious ecology” and delinquency, Regnerus ( 2003 ) tests whether religion, when understood as a group property, is significantly linked to lower delinquency among youths in schools and counties where select religious characteristics are high. He asks: (1) Are adolescents who live or attend school in devoutly religious environments less delinquent, regardless of their own religious practice or affiliation?; (2) Do adolescents who live in religiously homogeneous places (e.g., densely conservative Protestant ones) display less delinquency?; and (3) Does it matter whether they are themselves conservative Protestant as well? Regnerus ( 2003 , p. 546) finds that conservative Protestant homogeneity in both schools and counties constitutes an effective and robust social control against delinquency and, more important, that homogeneity serves to strengthen the inverse relationship between theft and students’ self-identification as born-again Christians.

In a third study testing for interaction effects, Wikstrom and Loeber ( 2000 ) ask: Is the onset and prevalence of juvenile serious offending invariant by neighborhood SES context when controlling for individual sets of risk and protective characteristics? They report two key findings: first, for those boys scoring high on risk factors, there was no difference in serious offending by neighborhood SES context. That is, there was no evidence of a direct impact of the neighborhood on male juvenile serious offending for those with high risk scores. And second, for those boys having a balanced mix of risk and protective factors, or scoring high on protective factors, the neighborhood SES context influenced serious offending—but only for late onsets (during adolescence). That is, there is a significant direct effect of neighborhood disadvantage on well-adjusted children influencing them to become involved in serious offending as they reach adolescence.

Collectively, the neighborhood and contextual effects literature provides a more comprehensive approach to understanding the relationships among ecological characteristics, neighborhood processes, individual attributes, and juvenile delinquency. This literature begins to answer critical questions, such as those related to how youth living in high-risk environments overcome adversity. On this point Elliott et al. ( 1996 , p. 391) argue: “Our primary interest in neighborhood effects is to understand how youths growing up in disadvantaged neighborhoods manage to complete a successful course of adolescent development in spite of the social and economic adversity that characterizes these social contexts. Our interest in the neighborhood is thus to identify those specific conditions and social processes that interfere with a successful course of youth development, as well as those that buffer or mitigate the potential negative ecological influences and physical dangers found in these environments.”

Just as with delinquency area studies, there are some unresolved issues in the neighborhood effects literature. Unanswered is the question: Are community and individual risk factors primarily additive or interactive? That is, do community characteristics matter in addition to or in conjunction with individual risk factors? A related issue involves identifying the relative importance of neighborhood and individual risk factors for delinquency. One of the most common findings in the literature is that the proportion of variance in juvenile offending explained by community factors is rather low (Cattarello 2000 , p. 49; Gottfredson et al. 1991 ; Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz 1986 ). Thus, social areas appear to have a small effect on individual delinquent behavior. Why might this be the case? Another finding is that many of the effects of community characteristics on individual offending are mediated by measures of individual characteristics (Cattarello 2000 . p. 53; Haynie, Silver, and Teasdale 2006 ; Simons et al. 2005 ). Such findings raise the question: What are the implications for neighborhood studies of juvenile delinquency?

V. Future Directions in Communities and Delinquency Research

Research on communities and delinquency is alive and well. Still, there are several directions scholars can navigate in future studies to advance what is already known. To start, it is important to remember that neighborhoods are not remote and isolated entities. In thinking about neighborhood effects, one must consider, therefore, the presence of external, symbiotic relationships on local rates of delinquency (see, for example, Heitgard and Bursik 1987 who studied the effect of racial change occurring in nearby communities). Along these lines, neighborhoods are influenced by extra-community politics and public policies. Sampson and Wilson ( 1995 , p. 54) emphasize the importance of analyzing crime at the neighborhood level and the policy context in which crime occurs when they contend: “On the basis of our theoretical framework, we conclude that community-level factors … are fruitful areas of future inquiry, especially as they are affected by macrolevel public policies regarding housing, municipal services, and employment.” It is also important to remember that neighborhood contexts are not constant. They undergo change in response to broader political, economic, and cultural changes in the larger society, and in response to changes in the characteristics and composition of individual residents (Elliott et al. 1996 , p. 392).

An important question for scholars who study communities and delinquency remains: Are patterns in delinquency across communities stable or variable? Unfortunately, most research in this area is cross-sectional, not longitudinal, and thus we know very little about how changes in ecological characteristics, changes in neighborhood social and organizational processes, and changes in rates of delinquency are associated over longer (or even shorter) periods of time. Yet it is argued that “the general omission of temporal considerations from this research tradition is a serious impediment to the community-level study of delinquency, for it forces the analyst to assume that the underlying dimensions associated with delinquency rates during a single time period are in fact real and persistent, regardless of historical changes in urban dynamics that may be taking place” (Bursik 2001 , p. 394). In short, community processes related to delinquency should be placed within larger urban dynamics and given a full meaning through longitudinal data (Bursik 2001 , p. 395).

Another key issue for future research has to do with determining at which point in the life course it may be most appropriate to measure or study juvenile delinquency. For example, should the focus be on variations in age of onset of delinquency, in terms of early or late onset? Should the focus be on the development of serious offending? What about recidivism rates among juveniles? As Wikstrom and Loeber ( 2000 , p. 1117) point out, “Few studies have addressed the question of influences of community of residence on aspects of criminal careers, such as variations in the age of onset and individuals’ development of serious offending,” and “The question of whether community context influences the development of individuals’ dispositions and social situation relevant to (future) offending has hardly been studied at all” (p. 1134). There is some evidence that neighborhood effects vary by the age of youths; more specifically, “they are minimal on very young children and stronger on older youths, who become increasingly embedded in neighborhood social networks and activities and have longer periods of exposure to the risks in disorganized neighborhoods” (Elliott et al. 1996 , p. 417). As such, one could argue researchers should also compare different age groups of juvenile offenders.

Finally, in the conclusion of their review of neighborhood effects studies, Sampson and his colleagues ( 2002 , pp. 470–73) focus on four additional directions for designing research on the neighborhood context of child and adolescent well-being: (1) redefining neighborhood boundaries in ways that are more consonant with social interactions and children's experiences; (2) collecting data on the physical and social properties of neighborhood environments through systematic social observations; (3) taking account of spatial interdependence among neighborhoods; and (4) collecting benchmark data on neighborhood social processes. I think each of these is critically important if the communities and delinquency literature is to make major strides in the future.

Apart from these future directions, criminologists must continue to recognize that adolescent delinquency and violence are a function of multiple social contexts including family, peer group, school, and, as this chapter hopefully has conveyed, the neighborhood. Perhaps of even greater importance, policy makers must begin to direct more attention toward focusing on neighborhoods in their attempts to develop programs and policies to curb juvenile delinquency. Unfortunately, approaches to reducing delinquency that do not involve additional investments within the juvenile justice system have received little attention in the public sphere. In the long list of recommendations for reducing delinquency (e.g., stiffer penalties, job training, boot camp, drug treatment), one arena of change is typically left out of the equation—changing communities. Yet by disregarding community context, we are critically ignoring key influences and pressures that directly and indirectly influence youth behavior. In sum, local areas must be considered when we think about juveniles and juvenile delinquency because they provide the environments that contextualize the lives of youth offenders and nonoffenders alike. As this chapter demonstrates, local areas afford opportunities and constraints for both normative and nonnormative behavior.

Blau, Peter M. , and J.E. Schwartz . 1984 . Crosscutting Social Circles . Orlando, FL: Academic.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Bordua, David J.   1958 . “ Juvenile Delinquency and ‘Anomie’: An Attempt at Replication. ” Social Problems 6: 230–38.

Bursik, Robert J.   1988 . “ Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Problems and Prospects. ” Criminology 26: 519–51.

Bursik, Robert J.   2001 . “ Urban Dynamics and Ecological Studies of Delinquency. ” Social Forces 63: 393–413.

Bursik, Robert J. , and Harold G. Grasmick . 1993 . Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control . New York: Lexington.

Cattarello, Anne M.   2000 . “Community-Level Influences on Individuals’ Social Bonds, Peer Associations, and Delinquency: A Multilevel Analysis.” Justice Quarterly 17: 33–60.

Chilton, Roland J.   1964 . “ Continuity in Delinquency Area Research: A Comparison of Studies for Baltimore, Detroit, and Indianapolis. ” American Sociological Review 29: 71–83.

Cloward, Richard A. , and Lloyd E. Ohlin . 1960 . Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs . New York: Free Press.

Elliott, Delbert S. , William Julius Wilson , David Huizinga , Robert J. Sampson , Amanda Elliott , and Bruce Rankin . 1996 . “ The Effects of Neighborhood Disadvantage on Adolescent Development. ” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 33: 389–426.

Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr.   1993 . “How Families Manage Risk and Opportunity in Dangerous Neighborhoods.” In Sociology and the Public Agenda , edited by William Julius Wilson , 231–58. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr. , Thomas D. Cook , Jacquelynne Eccles , Glen H. Elder , and Arnold Sameroff . 1999 . Managing to Make It: Urban Families and Adolescent Success . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gans, Herbert . 1968 . “The Balanced Community: Homogeneity or Heterogeneity in Residential Areas?” In People and Plans: Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions , 161–81. New York: Basic Books.

Gordon, R.A.   1967 . “ Issues in the Ecological Study of Delinquency. ” American Sociological Review 32: 127-144.

Gottfredson, Denise C. , Richard J. McNeil III , and Gary D. Gottfredson . 1991 . “ Social Area Influences on Delinquency: A Multilevel Analysis. ” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 28: 197–226.

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

Haynie, Dana L. , Eric Silver , and Brent Teasdale . 2006 . “ Neighborhood Characteristics, Peer Networks, and Adolescent Violence. ” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 22: 147–69.

Heitgard, Janet L. , and Robert J. Bursik . 1987 . “ Extracommunity Dynamics and the Ecology of Delinquency. ” American Journal of Sociology 92: 775–87.

Kapsis, Robert E.   1978 . “ Residential Succession and Delinquency. ” Criminology 15: 459–86.

Kornhauser, Ruth . 1978 . Social Sources of Delinquency . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kupersmidt, Janis B. , Pamela C. Griesler , Melissa E. DeRosier , Charlotte J. Patterson , Paul W. Davis . 1995 . “ Childhood Aggression and Peer Relations in the Context of Family and Neighborhood Factors. ” Child Development 66: 360–75.

Lander, B.   1954 . Toward an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency . New York: Columbia University Press.

Polk, Kenneth . 1957 . “ Juvenile Delinquency and Social Areas. ” Social Problems 5(3): 214–17.

Regnerus, Mark D.   2003 . “ Moral Communities and Adolescent Delinquency: Religious Contexts and Community Social Control. ” Sociological Quarterly 44: 523–54.

Sampson, Robert J. , Jeffrey D. Morenoff , and Thomas Gannon-Rowley . 2002 . “ Assessing ‘Neighborhood Effects’: Social Processes and New Directions in Research. ” Annual Review of Sociology 28: 443–78.

Sampson, Robert J. , Stephen W. Raudenbush , and Felton Earls . 1997 . “ Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. ” Science 277: 918–24.

Sampson, Robert J. , and William Julius Wilson . 1995 . “Toward a Theory of Race, Crime and Urban Inequality.” In Crime and Inequality , edited by John Hagan and Ruth D. Peterson , 37–54. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Shaw, Clifford R. , and Henry D. McKay . 1942 . Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Simcha-Fagan, Ora , and Joseph E. Schwartz . 1986 . “ Neighborhood and Delinquency: An Assessment of Contextual Effects. ” Criminology 24: 667–703.

Simons, Ronald L. , Leslie Gordon Simons , Callie Harbin Burt , Gene H. Brody , and Carolyn Cutrona . 2005 . “Collective Efficacy, Authoritative Parenting, and Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Model Integrating Community- and Family-Level Processes.” Criminology 43: 989–1030.

Stark, Rodney , Lori Kent , and Daniel P. Doyle . 1982 . “ Religion and Delinquency: The Ecology of a ‘Lost’ Relationship. ” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 19: 4–24.

Wikstrom, Per-Olof H. , and Rolf Loeber . 2000 . “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: 1109–41.

Wilson, William Julius . 1987 . The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Examining the Relationship Between Childhood Trauma and Involvement in the Justice System

A dangerous or life-threatening experience may become a traumatic event for a child. The child may see the event as an intense threat to his or her safety and will typically experience a high level of fear or helplessness. [1] Trauma may result from a wide range of events, including accidents and natural disasters. Of great priority to those in the public safety and justice fields, traumatic experiences may be caused by exposure — as a victim or a witness — to community violence, domestic violence, sexual abuse, or terrorist attacks.

Trauma experienced during childhood may result in profound and long-lasting negative effects that extend well into adulthood. The direct effects may be psychological, behavioral, social, and even biological. [2] These effects are associated with longer-term consequences, including risk for further victimization, [3] delinquency and adult criminality, [4] substance abuse, [5] poor school performance, [6] depression, [7] and chronic disease. [8]

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has supported many studies over the years to help increase our understanding of the complex dynamics of childhood exposure to violence. [9] The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has also supported research, programs, and training to better understand and improve responses to children exposed to violence and childhood trauma. [10] Together, these efforts help inform the development and enhancement of programs, practices, and policies designed to prevent violence, reduce the impact of violence on children and youth, and improve the capacity of the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

In 2016, OJJDP funded seven research projects in response to a competitive solicitation titled Studies Program on Trauma and Justice-Involved Youth ( see exhibit 1 ). [11] These studies — now managed by NIJ [12] — look at trauma and justice system involvement from multiple perspectives to provide a better understanding of the pathways from violence exposure and trauma to involvement in the justice system. They also explore possible protective factors that reduce the likelihood of delinquency as a negative consequence of trauma, as well as the effectiveness of trauma-focused interventions for youth. This article discusses findings from this collection of studies and their implications for the field.

Exposure to Trauma Among Juvenile who Commit Offenses

Five studies examined the relationship between childhood trauma and juvenile justice system involvement. Three of these studies drew on existing longitudinal research on justice-involved or high-risk youth. Another study analyzed linked administrative datasets from multiple systems in Chicago. The final study involved primary data collection from justice-involved youth in a Minnesota county.

Exposure to Trauma and Trauma Trajectories

Researchers at the University of Maryland used data that were originally collected for the Pathways to Desistance study, which analyzed multiple waves of interview data gathered between 2000 and 2010 from 1,354 justice-involved male and female participants. Participants in the Pathways to Desistance study were you who commit serious offenses in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, and Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona, who were between the ages of 14 and 17 at the time of their offense. [13]

Using the Pathways to Desistance data, the University of Maryland researchers examined the prevalence and patterns of trauma exposure, as well as the most strongly associated psychological symptoms. They also identified and described trajectories of trauma exposure and trauma symptoms from adolescence into early adulthood (i.e., ages 16 to 23). [14]

These justice-involved youth witnessed and experienced high levels of violence likely to cause trauma. For example, almost one-half (49%) witnessed someone being shot, and 30% witnessed someone being killed. The symptoms most strongly associated with exposure to violence were hostility and paranoid ideation.

The researchers categorized participants into four groups:

• Minimally exposed to violence.
• Witnessed gun and non-gun-related violence.
• Exposed to non-gun-related violence.
• Exposed to gun and non-gun-related violence.

These groups differed in important ways. For instance, in comparison to those minimally exposed to violence, all other groups had significantly higher scores on depression, hostility, paranoid ideation, and psychoticism.

Across all study participants, the average level of exposure to violence and psychological distress decreased slightly over time. However, this pattern was not uniform across participants. For example, white and Hispanic youth experienced a significant decrease in exposure to violence that was not experienced by African American youth.

Facility Exposure and Continuous Exposure to Violence

Researchers at Loyola University Chicago also analyzed data from the Pathways to Desistance study to examine issues related to exposure to violence within correctional and residential facilities, as well as continuous exposure to community violence. [15] Seventy-five percent of study participants reported witnessing violent encounters between other residents in correctional and residential facilities, and 17% reported being victimized by other residents. Almost two-thirds of participants witnessed violence between staff and residents, and almost 10% reported being victimized by staff, with 5% reporting being beaten by staff.

To better understand the effects of multiple traumatic experiences, the researchers focused on a series of six interviews that occurred at six-month intervals over a three-year period. They used the term “continuous exposure to violence” to characterize the experiences of those who reported witnessing violence or being victimized in more than one interview during this period. Of the 1,354 study participants, 83% witnessed community violence at more than one time point, and 43% were direct victims of violence in the community at more than one time point.

Exposure to violence in the community during adolescence significantly increased the risk for rearrest. Similarly, the researchers found that continuous exposure to community violence during adolescence predicted higher levels of self-reported reoffending during early adulthood. This relationship was particularly pronounced for those who displayed callous unemotional traits. That is, adult reoffending was more likely to occur for adolescent who committed offenses and experienced continuous exposure to trauma and exhibited a lack of emotion or who learned emotional detachment as a method of self-protection from trauma.

Exposure to Violence and Juvenile Court Involvement

Researchers at the University of Alabama examined exposure to violence and juvenile court involvement among African American adolescents living in extreme poverty. [16] They performed a secondary analysis of 9,215 adolescents between ages 9 and 17 living in Mobile, Alabama, who participated in the Mobile Youth and Poverty Study. Data sources included annual surveys of youth, school records, and juvenile court records from 1998 to 2011.

The researchers found that adolescents who witnessed violence or were victimized by violence were more likely to be charged with a crime against a person at a later time. Court outcome severity was higher for this group — that is, youth exposed to violence in this sample experienced more adjudication, were more likely to be assigned to residential placement, and were more likely to be put on probation. The researchers included statistical controls for previous levels of crime and court outcome severity, which, together with the temporal quality of the research, increases confidence in the primary finding that exposure to community violence is associated with changes that lead toward more court involvement and more severe court outcomes.

The researchers also identified factors that influence the strength of the relationship between exposure to violence and juvenile court involvement. They found that academic progress reduces the strength of the relationship between exposure to violence and juvenile court involvement, while psychological symptoms of hopelessness as a result of exposure to violence strengthen the likelihood of court involvement.

Trauma and Crossover From the Child Welfare System to the Juvenile Justice System

Researchers from Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago examined how exposure to trauma may be related to later involvement in the juvenile justice system. [17] The study focused on 1,633 Chicago youth born between 1996 and 2002 who had one or more out-of-home foster care placements, had completed an intake assessment that included measures of traumatic experiences, and had no prior juvenile justice involvement at the time of intake. Using linked administrative data from multiple state and local agencies (Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Chicago Police Department, Cook County Juvenile Probation and Court Services Department, and Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice) available through 2017, the researchers conducted survival analyses [18] to identify the timing of, and factors related to, initial justice involvement.

The researchers found evidence to suggest that some specific types of traumatic experiences may increase the risk for juvenile justice involvement for those who are involved in the child welfare system. Specifically, when youth experienced violence in the community and at school, their likelihood of crossing over into juvenile justice system involvement increased. However, this study did not find evidence to support the broader hypothesis that greater total trauma exposure is related to increased probability of justice system involvement among youth in the child welfare system. In this sample, trauma exposure as a whole showed no significant relationship with arrest, detention, court filing, probation, or juvenile corrections when controlling for other factors such as youth characteristics, child welfare history, community characteristics, and individual risks and strengths.

Trauma Exposure for Justice-Involved LGBTQA and GNC Youth

Researchers at the Department of Community Corrections and Rehabilitation in Hennepin County (Minneapolis), Minnesota, examined the role of trauma and violence exposure on justice-involved lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning/unsure, and asexual (LGBTQA) youth and gender nonconforming (GNC) youth. [19] A total of 150 surveys and 60 in-person interviews were completed by youth ages 14 to 20 who were involved in Hennepin County corrections. [20] The researchers examined findings for two groups: one that included only LGBTQA and GNC youth, and another that included only heterosexual, cisgender youth. [21] Youth in both groups had similar levels of child welfare involvement, human services placement stays, prior detention and correctional placements, and criminal history scores.

LGBTQA and GNC youth appear to have significantly more pronounced experiences of trauma and victimization than their heterosexual, cisgender peers. This group reported more cumulative trauma and victimization on a scale of adverse childhood experiences. LGBTQA and GNC youth were also more likely to report harassment by peers, verbal abuse by adults, and neglect by a caregiver. The largest differences were reported for exposure to sexual trauma and violence. LGBTQA and GNC youth were more likely to report having experienced forced intercourse, sexual assault by a known adult, and other forms of sexual assault.

Protective Factors and Treatment Programs

The remaining two studies focused on issues that may directly inform prevention and intervention efforts with youth who have been exposed to violence and other forms of trauma.

Factors That Reduce the Strength of the Relationship Between Maltreatment and Offending

Researchers at Child Trends, a nonprofit research organization that focuses on children’s issues, carried out secondary analyses of data collected in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) to further examine the relationship between childhood maltreatment and delinquent and criminal behaviors. The researchers analyzed three waves of Add Health interview data for a sample of 10,613 respondents at different stages from adolescence to young adulthood. These waves of interviews occurred when respondents were 13 to 19 years old, then at 18 to 26 years old, and later at 24 to 30 years old.

The study found that a history of childhood maltreatment was associated with higher frequencies of overall violent and nonviolent offending. [22] Violent offending was nearly three times as high for those who experienced childhood maltreatment compared to those with no history of childhood maltreatment, and these differences continued from adolescence into adulthood. The relationship between maltreatment and offending did not differ by race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. However, males with a history of childhood maltreatment were more likely to be involved in later delinquent and criminal behavior than females with a similar history.

The researchers identified a number of protective factors that reduced the likelihood of violent and nonviolent offending. In multiple cases, these protective factors had positive effects, regardless of whether the individual had experienced childhood maltreatment. Specifically, a strong connection to school, high-quality relationships with a mother or father figure, and high levels of neighborhood collective efficacy all had protective effects that reduced the likelihood of violent offenses, regardless of whether the individual experienced maltreatment during childhood. For nonviolent offenses, neighborhood collective efficacy had protective effects that did not vary by childhood maltreatment status. However, for those who experienced childhood maltreatment, a strong connection to school and high-quality relationships with a mother or father figure were especially protective in reducing the likelihood of nonviolent offenses. None of the protective effects varied by sex, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Effectiveness of Trauma-Informed Treatment Programs

Lastly, researchers at George Mason University carried out a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of trauma-informed treatment programs for justice-involved youth and youth at risk of justice system involvement who experienced some form of trauma in their lives. [23] Trauma-informed treatments include specialized interventions that focus on treating symptoms of trauma, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and other affective disorders. The researchers set out to analyze data from a number of independent studies on the subject in an effort to examine overall trends. They searched 24 electronic databases and identified 29 publications that met the eligibility criteria. Eligible studies included evaluations of trauma-informed programs for youth who were involved in the juvenile justice system. Also eligible were evaluations of trauma-informed programs for youth who were not involved in the juvenile justice system, but that included delinquency as an outcome, or that included an outcome highly associated with later delinquency (e.g., aggression, substance use, antisocial behavior). Both experimental (random assignment) and quasi-experimental studies that included a credible comparison group were eligible.

The 29 publications included 30 programs for analysis. Six of the programs focused specifically on justice-involved youth. The researchers found that the evidence base from these studies did not allow for any strong conclusions about the effectiveness of the trauma-informed programs for youth already involved in the justice system. The remaining 24 programs served at-risk children and youth who experienced trauma. Findings suggest that these programs as a whole can produce meaningful reductions in problem behaviors and may reduce future delinquency among youth with histories of trauma.

The researchers highlighted cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) — specifically trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) — as an effective approach for reducing problem behaviors in youth with histories of trauma. But, they noted, the evidence base is insufficient to assess the effectiveness of CBT and TF-CBT for justice-involved youth. [24]

What We Have Learned

The seven OJJDP-funded studies further our understanding of the relationship between childhood trauma and juvenile justice system involvement. They provide strong evidence to support and further refine knowledge about the high levels of childhood trauma that justice-involved youth experience.

Within samples of justice-involved youth, the studies found high levels of previous trauma as well as ongoing exposure to trauma during and following justice system involvement. Researchers at Loyola University Chicago highlighted how continuous exposure to violence was related to reoffending and rearrest in adulthood. Another study shed light on the differences in traumatic experiences for justice-involved youth who identify as LGBTQA or GNC.

Three studies started with broader samples of youth and examined how trauma was related to offending and juvenile justice system involvement. One found strong support for the relationship between trauma and justice system involvement, and another found support for the relationship between trauma and later offending. Researchers at the University of Chicago found more limited support for the relationship between specific forms of trauma (community-based and school-based) and justice system involvement with a sample of youth in the child welfare system.

Researchers identified several potential prevention or intervention points for youth exposed to violence and trauma. Researchers at Child Trends found that a strong connection to school, high-quality relationships with a mother or father figure, and high levels of neighborhood collective efficacy were protective factors that reduced the likelihood of later offending. Similarly, researchers at the University of Alabama found that academic progress was a protective factor, while psychological symptoms of hopelessness appeared to strengthen the relationship between trauma and court involvement. Another study highlighted that a lack of emotion or learned emotional detachment — which are coping methods resulting from trauma — were associated with higher levels of reoffending.

A study in Minnesota highlighted the importance of addressing potential exposure to sexual assault with youth who identify as LGBTQA or GNC. Finally, researchers at George Mason University found that trauma-informed practices as a whole produced positive results with at-risk youth who experienced trauma and highlighted CBT and TF-CBT as programs with particularly strong evidence of effectiveness with this group.

All of these findings underscore the importance of preventing child maltreatment and children’s exposure to violence as victims or witnesses. One conclusion that may be drawn from several of the studies is that it will likely require coordination across sectors, including, but not limited to, the justice system, to carry out effective strategies for mitigating the harm from childhood trauma and reducing the link to justice system involvement. Policymakers and practitioners can help by focusing on prevention, intervention, and treatment modalities across child-serving systems that address factors known to influence the relationship between childhood exposure to violence and later justice system involvement.

For More Information

Learn more about NIJ’s research on children exposed to violence .

About This Article

This article was published as part of NIJ Journal issue number 283. This article discusses the following awards:

• “A Longitudinal Investigation of Trauma Exposure, Retraumatization, and Post-Traumatic Stress of Justice-Involved Adolescents,” award number 2016-MU-MU-0070
• “Violence Exposure, Continuous Trauma, and Repeat Offending in Female and Male Serious Adolescent Offenders,” award number 2016-MU-MU-0067
• “Exposure to Violence, Trauma, and Juvenile Court Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Mobile Youth and Poverty Study Data (1998-2011),” award number 2016-MU-MU-0068
• “Trauma Exposure, Ecological Factors, and Child Welfare Involvement as Predictors of Youth Crossover Into the Juvenile Justice System,” award number 2016-MU-MU-0069
• “To Understand the Role of Trauma, Exposure to Violence, and Retraumatization for Justice-Involved Youth, Particularly for Clients Who Identify as LGBTQI or GNC,” award number 2016-MU-MU-0066
• “Maltreatment and Delinquency Associations Across Development: Assessing Difference Among Historically Understudied Groups and Potential Protective Factors,” award number 2016-MU-MU-0064
• “Trauma-Informed Interventions for Justice-Involved Youth: A Meta-Analysis,” award number 2016-MU-MU-0065

[note 1] The National Child Traumatic Stress Network, “ About Child Trauma .”

[note 2] Vincent J. Felitti et al., “Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 14 (1998): 245-258; and Emily M. Zarse et al., “The Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire: Two Decades of Research on Childhood Trauma as a Primary Cause of Adult Mental Illness, Addiction, and Medical Diseases,” Cogent Medicine 6 no. 1 (2019): 1-9.

[note 3] Katie A. Ports, Derek. C. Ford, and Melissa T. Merrick, “ Adverse Childhood Experiences and Sexual Victimization in Adulthood ,” Child Abuse & Neglect 51 (2016): 313-322.

[note 4] Isaiah B. Pickens et al., “ Victimization and Juvenile Offending ,” The National Child Traumatic Stress Network; Heather A. Turner et al., “ Polyvictimization and Youth Violence Exposure Across Contexts ,” Journal of Adolescent Health 58 no. 2 (2016): 208-214; and Cecilia C. Lo et al., “ From Childhood Victim to Adult Criminal: Racial/Ethnic Differences in Patterns of Victimization-Offending Among Americans in Early Adulthood ,” Victims & Offenders 15 no. 4 (2020): 430-456.

[note 5] Silvia C. Halpern et al., “ Child Maltreatment and Illicit Substance Abuse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies ,” Child Abuse Review 27 no. 5 (2018): 344-360.

[note 6] Elizabeth Crouch et al., “ Challenges to School Success and the Role of Adverse Childhood Experiences ,” Academic Pediatrics 19 no. 8 (2019): 899-907.

[note 7] Kathryn L. Humphreys et al., “ Child Maltreatment and Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire ,” Child Abuse & Neglect 102 (2020): 104361.

[note 8] Leah K. Gilbert et al., “ Childhood Adversity and Adult Chronic Disease: An Update From Ten States and the District of Columbia, 2010 ,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 48 no. 3 (2015): 345-349.

[note 9] National Institute of Justice, Compendium of Research on Children Exposed to Violence (CEV) 2010-2015 , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 2016.

[note 10] Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “ Children Exposed to Violence. ”

[note 11] Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention funding opportunity, “ OJJDP FY 2016 Studies Program on Trauma and Justice-Involved Youth ,” grants.gov announcement number OJJDP-2016-10040, posted May 9, 2016.

[note 12] In October 2018, the juvenile justice and delinquency prevention research, evaluation, and statistical functions of the Office of Justice Programs moved from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to the National Institute of Justice.

[note 13] Edward P. Mulvey, Carol A. Schubert, and Alex Piquero, “ Pathways to Desistance — Final Technical Report ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2008-IJ-CX-0023, January 2014, NCJ 244689.

[note 14] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Thomas A. Loughran and Joan Reid, “ A Longitudinal Investigation of Trauma Exposure, Retraumatization, and Post-Traumatic Stress of Justice-Involved Adolescents ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2016-MU-MU-0070, August 2018, NCJ 252015.

[note 15] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Noni Gaylord-Harden, “ Violence Exposure, Continuous Trauma, and Repeat Offending in Female and Male Serious Adolescent Offenders ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2016-MU-MU-0067, January 2020, NCJ 254493.

[note 16] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Anneliese Bolland and John Bolland, “ Exposure to Violence, Trauma, and Juvenile Court Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Mobile Youth and Poverty Study Data (1998-2011) ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2016-MU-MU-0068, January 2020, NCJ 254496.

[note 17] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Leah Gjertson and Shannon Guiltinan, “ Youth Trauma Experiences and the Path From Child Welfare to Juvenile Justice ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2016-MU-MU-0069, December 2020, NCJ 255928.

[note 18] Survival analysis refers to a set of statistical approaches used to investigate the time it takes for an event of interest to occur. In this case, the event of interest is initial justice involvement (e.g., arrest).

[note 19] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Andrea Hoffmann et al., “ Understanding the Role of Trauma and Violence Exposure on Justice-Involved LGBTQA and GNC Youth in Hennepin County, MN ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2016-MU-MU-0066, January 2020, NCJ 254495.

[note 20] Surveys were completed by youth at the Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center and the County Home School, and in juvenile probation.

[note 21] Cisgender is a term that applies to a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.

[note 22] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from Andra Wilkinson et al., “ How School, Family, and Community Protective Factors Can Help Youth Who Have Experienced Maltreatment ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2016-MU-MU-0064, December 2020, NCJ 255937.

[note 23] Unless otherwise noted, all data in this section come from David B. Wilson, Ajima Olaghere, and Catherine S. Kimbrell, “ Trauma-Focused Interventions for Justice-Involved and At-Risk Youth: A Meta-Analysis ,” Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant number 2016-MU-MU-0065, December 2020, NCJ 255936.

[note 24] More information about cognitive behavioral therapy and trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy is available on CrimeSolutions.ojp.gov .

About the author

Phelan Wyrick, Ph.D., is a supervisory social science analyst and director of the Research and Evaluation Division in NIJ’s Office of Research, Evaluation, and Technology. Kadee Atkinson was a graduate research assistant with NIJ and is a doctoral student at Howard University.

Cite this Article

Read more about:, related publications.

• NIJ Journal Issue No. 283

Related Awards

• A Longitudinal Investigation of Trauma Exposure, Retraumatization, and Post-Traumatic Stress of Justice-Involved Adolescents
• Violence Exposure, Continuous Trauma, and Repeat Offending in Female and Male Serious Adolescent Offenders
• Exposure to Violence, Trauma, and Juvenile Court Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis of Mobile Youth and Poverty Study Data (1998-2011)
• Trauma Exposure, Ecological Factors, and Child Welfare Involvement as Predictors of Youth Crossover into the Juvenile Justice System
• To Understand the Role of Trauma, Exposure to Violence, and Retraumatization for Justice Involved Youth, Particularly for Clients Who Identify As LGBTQI or GNC
• Maltreatment and Delinquency Associations across Development: Assessing Difference Among Historically Understudied Groups and Potential Protective Factors
• Trauma-informed interventions for justice-involved youth: A meta-analysis

The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency Essay

Introduction, media impact and other factors, curbing juvenile delinquency.

This document critically analyzes the role played by the media in heightening juvenile delinquency. It also gives some examples of real incidences where the media compelled juvenile delinquency. In addition, the document points out the harmful effects of juvenile delinquency that include death and physical injury. Moreover, it highlights other factors that have contributed to increased crime rates among the youth. The factors may include, parental negligence and family conflicts, societal moral decay, and influence from various forms of mass media such as television and radio. The document has also pinpointed various ways of curbing juvenile crimes, and their ill effects. These ways include educating the community with utmost emphasis on the youth, government involvement in implementing measures to control the vice, and parental guidance.

In the recent past, different media houses have aired countless criminal cases, involving young teenagers and youths. In these cases, young people have committed heinous unlawful activities towards innocent victims, most of whom are their peers. However, adults including parents and teachers have also been victims of these juvenile delinquents, resulting in fatal incidences and severe injuries (Sorrells, 1977). Besides, their various factors have prompted many young people into indulging in criminal activities. Some of these factors include parental negligence, influence from peers, and illegal drugs usage. Besides, the media have been at the forefront of the fight against juvenile-related crimes. Televisions, radios, and newspapers, among other media forms, have been a significant factor in the campaign against juvenile delinquency. On the other hand, the media play a crucial role in escalating juvenile criminal activities within society (Yanich, 2005). In this view, this document aims at critically evaluating the role of various forms of media in escalating juvenile delinquency, and ways to curb the vice.

Over the years, the media have been at the forefront in informing, educating, as well as entertaining the mass among all societal members across the globe. Besides, media come in many forms, examples being newspapers, televisions, the Internet, and various informative journals (Yanich, 2005). However, some information aired by the media has proved to be severely detrimental to the psychological health of young people, thereby compelling them to involvement in criminal activities. Moreover, a recent survey indicated that 90% of the interviewed youths agreed to the fact that the media negatively affects their behavior. Besides, a group of teens arrested for scores of robbery activities claimed to have gotten the influence from rap music they saw on TV. They admitted having been involved in these activities, since it was the in-thing, thus heightening what researchers view as copycat crimes (Surette, 2002). This makes sense since young people are exceptionally adept at imitating what perceive from the media. Moreover, the media portray the real situation in society.

In the era of modernity and technological advancement, many teenagers have unlimited and unmonitored access to the Internet. However, though the Internet is a valuable tool in educating and entertaining, it also comes with a package of other appalling features. Many people have been able to a have way into pornographic sites, thereby polluting their innocent minds. Besides, it exposes the youth to violent-related computer games that provoke them into doing what they visualize.

In addition, most movies use violence and vulgar language thus reflecting the society as a cruel place without love for one another, depicting revenge as an accepted norm. Moreover, while reporting about criminal incidences, the media usually exaggerates facts, thereby misinforming society. The media also depict crime as a normal occurrence in society. As a result, the media give a wrong perception of crime statistics, thus forcing young people to engage in violence. In a survey conducted on a group of juvenile convicts, many admitted to learning crime concepts from various television shows (Surette, 2002).

In media reporting of criminal incidences, gender imbalance is rampant. The media reflect the male youths as being macho and prone to criminal activities. This causes many male teenagers to think and act in that manner, as opposed to their female counterparts, thereby increasing rates of criminal frequency in numerous societal settings.

Technological expertise has also aggravated the dilemma of juvenile delinquency. Through various social networks, teenagers can communicate with diverse people globally. Moreover, they use these sites to share information, most of which may be harmful to them. Besides, some terror groups have taken advantage of these sites to recruit innocent youth, without the knowledge of their parents or caregivers. This has been possible since remarkably few parents monitor their kids’ access to the media.

On the other hand, society is to blame for the increased crime rates perpetrated by young offenders. Many parents and caregivers have neglected their teenage children, since they are always busy in their professions, and lack time to teach children the time-honored norms and cultural values of society. Furthermore, family conflicts and marriage break-ups have had a severe impact on accelerating youth participation in the crime. As a result, families up-bring undisciplined children who rely on the media and peers as a source of comfort and information. Besides, misinformed youths are subject to crime. Moreover, some community members serve as imperfect examples to the teenagers (Patchin, Huebner, McCluskey, & Varano, et al., 2006).

To win the battle against juvenile delinquency, the concerned parties should focus on eliminating factors that exacerbate crime among teenagers. The involved parties should conduct thorough research on areas most subject to juvenile crimes. Furthermore, there should be accurate information on juvenile crime prevalence. This will help in uncovering the main factors that lead to juvenile crime, and thereby aid in controlling youth-related crimes.

To begin with, the media has the freedom of sharing information. However, the government should implement laws that control information aired through the media. In addition, the authorities should set in place stern punitive measures, in a bid to deter media companies from airing materials that negatively affect the psychological health of young society members. Besides, the media should be actively involved in combating juvenile law-breaking through advertisement and informative programming.

Moreover, members of various societies should initiate campaigns aimed at educating the youth against criminal activities. This may be in the form of seminars, workshops, and charity walks. In addition, since most teenagers engage in crime because of being idle, they should be heartened to engage in community services such as voluntary services in various projects, in a bid to free them from idleness (Hoffmann & Xu, 2002). Youth should also be encouraged to involve themselves in schools’ extracurricular activities such as sports and different social clubs available in most schools (Hoffmann & Xu, 2002).

Parents and caregivers should dedicate more time to being with their children, and advise them on upstanding moral values accepted in society. They should also be an exemplary role model since children are better at imitating than listening.. Moreover, if the youth engage in repeated crimes, the concerned parties should take them to appropriate psychiatrists, where qualified personnel will counsel them against crime involvement. Moreover, in severe incidences, parents should send the affected teenagers to rehabilitation centers for behavior change. Once out of the rehabilitation center, counselors should monitor the youth, since there may be cases of recurrent crime involvement. The counselor can organize weekly sessions, where they can meet with the affected youth and discourage them from reiterating in crime.

In addition, parents’ duty should ensure that teenagers have controlled access to various forms of media that may negatively influence the youths’ behavior. Young people should be encouraged to engage themselves in academic work, and avoid the idleness associated with too much media exposure.

The media have been actively involved in enlightening and entertaining society members globally. Nevertheless, it possesses a substantial impact that impels the youth towards engaging in criminal activities (Sorrells, 1977). Violent movies series aired by different media houses have influenced many young teenagers to engage in crime. Besides, the family is also accountable for the escalation of crime rates within societies. Many modern parents have neglected their teenage children, who have resorted to peers in search of acceptance and comfort.

To curb this misdemeanor, all concerned parties must work together and use all the available resources to control the vice. The authorities should pass laws that govern the information aired by the media. In addition, besides airing nonviolent programs, they should also play their role in educating society against criminal activities (Yanich, 2005). Besides, parents should create time for their children and teach them socially acceptable norms. Moreover, teenagers should be willing to change their ill behaviors, since they are the worst affected by criminal activities. Once put into practice, the battle against juvenile delinquency will be a success.

Hoffmann, J., & Xu, J. (2002). School Activities, Community Service, and Delinquency . Crime & Delinquency, 48, 586-591.

Patchin, J., Huebner, B., McCluskey, J., & Varano, S., et al. (2006). Exposure to Community Violence and Childhood Delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 307-332.

Sorrells, J. (1977). Kids Who Kill. Crime & Delinquency, 23, 311 -320.

Surette, R. (2002). Self-Reported Copycat Crime among a Population of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 46-69.

Yanich, D. (2005). Kids, Crime, and Local Television News. Crime & Delinquency, 51, 103-132.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 27). The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-media-on-juvenile-delinquency/

"The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency." IvyPanda , 27 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-media-on-juvenile-delinquency/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency'. 27 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency." March 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-media-on-juvenile-delinquency/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency." March 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-media-on-juvenile-delinquency/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Impact of Media on Juvenile Delinquency." March 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-impact-of-media-on-juvenile-delinquency/.

• Juvenile Delinquency
• Social Learning Theory and juvenile delinquency
• The Issue of Juvenile Delinquency
• The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention
• Factors Associated With Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency, Its Factors and Theories
• Theories of Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency and Reasons That Lead to It
• Juvenile Delinquency in Ancient and Modern Times
• Juvenile Justice Systems and Processes
• Juvenile Crime Statistics
• Court Decisions that Influence Juvenile Justice System
• Life Without Parole and Juvenile Delinquency
• Modern Juvenile Justice Program

Psychology Discussion

• Essay on Juvenile Delinquency

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In this essay we will discuss about Juvenile Delinquency. After reading this essay you will learn about: 1. Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency 2. Meaning of Juvenile Delinquency 3. Incidence 4. Causes 5. Variables 6.  Treatment.

• Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency

Essay # 1. Introduction to Juvenile Delinquency:

Delinquency has always been considered as a social problem over and above the fact that it is a legal problem. It is also a psychological problem. Hence to avoid this social evil one has to tackle the complex problem of delinquency from the social psychological and to familial angles.

Although laws regarding Juvenile delinquencies have been formed long since, they are also being changed from time to time. Currently, in all the progressive and civilized countries of the world the laws with regard to the Juvenile delinquents have been changed.

Special courts are established with specially trained Magistrates for the trial of the delinquents. Today delinquency is being considered as a misbehaviour, a social nuisense than a crime. So, in every state the children’s Act (1944) required custody, control and punishment of young offenders.

It also provides for the establishment of reformatory schools for them. But the revised Bombay children’s Act of 1948 provided not only for custody and control but also for treatment and rehabilitation of young offenders.

Essay # 2. Meaning of Juvenile Delinquency:

Crime committed by children and adolescents under the age of 18 years, is called delinquency. The maximum age limit and also the meaning of delinquency varies from country to country. But it is always below 18 years of age which is the statutory age for delinquency.

In India any person between the age of 7 and 18 years, who violates the provisions of the children’s Acts, the IPC and the CPO will be considered as delinquent. Persons above this age are considered as criminals.

Juvenile delinquency is defined by the Pensylvania Juvenile Court Act as “A delinquent child is one who violated any laws of the common wealth ordinance of the city, a child who by reasons of being way ward or habitually disobedient is uncontrolled by his parents, guardian, custodian or legal representative, a child who is habitually trunt from school or home or child who habitually so deports himself is to injury or endanger the moral or health of himself or others”.

Delinquency in the view of the Coleman (1981) refers to “behaviour of youths under 18 years of age which is not acceptable to society and is generally regarded as calling for some kind of admonishment punishment or corrective actions”.

Delinquency includes all sorts of crimes committed by children. Starting from the business and use of illegal drugs and homicide murder, it may include various types of dangerous criminal offences.

Delinquency undoubtedly is a social evil. It is a socially unacceptable behaviour committed by boys and girls below the age of 18 years. Instead of giving these delinquents punishment, they are kept in Juvenile jail and correction homes where various corrective measures are taken to change their behaviour in the positive direction.

It is observed that crime and delinquency are increasing day by day with the increase in population and complexity of culture. As population increases the small societies become bigger ones and are found in the form of mass society.

In mass societies there is less scope for mutual interaction and face to face contact. The family bonds and community bonds thus become weak to weaker. Now a days no one knows or cares to know who is staying next door. Parents and children do not meet.

While motivation is derived from the Latin word “Movere” which means move, social motivation refers to those social factors and situations which influence the person to behave in a particular style in a society. To eat is a biogenic need, but what to eat and how to eat is influenced by social forces and social interaction.

One feels hungry, it is a biogenic need but how to satisfy these hunger need and where to ask for food is determined by socialization process.

A child who has gone to a neighbour’s house to play, feels hungry, but he has been taught not to ask for food from outsiders. He is taught only to ask for food at his own house. This is a case of biological motive being influenced by socialization process.

Most of our needs and motives, attitudes and aspirations regarding food, dress, style of living are determined by our cultural values and norms of the society. The process of socialization puts a strong stamp mark on the behaviour of an individual in the society.

Essay # 3 . Incidence of Juvenile Delinquency :

Coleman’s Study (1981) indicates that the rate of delinquency increased by 100 per cent within seven years i.e., between 1968-1975. Though, mainly boys are involved in delinquency, now a days it is found that girls are also actively engaged in this antisocial work.

During these 20 years delinquency has further increased. One may not believe, but it is true that almost half of the serious crimes in U.S.A. are committed by juveniles.

Common delinquent acts in females are sexual offences, small thefts, drug usage, running away from home etc. Among the males delinquents are more engaged in stealing, drug usage, robbery, aggravated assaults, sexual abuses etc. Particularly, now a days, the incidence of delinquency is increasing alarmingly in large metropolitan cities and this has become a matter of great concern for the public and country.

While evidences from some studies show that children from lower class families and those residing in slum areas are more engaged in delinquency, other studies do not support this view. In an important study, Heary and Gold (1973) found significant relationship between social status and delinquent behaviour.

In another significant study, it was noticed that the rate of delinquency in case of socially disadvantaged youths appears about equal for whites and non-whites.

Like any other country, as reports of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt, of India, shows, there is a steady rise in the percentage of delinquency in India. While it was 16,160 in 1961, it was, 40,666 in 1974. Thus, in 13 years the increase in the incidence of delinquency, as reports show, has the highest percentage of Juvenile crimes (24.8%).

Second place goes to M.P. (20.5%) and third place to Gujarat (10.9%). Kerala has an incidence rate of only 0.2%.

Essay # 4 . Causes of Delinquency :

In many under-developed and developing countries including many parts of india, criminal tendency of a person is looked upon as the results of evil deeds in the past life of the parents. this is undoubtedly a misconception and prejudice., in the other extreme of the case, when a child develops delinquency many believe that it is due to the fault actions, omissions and commissions of his parents during his childhood..

Delinquents lack ethical standards and emotional ties. They are very impulsive and indulge in acts at the spur of the moment. They are socially insensitive and lack guilt feeling. Delinquents, inspite of their socially unacceptable behaviours, created difficulties for the self as well as for others.

Considered as a learned behaviour, delinquency was found to be highly correlated with low life styles with lack of recreational facilities and lack of permanent residence.

Essay # 5. Variables of Juvenile Delinquency:

The variables of delinquency may broadly be divided into:

(A) Personality characteristics of individual factors

(B) General socio-cultural factors indulging family pattern and interaction, delinquent gang and subculture.

(A) Personality Characteristics/ Individual Factors:

No social factors alone-can contribute to the causation of delinquency though social and cultural factors contribute their share to delinquency. Personality characteristics and individual factors also contribute a lot to the causation of delinquency.

(i) Brain Damage:

As per the reports of Caputo and Mandell (1970), Kiestor (1974) in about one per cent of the delinquents brain damage leads to lower inhibitory controls and a tendency to show violent behaviour. The genetic theorists argue the presence of an extra ‘Y’ chromosome in delinquents.

(ii) Psychopathic Personality :

Large number of persistent delinquents have been found to possess the traits and characteristics of antisocial and psychopathic personalities. A number of studies conducted in UK and India using Eysenck’s personality inventory show delinquents to be more extroverts, more neurotic, more psychotic and to have more criminal tendencies than the control group.

They seem to be quite impulsive, callus, and socially insensitive, they do not have the feelings of sorrow, guilt and repentance. They are not able to establish suitable interpersonal relationship and they do not learn anything from experience in a constructive way.

The persistent delinquents also do not seem to have any reality control or inner conscience or morality. So, they indulge in whatever they wish, which give them pleasure and satisfy their ego with assessing its impact upon the society and their final consequence.

For example, they may steal a very little money actually they do not need or they may steal a scooter, a car or snatch a golden chain without any need or necessity.

Just to fulfil their aggressive and sadistic tendency they may drive their car to a small distance, break some parts of the car and leave it there. They just want to satisfy their destructive tendency, which gives them pleasure. Many psychopathic delinquents are found to cut the brand new cushions in theaters and movie halls.

This author has also observed many delinquents of 10-12 years age who are in the habit of breaking the electric bulb in every lamp post on the road without any reason, in the presence of other people in broad day light. They just did not care, use abusive language and again repeat their aggressive behaviour with more vigour.

Actually, the delinquents do not involve themselves in such nuisance for personal gain, but it really reflects their underlying resentment and hostility towards the outer world, the world for which they have no feeling of involvement or belongingness.

There are others who just move around in a gang aimlessly and get pleasure in eve teasing, in passing filthy remarks whenever a member of the fair sex passes by. Such people are really at the mercy of their uncontrolled, uninhibited impulses.

It would be interesting to note that currently the incidence of psychopathic personality in female delinquents has increased quite rapidly as reports suggest. Fine and Fishman (1968) conducted a study on 155 girls in a State Correctional Institution in Kentuky to know their general personality characteristics.

They found rebelliousness, inadequacy, impulsiveness, instability and immature characteristics commonly found in the psychopathic personality.

It was also found by Ganzer and Sarason (1973) that females more frequently come from personally and socially disorganised families than did males. The theories of both sheldon and Eysenck stress genetic aspects along with environmental aspects to explain delinquent behaviour.

(iii) Drug Abuse :

Quite a large number of delinquents particularly those who are engaged in theft, prostitution and physical assault are found to be addicted to drugs, like heroin, secobarbital and alcohol. Drug addicted females are usually engaged in stealing and prostitution.

(iv) Mental Retardation/Mental Deficiency :

Various studies have been conducted to find out the relationship between intelligence and delinquent behaviour to solve the controversy whether delinquency is environmental or genetic. Long ago, an Italian Scientist Lumbroso made certain empirical studies on crime, and held that criminals have defective physical structure and defective intelligence.

Therefore, various steps have been taken to measure the I.Q. of Juvenile delinquents to verify this view. The study conducted by Healy, Burt and others have demonstrated clearly that delinquents are not mental defectives.

But, nevertheless, the average intelligence of the delinquent group is lower than the average intelligence of the normal group. It is also found that compared to the normal children a larger proportion of mental defectives are found in the Juvenile group.

Various investigators have reported different percentage of average I.Q. for the delinquents, compared to the average I.Q. of the normal as 100. Healy and Bronner (1926) found it to be 90, Burt (1925) found it to be 85, Merril (1947) found it to be 92.5.

The above data of different investigators reveal that the average intelligence of delinquents happen to be lower than the average I.Q. of normals. These data also give clear signal that the Juvenile delinquents as a group, at large, are not mentally defective though they are below average.

However, a low intelligence and mental retardation among 5% of the delinquents may be accounted to delinquent behaviour. Such people have no foresight to the consequences and significance of their action.

That is why, they commit various impulsive behaviour, like small aggressive acts, petty stealing and various other sexual offences. Even more intelligent psychopaths and gangs exploit them and include them in their group. In some cases, mental retardation is associated with serious brain damage and leads to a combination of features of both the organic and the mentally retarded delinquents.

The above facts lead one to conclude that Juvenile delinquents differ from normal persons in degree and not in kind so far, as their I.Q. is concerned. Hence, Juvenile delinquents cannot be looked upon as a group of mental defectives.

Some other studies also show that below 70 I.Q. there are only about 3% of the children who are mental defectives in an unselected population of children. But in the delinquent groups there are 12 to 15 per cent mental defectives.

Thus, the number of mentally defective children among the delinquents is about 4-5 times larger than in a normal population says Kupuswamy. Uday Sankar (1958) conducted a study 011 the mental ability of the delinquents and found that the proportions of mentally defective children is very high among the 140 Juvenile delinquents he has studied. 27.4% of them are below 70 I.Q.

Merril made a comparative study of the average intelligence of the delinquents and non-delinquents. It was found that the average intelligence of juvenile delinquents from socially and economically handicapped group is low.

While those coming from higher socio economic groups was higher. The average intelligence of children from the non- delinquent, but lower groups is also low. Merril took a controlled group and an experimental group, each group with 300 boys and girls.

In the experimental group, the 300 boys and girls were delinquents while in the control group they were non-delinquents. The socio-economic status of both the groups were kept constant. Results showed that while the average I.Q. of the 300 delinquents children was 86.7, the average I.Q. of the 300 non-delinquent children was 89.3.

The results, thus, did not show any significant difference between the I.Q. of the controlled and the experimental group though there was some obtained difference. So, Merril held that it is not justified to assume that larger proportion of the delinquents have lower I.Q. However, it is possible that the higher I.Q. delinquents and criminal may utilize the lower I.Q. children for their criminal purpose and gang work.

In case, they are caught by the police, the intelligent juveniles escape while the less intelligent juveniles arc trapped. Such incidents are not rare in our society. The innocent ones are caught easily because of their lack of understanding and lack of capacity to solve the immediate problems facing them.

(v) Neurosis :

About 3 to 5 per cent of delinquent behaviour, seems to be directly associated with psychoneurotic disorders. Here, the delinquent act is mainly tinged with compulsive behaviour, such as stealing things which one actually does not need, or compelled to do.

He will not be stable and remain at peace unless he does these acts. This type of compulsive acts also lead to sexual deviant behaviour because of the sexual restrictions and beliefs that masturbation and other forms of overt sexual behaviour are very much undesirable and a sin.

(vi) Psychosis :

In a limited number of cases, i.e. about 3 to 5%, delinquent, behaviour is associated with psychotic disorders. In Bandurar’s opinion (1973) often this involves prolonged emotional and social withdrawal arising out of long standing frustration.

Then, there is an explosive outburst of violent behaviour like volcanic eruption. Here, the delinquent act is the function of terrible personality, maladjustment and disturbances rather than a consistent antisocial orientation.

(vii) Emotional Problems :

Delinquency as an antisocial personality is the function of certain pathological and ill developed social environment. Wrong handling and faulty upbringing of the child lead to several emotional problems in the child. Various observations, case histories and interviews have indicated that quite a high percentage of the delinquents displayed emotional disturbances.

Heally and Bronner found that 92% of the delinquents showed emotional disturbances. Feeling of inadequacy, inferiority etc. were frequently found in them. In about 50% of the group, they were persistently present.

The feeling of insecurity, rejection of the parents and other members of the family were next important factors causing delinquent behaviour. About 33% of the group experienced strong feeling of being thwarted. Disharmony and problems of discipline were found in one third of the delinquents.

Quite a number of them also expressed sibling rivalry and jealousy. All these data lead to show that various emotional problems like insecurity, inferiority, jealousy, feeling of being neglected and let down were very common among the delinquent children.

The need for recognition and resentment against the sense of insecurity provides enough scope for a person to be delinquent. Rebellious feeling in oneself makes one antisocial and delinquent.

Because of these emotional problems which are created by dehumanised social conditions the person becomes a delinquent and tries to take action, against others. It is a fact that by their antisocial, sadistic and aggressive action they try to get pleasure and mental satisfaction.

Because of their emotional problems, they should be considered as maladjusted personalities and not as peculiar human beings, who differ from other human beings not in degree but in kind. They should not be considered as abnormal human beings.

Their needs and desires are very much normal, but they have become so because of faulty family upbringing. They become hostile and aggressive because they feel threatened and insecured.

According to Friedlander, delinquent character is the result of three factors:

(i) The strength of the unmodified instinctive urges,

(ii) The weaknesses of the ego and

(iii) The lack of independence and strength of the super ego. He is not able to control his impulsive needs. In his case neither realistic considerations, nor moral considerations operate to check his impulsive actions. Stott (1950) holds that delinquent breaks down is an escape from emotional situation which for the particular individual with the various conditioning of his background becomes almost temporarily invariable.

(viii) Faulty Discipline and Child Rearing Practice :

When the parents or one of them use rigid discipline, it increases hostility in the child. Why? Because of rigid discipline all his wishes and desires are suppressed and restrained. This leads to the development of an antisocial, rebellious and hostile personality in the growing child.

By constant suppression of desires the child never feels free and clear. Conflicting views of parents and teachers regarding discipline also contribute.

If the child rearing practices are faulty and are based on rigid, dictatorial principles, if the child is always left to cry and cry, if the child is not handled with due love and affection, if the discipline is harsh, inconsistent and irrational, his suppressed and repressed aggression is vented through anti-social and delinquent behaviour.

Prolonged parental deprivation particularly at the early age of life, between 1-5 years is extremely adverse for the normal personality development of the child. The affectionless and loveless life due to proper parenting and judicious child rearing practices lead to several maladjustments and in some cases juvenile delinquency.

Bowlby (1946) compared 44 children who committed various thefts and hence were kept in the London child Guidance Clinic for treatment with 44 normal children of the same age and Socio-economic status, who came to the clinic for treatment but who did not steal.

Results showed that 17 of the 44 thief’s had suffered from prolonged separation from their mothers. But in the control group only 02 were separated from their mothers.

Of course, the question why the remaining 27 thief’s of the experimental group inspite of being with their mother took recourse to thefts has not been explained by this factor. But there are other factors besides parental deprivation which influence the development of delinquency.

Stott is of opinion that security, affection, love and proper attention from the parents are basically required for the proper growth of personality of the child. Those children who do not get this from their parents become susceptible to delinquency.

By becoming delinquents they try to get attention from their parents. Further they with an attitude of revolt try to teach their parents a lesson. Some also become vindictive and develop antisocial, reactionary, negative behaviour. They get sadistic satisfaction by giving pain to their parents and causing them worry. They get pleasure by seeing them suffering.

Lower socio-economic status parents usually remain absent from home for earning their bread. Both the father and mother work from morning to evening outside. So the child is deprived from parental care and is neglected.

They also cannot provide a baby sister to take care of the baby because of their poverty. Since the parents of low S.E.S. are not properly educated and properly trained, they cannot take proper care of their children. To add to this the school going children do not get scope for going to good school for their educational and social development. All these factors either separately or in combination pave the way for delinquency.

(ix) Broken Homes :

Studies show that children coming from broken homes, where parents are separated or divorced, lead to delinquent behaviour, than those children coining from broken homes where the home is broken by the death of the parents or one of the parents. In Western countries, where separation and divorce of parents are more common, this is a major cause of delinquency.

But in India, though currently separation and divorce cases are increasing day by day, they are not so rampant like their Western counterparts and hence, is not a major cause of delinquency.

In a study of institutionalized delinquents in the State of Colorado, Barker and Adams (1962) found that only about one-third of the boys and girls come from complete home setting, i.e. where they live with both their original parents. British and American Investigations reveal that nearly 50 per cent of the delinquents come from broken homes.

(x) Socio-pathic Parental Models :

Glueck and Glueck (1969), Ulmar (1971) and Bandura (1973) have found high presence of socio- pathic traits in the parents of the delinquents. Socio-pathic traits include alcoholism, brutality, anti­social attitudes, failure to provide unnecessary frequent absences from home, lack of communication with the child etc. All these traits make the father an inadequate and unacceptable model for the child.

According to Scharfman and Clark (1967) the chief variables of the delinquent behaviour of girls were:

(a) Broken homes combined with emotional deprivation,

(b) Irrational, harsh and inconsistent parental discipline,

(c) Patterns of only aggressive and sexual behaviour modelled by psychopathic parents.

(xi) Parental Absenteeism :

In studies on juvenile delinquency, Martin (1961) and others have emphasized the feeling of unrelatedness and detachment from the family and society as a key cause of delinquency. Communication gap with one or both parents leads to the failure to learn appropriate social values. This finally leads to a tendency to act out inner tension in hostile and destructive manner.

The question is why this feeling of unrelatedness or insecurity arises in young people who differ vastly in age I.Q., personality make up and socio-economic standard. A key source of this feeling appears to be parental absenteeism.

When parents are too much absorbed in their own occupations and activities and do not provide the youth optimum attention, necessary support and encouragement during the crisis period of the growing age, they turn to peers and others as models who might be lacking the qualities of ideal models for the child.

(xii) Mother Dominance :

When the father is mostly busy with his own work and commitments or in other works, and if he plays a submissive role in the family, the mother takes over the function of providing affection and discipline of the boy.

In certain cases, it is found that by nature the mother because of her aggressive personality pattern or earning capacity plays a dominant role compared to the father. When the child grows up with a mother dominance atmosphere in the family, he starts identifying with the mother and greatly depends upon him as a role model.

With this type of attitude when he reaches adolscence, it becomes difficult for the boy to develop a masculine self concept. Thus, now he tries to express his masculanity, independence courage and finally the so called male ego in rebellious and proving offences. By being engaged in such anti-social acts, he gets the satisfaction that he is really masculine.

(xiii) Father Rejection :

Andry, on the basis of the findings of his studies, concluded that the delinquent boys felt rejected by their fathers but loved by their mothers. Non-delinquent boys on the other hand felt to be equally loved and cared by both the parents. A child who is rejected by his parents day in and day out, develops, naturally, an inner feeling of hostility towards him.

The gap in communication and lack of understanding between the father and the child paves the way for anti-social behaviour in the form of anguish, aggression and hostility. When he finds that a large part of his world is unable to deal with him properly, he in turn does not like to understand the world either.

This hostility is transformed in the form of anti-social and delinquent behaviour. He, infact, lacks normal inner controls. He does not have the basic values of life. So, he tends to act out his aggressive impulses.

(xiv) Undesirable Peer Relationship :

Delinquency is said to be a gang experience. In support of this view, Haney and Gold (1973) found that about 66 per cent of the delinquent behaviours are committed in association with other persons. Usually it is a homogenious group so far, as sex is concerned. But in selected cases, as found now a days girls and boys also form gangs and delinquent groups.

(B) General Socio-Cultural Factors:

(i) Alienation and Rebellion :

Many ego psychologists view that the modern youth is only a bundle of confusions as far as his values of life is concerned. Most surprisingly, it is common in youths coming from all socio-economic levels. There is a communication gap and a generation gap.

They do not accept the values of their parents or grandparents and they are even confused of their so called own values and sense of identity. There is also identity crisis in many of them. Thus, in short, they are all in a mess.

They do not know what to accept and what to reject. They always experience a feeling of alienation from family as well as society. This lack of identification and development of clear values turn them to the outer world to peers gangs and friends for guidance and approval. They may take drugs and engage in illegal anti­social activities like thefts, pick pockets, violences etc.

There are innumerable instances where many modern youths who run away from home as a sort of reaction to their rebellious feeling, tend to join gangs indulged in delinquent behaviour, prostitution etc. In the same manner, socially disadvantaged youths, such as belonging to lower income groups, lower caste groups and having very little education, having lower status in the society may turn to delinquency also.

(ii) The Social Rejects :

With the increase in urbanization and industrialization, family ties grow weaker. Joint family systems are gradually disintegrating. People prefer to have their own family of husband and wife and children.

With the formation of mass society, influence of technology on society and erosion of values, social disintegration is increasing day by day. Joint family system has now become a dream. Tolerance and sense of sacrifice and feeling of cooperation is decreasing day by day.

Divorce and remarriage are quite common in the Western countries and urban areas. Though some decades back in India the public opinion was very strong against divorce and remarriage, now it has changed to some extent with the increase in industrialization and urbanization.

The effect of social disintegration, erosion of values, lack of sense of social sacrifice and commitment for the society may make many children social rejects. Young boys and girls who lack the motivation to do well in school because of various familial and social factors and become drop outs who are social isolates as soon as they can.

Normally, they do not qualify for any job. Irrespective of class, sex social status and wealth, they generally feel useless and unneeded by the society. This lack of hope, feeling of uselessness and that they are rejected by the society, lead them to show undesirable anti-social behaviour.

Many of them remain unemployed. Those who somehow get some employment are funnily unable to hold the job, and so, they shift from job to job, engage in delinquent behaviour, partly as a result of frustration and partly due to confusion and hopelessness.

(iii) Delinquent Gang Subculture :

This includes the rebellion with the norms of the society. If a person is rejected by the society, his inner tension is often revealed in serious delinquent acts beating and fighting leading to serious physical injury.

As Jenkins has put it, the socialized delinquents represent not a failure of socialization but a limitation of loyalty to a more or less pedatory peer group. The basic capacities for social relationship has been achieved. What is lacking in an effective integration with the larger society as a contributing member.

(iv) Gangs and Companions :

In addition to other important causes of delinquency, those who feel inadequate and rejected by the group and society join gangs, peer groups and companions and indulge in anti-social activities. As a child grows, he mixes with the members of the neighbourhood and always becomes an important member of their play group. The norms set up for the child at home may not be similar to the norms set up by the play groups.

Because of such differences there may be conflict of values, ideas and norms. Even in the school these norms may be different. He has to conform and adjust with one set of norms at home and another set of norms in the play group and another in the school.

Various studies indicate that secondary groups, like neighbourhood, playmates, peers and school, and others in the society which the child comes in contact more often than not all have tremendous effects on the personality of the child. All these agents of socialization play important role in the process of socialization of the growing child.

Overcrowding of cities, lack of space at home, residence at slum areas, location of various shops and business centres in various residential areas of the city, environmental pollution create a lot of social problems. Such problems have an adverse effect on the social development of the child. Children of such areas do not have a park to play, do not have many recreational facilities.

Some of these children of the slum areas invade the industrial belts nearby for some occasional job and are sometimes thrown out because of their inefficiency. Being frustrated and finding no way out, they mix with other children of the similar category and form gangs. Street corner gangs have tremendous contribution to Juvenile delinquency.

Initially, the gang starts as a play group. In the absence of play ground facility, the children start playing in the streets and eventually organise themselves in to gangs. Various groups of the same or nearby area then start fighting.

Very recently one incident occurred in my residential colony. There is one ‘paan’ (bettle) shop in front of my house. Two days before the last Ganesh Puja when I reached home from market, I found that the two boys of the paan shop along with some outside teenagers are constructing a pendal adjacent to the paan shop.

On enquiry, my orderly peon told me that these boys belong to another nearby colony and they are going to celebrate Ganesh Puja here. They decorated the pendal and also started playing film songs using a mike two days before the Puja.

We were very much disturbed by these unnecessary loud sounds. But nobody dared to object with the apprehension of being misbehaved and malhandled by them. On the night prior to the Puja day this gang of 10 to 12 boys prepared a feast near the pendal and ate to their heart’s content.

At about 2 A.M. we heard loud noise of fighting and shouting in front of our house. We got up from sleep and saw that two gangs are fighting with each other. Some of them broke the image of Ganesh and broke the mike.

Consequently one members of a gang fell down on the ground with severe blows and head injury. After this incident immediately the culprits lied from the spot leaving the injured boy there. After ten minutes two persons came and took away the injured boy in a rickshaw.

After 3-4 minutes Police came to the spot and after necessary enquiry booked the culprits. Members of both the gangs were kept under the custody of the Police for the whole day.

Alas! the Puja could not be performed in time. Why the two gangs fought? Gang No. 1 did not want gang No.2 to celebrate a separate Ganesh Puja. Gang No. 1 wanted Gang No. 2 to contribute to their Puja. So there was conflict and quarrel between the two gangs.

Numerous such quarrels, violence’s and conflicts occur every day between the street corner and Zhopodi gangs. Some members of these gangs are involved in petty theft and anti-social behaviour. They are famous for creating social nuisense.

Why a person becomes a member of a gang? Gang membership provides them a sense of status and approval and a sense of belongingness which they did not get from their family and other social agents. In a gang, the responsibility or blame of threat is not shouldered by any individual member, but by the gang as a whole just like in a mob.

Thus, some prefer to steal or booze and do other illegal acts in the name of gang. Studies have indicated that the groups outside the home have a tremendous impact on the personality of the adolescent. The gang starts as a play group.

In the absence of play ground facility, the children start playing in the streets and eventually form a gang and the behaviour of the person is mostly influenced by the gang and so he develops delinquent tendencies.

Though the gang has all the qualities of an in group like cooperation, unity, fellow feeling and belongingness, it is also associated with crimes, like stealing, eveteasing, rioting, homicide, rape, murder, boozing, taking various drugs and abusing them, dacoity, assault and murders etc.

Thus, they form a racket and in an organised way they create terror in the area. Studies have indicated that these children are roughly between 10-16 years age. They also come from poor families with constant friction between parents and family members. Those children who usually become the members of the gang have often little or no parental guidance.

Studies also indicate that delinquency is committed in groups and in companies. Shaw analysed 6,000 cases of crime and observed that in 72 per cent of the cases two or more companions were involved.

Healy reported that companionship was a single factor causing delinquency in 34 per cent of the cases while Burt gives the figure at 18 per cent. Uday Sankar gives the figure at 23 per cent. Sometimes parents are seen complaining that their child became a delinquent by mixing in bad company.

But bad companionship is not the only cause of delinquency unless there are some defects in the character formation of the individual. However, bad companionship is never the less an important factor which lead to delinquency, since delinquency is also a learnt behaviour.

In a gang or a restricted group the influence of social norm is there, sense of responsibility is divided and a boy feels that cinema and various electronic medias, like TV, Video films of violent and sexual nature lead children to delinquency by being helped through various techniques of delinquency shown in the screen.

However, it is quite reasonable to assume that early childhood training and parental attitude, how the child is reared up, all these have tremendous impact in deciding delinquent behaviour. These predisposing characters are precipitated in a gang thus leading to delinquency.

Recently female delinquents have also formed their gangs with a purpose to protect and defy themselves. They find a sense of acceptance, belongingness and give and take, sympathy, understanding, companionships, loyalty, power and authority which they do not find in a socialized world which they consider to be an out group.

(v) Poverty :

Ample evidences are there to hold that a large percentage of the delinquent children come from poor homes. It is found that even 50 per cent of the delinquents come from lower strata of the society with very poor economic background and hand to mouth living standard. Glueck’s (1934) study revealed that only 28.8% of the children came from comfortable homes with good economic status of parents.

Those who are disadvantaged and under privileged due to their poverty had to take recourse to some anti-social action for their living also.

Hence, keeping all other factors constant, a child coming from a comfortable home has relatively less chance for becoming a delinquent than a child coming from a poor under privileged family, Glueck’s study also showed that 37% of the fathers of delinquent children were skilled labourers while 23% were semi-skilled labourers and 40% were unskilled labourers.

Findings of his study showed that not a single parent of the delinquent children came from the clerical services. Glueck’s study, thus, brings the fact to light that the nature of job of parents is also an important determinant of delinquency.

Of course, Glueck’s study was conducted about sixty four years back and much changes have taken place during these six to seven decades. Children of some well to do highly educated parents doing very good jobs in government and non-govt.

Offices also, now a days, are engaged in delinquency and the percentage is growing up day by day. But compared to their lower SES counterparts the percentage is very low. According to Uday Sankar’s Study 83% of the Juvenile delinquents came from poor homes, 13% from border line (neither poor nor rich) homes and only 4% came from comfortable homes.

But poverty cannot be the role cause of delinquency. Had it been so, in India where poverty is found in most homes, the number of delinquents would have been more than the rich and better off countries which is not a fact. In India the percentage of Juvenile delinquency is very low and most people are peace loving and disciplined unlike other developed and developing countries.

A study conducted by the Ministry of Education (1952) Govt, of India indicates that 32,400 children were awarded sentences for delinquency in 1949. But in 1950 it was noticed that 40,119 children of all the states of India except U.P. were put up for trial in the Juvenile courts. But besides these recorded cases, there might have been some unrecorded cases also.

Poor parents have to leave their children and go for work. Thus, the mother is not available to take proper care of the child. They are neglected and the child becomes wayward. Children from poor homes also do not get scope for education as they have to supplement the earning of their parents. Poverty is, therefore, a contributing cause of delinquency, although it is not the sole cause.

(vi) Stress :

Serious traumatic experiences may lead one to become a delinquent. Clark (1961) found that one- third of the cases studied by him were found to be suffering from trauma. These traumatic experiences may range from death of parents, children husband or wife, broken homes, disorganised families etc.

Burks and Harrison (1962) have also stressed the function of stresses which directly threaten the adolescent feeling of inadequacy and worth as precipitating events in some cases of aggressive antisocial behaviour. Finkelstein (1968) holds that accumulation of emotional tensions also lead to a final outbreak the form of delinquency.

(vii) Delinquent Areas :

Studies of Burt in England indicates that there are certain localities from which majority of delinquent children come. In these areas, there are poor housing overcrowding and lack of recreational facilities. Most delinquents also come from the areas where cinema houses and hotels are located.

Burt found a high correlation of 77 between delinquency and density of population. Shaw in a similar study found that the majority of the Juvenile delinquents came from the centres of Chicago and the number of juveniles decreased from centre to periphery. But this is not applicable to all children staying in the crowded localities.

Essay # 6 . Treatment of Juvenile Delinquency :

What is a crime after all? An act which is a crime in one society may not be a crime in another society as crimes are acts which violate the rights of a person or property as envisaged by law or tradition. But never the less certain acts are considered as criminal in every society like murders, theft etc.

Inspite of the cultural variations in different parts of the world, criminals are always punished by the society or law, although the degree of punishment may vary from society to society. Many in the society believe that punishment should be exemplary so that others will not dare to commit it.

This purpose of giving punishment to the culprit in a major way is to prevent criminal acts. But the question arises whether Juvenile delinquents who are below 18 years of age should be punished like the convicts and criminals or not.

Rehabilitation of delinquents has been a great social issue. Delinquency is an anti-social behaviour and it creates unrest and indiscipline in the society. It makes social life hazardous and dangerous. It also affects the peace and prosperity of the nation. It is, therefore, imperative that the readjustment problem of delinquents should be dealt very sincerely and effectively.

Many people in the society feel that Juvenile delinquents should be given severe punishment so that not only they, but others will not dare to repeat such illegal, anti-social action in future. But sociologists and psychologists strongly hold that since Juvenile delinquency refers to the cases of young minds and children at their tender age, one has to deal with such cases very cautiously and carefully.

Juvenile delinquency being a social disease the child or the adolscent has to be treated in such a manner, so that he can readjust with the society. His maladjustment with the society has to be changed.

Since delinquency is mainly caused in the society under social conditions mostly because his basic needs are not fulfilled, efforts should be made first to fulfil the basic needs of every child in a socially approved manner whether delinquent or non-delinquent and extra care should be taken of the delinquent child.

Each delinquent child tries to fulfil his needs in an anti-social manner. But it would be the job of the social reformers and psychologists dealing with the care of the delinquents, to fulfil their needs in a socially accepted manner according to the norms of the society and legal sanctions.

Further, each delinquent has to be considered individually focussing attention on the fulfillment of his needs for power, prestige and recognition. Each individual case of delinquency has to be studied separately keeping in view his specific problems. Then only, it will be possible to rehabilitate, recondition and readjust the individual in the society.

In recent years there has not only been any transformation in the past attitude of the society and social thinkers towards delinquency there has also been change in law with regard to Juvenile delinquency. The outlook is now more progressive and dynamic. Special courts have been established with specially trained Magistrates to handle the cases of delinquents.

They are also sheltered in special homes instead of jails and special care is taken so that they can be rehabilitated in the society. Remand homes are established by law to which the young offenders are sent. Trained social workers are also engaged to study each case. For each case a separate file is built up with the detailed case history, type of crime committed and further improvement in behaviour.

Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists are also engaged in many remand homes to reform these anti-socials. Instead of giving physical punishment to the offenders, constant efforts are made to bring change in their outlook and attitude towards society, towards themselves. In short, the aim of everyone involved is to rehabilitate the individual in the society as a normal individual.

Special schools are also established otherwise known as ‘Reformatory Schools’ with specially trained teachers to help the delinquents to overcome the deficiencies in their socialization and develop the right kind of attitude towards themselves. The teachers of such schools gradually try to become substituted parents and help the children in generating a sense of security, self confidence, right attitude towards society.

They are given various craft and other vocational training to earn their livelihood, once they are rehabilitated in the society. The schools also develop a number of group activities to change the ego and super ego of these children.

In Western countries delinquents in small groups are brought up in residential areas and given individual treatment, to have in them a feeling that they are part and parcel of the society. Thus, they are removed from the aversive environment and allowed to learn about the world of which they are a member.

If required, they are given individual therapy, group therapy and psychological counselling. Here, their behaviour is resocialized by the help of group pressure. Counselling with the parents in the rehabilitation centre is also of great help for the rehabilitation of the Juvenile delinquents.

Institutionalization may not be quite successful in case of Juvenile offenders, i.e. youths whose offenses have involved acts that world not be considered criminal, if committed by an adult such as running away from home or engaging in sexual relations. If such types of delinquents are kept with those who have committed serious crimes, they would in turn learn these from them.

It may, therefore, aggravate their behavioural problems instead of correcting them. The teachers of reformatory schools should also keep in mind to act as substitutes of good, warm and understanding parents and help the children to generate a sense of security and involvement. They should give up the idea that their life is meaningless and their birth is useless.

The school also should make efforts to develop a number of group activities in debate, sports, various social functions, picnics, exhibitions and study tours to change the ego of the delinquent child, to create a feeling of togetherness, belongingness, we feeling, sense of sacrifice and cooperation along with healthy competition.

Positive human values like honesty, sociability, amiability, truthfulness etc. are to be developed through teaching and action. One has to remember that changes are to be made from negative to positive outlooks and values of life.

Parents have also tremendous role to play in the rehabilitation of their delinquent children. They, therefore, must be helped to develop insight to their own behaviour and analyse their own behaviour which might have led to the maladjustment in the child.

They should, therefore, try to rectify their own behaviour so that in future there is no problem from the side of parents when the child returns from the reformatory home to be rehabilitated in the society. Since a lot depends upon parental behaviour and attitude, they should be very cautious.

Finally, the society and public should also change their outlook and attitude towards delinquency in general. They should not hate or distrust the delinquents. The delinquents must be dealt with sympathy, understanding and good behaviour.

They should not be hurt emotionally. Society as a whole should give up its fear and hostility towards the delinquents and anti-socials. It should develop a flexible attitude so that proper analysis of the causes of delinquency is made and adequate steps are taken both with respect to the prevention and treatment of delinquency.

Mentally retarded children should be specially and cautiously, dealt with parents and teachers. Otherwise, they may become susceptible to delinquency. They should be handled with proper care and should be taught in such a way so that their attention can be sustained.

The psychopathic and neurotic children should be given the opportunities of necessary therapeutic measures and prevent the development of delinquent behaviour.

All kinds of delinquents should not be treated identically, in a group or and should not be given similar rehabilitation facilities. For this purpose, differential diagnosis of the delinquents is essentially required. This can be possible by the, services of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

Increase of population without proportionate increase of space and other living conditions is one of the major causes of rise in delinquency. Particularly people migrate to cities from villages and the cities, semi-urban and urban areas for earning their livelihood.

So they are overcrowded. Various difficulties crop up and so problems of socialization are also experienced. Slum areas in cities create more problems leading to the growth of anti-social feelings in children.

Therefore, vast programmes are now being undertaken to clear the slum areas and for providing educational and recreational facilities for the slum children like parks, gardens, play grounds, doll house. As a result, the children need not play in street corners and constitute consciously or unconsciously street corner gangs.

Large amount of money are being spent in Western countries to rehabilitate the delinquents through various remedial measures. Various steps are also being taken at different quarters to prevent the rise of delinquents. But since delinquency is a very complex problem being caused by multifarious factors, it is difficult, though not impossible, to control it and prevent it.

Inspite of the various rehabilitation programmes developed by different countries of the world, they do not appear to be sufficient to reduce the percentage of delinquency from the society or prevent it significantly.

The inadequacies of the correctional system are being changed as and when necessary. Effective rehabilitation programmes, long range programmes to prevent delinquency should also be prepared to combat the rise of delinquency in the society.

This can be made possible by improving the conditions of the slum areas, providing suitable educational facilities for children staying in slum areas, near railway station, bus stand, market etc.

Along with this minimum education, vocational training and training in different trades should also be provided. By being engaged in work and earning some money during the training period, they can be normalized and can also adjust with the main stream.

The manual training will not only encourage their creative abilities, but also would give them satisfaction. When a child or an adolscent produces a bag or a basket, a toy in mud or a painting he gets immense satisfaction. This sense of achievement produces in him a sense of security and confidence, a sense of adequateness.

Orphanage and destitute homes are not sufficient to rehabilitate the juvenile delinquents in view of their increasing numbers during the recent years. Hence, these along with recreational centres should be increased.

In the school the teacher should show sympathetic treatment to the Juveniles. They should not hate them. Their approach should be different from what they show to the normal children and each Juvenile delinquent should be given individual attention. Mentally handicapped and retarded children should not be ridiculed by class mates and peers. The teacher should give special attention to this.

The rehabilitation programmes are not enough keeping in view the rapid growth of Juvenile delinquency in the entire world. The inadequacies of the correctional system are being changed. Besides effective rehabilitation programmes, long range programmes to prevent delinquency should be prepared.

This can be made possible by improving the conditions of the slum areas, provision for suitable educational and recreational facilities, education of parents disciplined and organised society with role relationship defined, development of proper ego identity and etc.

Odell (1974) has developed a programme that combined educational development and job placement facilitating entry in to the opportunity structure more effective than traditional case work methods in preventing Juvenile recidivision. Finally, it can be said that the emphasis should be more on rehabilitation than punishment.

Juvenile delinquency cannot be curbed fully from the society. No society can ever completely prevent or eliminate crime, practically speaking. However, delinquency and crime can be reduced social scientists and psychologists can plan to reduce delinquency and crime.

Related Articles:

• Social Development in Children: 6 Factors | Psychology
• Essay on Delinquency | Psychology
• Essay on Cooperation

Essay on Juvenile Delinquency

Students are often asked to write an essay on Juvenile Delinquency in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Juvenile Delinquency

Understanding juvenile delinquency.

Juvenile delinquency refers to young people committing crimes. This issue is serious and affects communities worldwide. Youngsters, usually between 10 to 18 years old, may break laws which is a sign of delinquency. This can include theft, vandalism, or even more serious offenses.

Causes of Juvenile Delinquency

Many things can lead a young person to commit a crime. It could be due to problems at home, like family fights or poverty. Sometimes, it’s because they join groups of friends who are also doing bad things. Other times, it might be due to drugs or alcohol.

Preventing Juvenile Delinquency

To stop juveniles from breaking the law, communities and families must work together. This includes creating after-school programs, sports, and clubs where young people can spend their time positively. Also, parents and teachers should talk to youngsters about the consequences of crime.

Helping Young Offenders

When a young person does commit a crime, it’s important to help them learn from their mistakes. This could mean counseling or educational programs rather than just punishment. By understanding why they did it, we can help them change for the better.

250 Words Essay on Juvenile Delinquency

What is juvenile delinquency.

Juvenile delinquency refers to young people, usually between the ages of 10 and 17, breaking the law. This can include a wide range of actions, from small rule-breaking to serious crimes. When kids do things that are against the law, they might face different consequences than adults.

Reasons Behind It

Many things can lead kids to get involved in illegal activities. Sometimes it’s because they don’t have a good home life or they’re hanging around with the wrong crowd. Other times, it might be because they’re not doing well at school or they’re just curious and make a bad choice. It’s important to understand that there are many reasons, and each kid’s situation is unique.

Effects on Society

When kids break the law, it can hurt both them and the people around them. It can make neighborhoods feel less safe and can also cost a lot of money to deal with the effects, like fixing damaged property or helping victims. Plus, the young person might have a tough time later in life if they have a criminal record.

To stop kids from getting into trouble with the law, communities and families can help by giving them support and a good place to grow up. Schools can teach kids about the consequences of breaking the law and provide activities to keep them busy and out of trouble. It’s also important for everyone to pay attention and step in early if a young person seems to be heading in the wrong direction.

500 Words Essay on Juvenile Delinquency

Juvenile delinquency refers to the actions of young people, usually between the ages of 10 and 18, who break the law. This term is used to describe crimes committed by minors, which are dealt with by the juvenile justice system. The reasons behind such behavior are many and can include family issues, lack of education, peer pressure, and sometimes even the thrill of taking risks.

Family plays a big role in shaping a child’s behavior. When parents do not give enough time or attention to their children, the children might feel neglected. This can lead them to seek attention in the wrong ways, such as by committing crimes. Besides family, the environment where a child grows up, like their neighborhood or school, can influence their actions. If they are surrounded by crime, they might think it is normal and start doing it too.

Another cause is peer pressure. Young people want to fit in with their friends, and sometimes they might do bad things just because their friends are doing it. Education is also important because going to school teaches children right from wrong. Without a good education, they might not understand the consequences of their actions.

Effects of Juvenile Delinquency

When a young person breaks the law, it affects not only them but also their family and community. They might get a criminal record, which can make it hard for them to get a job or go to college in the future. It can also cause pain and worry for their family members. Communities suffer too because crime makes people feel unsafe and can lead to more violence and mistrust among neighbors.

Preventing young people from turning to crime is important. Families, schools, and communities can all help. Parents should spend time with their children, talk to them about their lives, and teach them right from wrong. Schools can help by making sure children get a good education and by having programs that teach students about the dangers of crime. Communities can create safe places for young people to go, like parks or youth centers, where they can have fun and learn new things in a good environment.

When a young person does commit a crime, it is important to help them get back on the right path. This might include counseling or special programs that teach them how to behave better. The goal is not just to punish them, but to help them understand their mistakes and how to make better choices in the future.

In conclusion, juvenile delinquency is a serious issue that can have long-lasting effects on young people and their communities. By understanding the causes and working together to prevent it, we can help keep our young people on the right track and build stronger, safer communities for everyone. It takes the effort of families, schools, and all of us in the community to guide our youth towards a brighter future.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Justification Of The Good
• Essay on Justice System In The Philippines
• Essay on Justice Is Only For The Rich And Powerful

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Question and Answer forum for K12 Students

Juvenile Delinquency Essay | Essay on Juvenile Delinquency for Students and Children in English

Juvenile Delinquency Essay: “In our country, children are considered a gift from heaven and if the child is a boy then nothing could be more soothing for the family as from the very beginning children are exempted from severe punishment for any wrong commitment on their part irrespective of the gravity of the act.” This one statement itself says and justifies for the social evil, our society is facing today: Juvenile Delinquency.

You can read more  Essay Writing  about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more.

Long and Short Essays On Juvenile Delinquency for Kids and Students in English

Given below are two essays in English for students and children about the topic of ‘Juvenile Delinquency’ in both long and short form. The first essay is a long essay on the Juvenile Delinquency of 400-500 words. This long essay about Juvenile Delinquency is suitable for students of class 7, 8, 9 and 10, and also for competitive exam aspirants. The second essay is a short essay on Juvenile Delinquency of 150-200 words. These are suitable for students and children in class 6 and below.

Long Essay on Juvenile Delinquency 500 Words in English

Below we have given a long essay on Juvenile Delinquency of 500 words is helpful for classes 7, 8, 9 and 10 and Competitive Exam Aspirants. This long essay on the topic is suitable for students of class 7 to class 10, and also for competitive exam aspirants.

In ordinary terms, a child roughly between the age of 7 to 16/18 years who is involved in some kind of a ‘status offence’ such as vagrancy, immortality, truancy and ungovern ability is a juvenile delinquent. Thus, juvenile delinquency is not just about under-aged criminals, who get involved in criminal activities. In fact, the term ‘juvenile delinquency’ refers to the violation of a code of conduct or a regular occurrence of certain patterns of disapproved behaviour of children and adolescents. The well accepted age at present for juvenile delinquents is 16 years for boys and 18 years for girls.

Juvenile delinquents are mainly classified on the basis of their behavioural patterns. They range from the escapers, who keep away from school and get involved in petty thefts and armed robberies, destruction of property, violence and sexual offences. They are also classified according to the type of violation they commit.

Thus, psychologists have grouped juvenile delinquents on the basis of their personality traits as mentally defective, psychotic, neurotic, situational and cultural delinquents. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report, the trend of children committing crime has an alarming echo across the country.

It is extremely hard to trace and keep a check on juvenile delinquency as of all the delinquencies committed by juveniles, only a small percentage come to the notice of the police and the courts. Traditionally, surveys suggest that delinquencies like theft, burglary, robbery, dacoity and other such offences are most commonly committed by juveniles. But recent statistics reveal that juveniles have also been found actively involved in riots, murder, rape, kidnapping and abduction as well.

Reason being that courts and juvenile rights advocates believe that second chance should be given to youth who commit crimes, so criminals are walking in the streets, living as our neighbours and in many cases committing additional crimes.

The delinquency rates are comparatively much higher among boys than in girls. Children from broken homes or disturbed families who are either homeless or living with guardians are more likely to indulge in criminal activities. Low education or illiteracy and poor economic background are major features of juvenile delinquents. But now-a-days, it’s not only street children who take to crime, even children from well-off middle and upper middle class families are turning to crime due to peer pressure and crime thrill the hunger of adolescents to be heroes among their friends, the need to portray class and style, effect of cinema have propelled the rate of juvenile delinquency in the society.

The media plays a major role in creating bogus desires and images in the minds of the youth, for which they are willing to do anything. Moreover, unmonitored access to the internet is another reason for growth in these crimes, as many are caught swindling money from bank accounts. Children belonging to the elite class, who are either sons or daughters of politicians, businessmen are also found involved in criminal acts. This largely attributes to criminals going scot-free in high-profile criminal cases, so the fear barrier no longer exists.

Increased exposure combined with isolation is the root cause of these behavioural issues. Children are growing up much faster, but their conscience and ability to distinguish between right and wrong isn’t developing at the same rate and they don’t feel the need to think things through. In most cases, the cause behind juvenile delinquency is defective upbringing or no upbringing, faulty or no family interaction. Children are not born criminals.

It’s the situations and circumstances that lead them into delinquencies. Mostly all juvenile offences have deeper roots and serious situational factors which are responsible for a child behaving in a particular way. Family plays a vital role in structuring the mental, emotional and behavioural patterns of a child. Other factors that are responsible for the rise in juvenile delinquency are unhealthy neighbourhood, cinema, pornographic literature and bad company.

In UK, child between 10 to 18 years become criminally responsible for his action and be tried by the youth court or could be tried in an adult court as per the gravity of the offence committed. In our country too, the time has come to bring some reforms in the Juvenile laws. There is a steep rise in serious crimes involving youth of 16 to 18 years of age as they very well know that below 18 years is the ‘getaway pass’ for them from criminal prosecution. The punishment should be made a big deterrent in order to inject the feeling of fear in the mind of the criminals.

Short Essay on Juvenile Delinquency 200 Words in English

Below we have given a short essay on Juvenile Delinquency is for Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. This short essay on the topic is suitable for students of class 6 and below.

In the recent 2012 Delhi gang rape case, media too highlighted that ‘Most Brutal’ of all the accused person was the juvenile. For the brutalising act, he has been sentenced to imprisonment for the period of 3 years where others have got the death sentence. The principle that should have been followed for trying juvenile offenders is that Juvenility should be decided as per the state of mind and not just the state of body.

Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 was enacted by our Parliament in order to provide care, protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of neglected or delinquent as a uniform system of juvenile justice mechanism throughout our country. These days we have observation homes, reformatory schools, custody institutions, probation homes etc., to help juvenile delinquents reform themselves so that they can be gradually absorbed into the mainstream society.

Moreover, we need to pay greater attention to improving the average condition in a society so that no child confronts such situations that force them to adopt unacceptable behavioural patterns. We need to find ways and means to pool the youthful energy of the children in a constructive and desired direction.

11 Lines to Remember Essay on Juvenile Delinquency

• Exempted – to free from an obligation or liability to which others are subject
• Vagrancy – a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging
• Truancy – the action of staying away from school without good reason; absenteeism
• Psychotic – mentally unstable; intensely upset, anxious, or angry
• Neurotic – abnormally sensitive, obsessive, or anxious; disturbed; irrational
• Echo – a sound heard again and again, any repetition of the ideas or opinions
• Burglary -theft, robbery, illegal entry of a building with intent to commit a crime
• Propelled – drive or push something forward, to urge onward
• Bogus – false, fake, not genuine
• Swindling – to obtain money by fraud, to cheat for money
• Deterrent – a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

A Conversation With …

Teen Drug Use Habits Are Changing, For the Good. With Caveats.

Dr. Nora Volkow, who leads the National Institutes of Drug Abuse, would like the public to know things are getting better. Mostly.

By Matt Richtel

Historically speaking, it’s not a bad time to be the liver of a teenager. Or the lungs.

Regular use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs among high school students has been on a long downward trend.

In 2023, 46 percent of seniors said that they’d had a drink in the year before being interviewed; that is a precipitous drop from 88 percent in 1979, when the behavior peaked, according to the annual Monitoring the Future survey, a closely watched national poll of youth substance use. A similar downward trend was observed among eighth and 10th graders, and for those three age groups when it came to cigarette smoking. In 2023, just 15 percent of seniors said that they had smoked a cigarette in their life, down from a peak of 76 percent in 1977 .

Illicit drug use among teens has remained low and fairly steady for the past three decades, with some notable declines during the Covid-19 pandemic.

In 2023, 29 percent of high school seniors reported using marijuana in the previous year — down from 37 percent in 2017, and from a peak of 51 percent in 1979.

There are some sobering caveats to the good news. One is that teen overdose deaths have sharply risen, with fentanyl-involved deaths among adolescents doubling from 2019 to 2020 and remaining at that level in the subsequent years.

Dr. Nora Volkow has devoted her career to studying use of drugs and alcohol. She has been the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse since 2003. She sat down with The New York Times to discuss changing patterns and the reasons behind shifting drug-use trends.

What’s the big picture on teens and drug use?

People don’t really realize that among young people, particularly teenagers, the rate of drug use is at the lowest risk that we have seen in decades. And that’s worth saying, too, for legal alcohol and tobacco.

What do you credit for the change?

One major factor is education and prevention campaigns. Certainly, the prevention campaign for cigarette smoking has been one of the most effective we’ve ever seen.

Some of the policies that were implemented also significantly helped, not just making the legal age for alcohol and tobacco 21 years, but enforcing those laws. Then you stop the progression from drugs that are more accessible, like tobacco and alcohol, to the illicit ones. And teenagers don’t get exposed to advertisements of legal drugs like they did in the past. All of these policies and interventions have had a downstream impact on the use of illicit drugs.

Does social media use among teens play a role?

Absolutely. Social media has shifted the opportunity of being in the physical space with other teenagers. That reduces the likelihood that they will take drugs. And this became dramatically evident when they closed schools because of Covid-19. You saw a big jump downward in the prevalence of use of many substances during the pandemic. That might be because teenagers could not be with one another.

The issue that’s interesting is that despite the fact schools are back, the prevalence of substance use has not gone up to the prepandemic period. It has remained stable or continued to go down. It was a big jump downward, a shift, and some drug use trends continue to slowly go down.

Is there any thought that the stimulation that comes from using a digital device may satisfy some of the same neurochemical experiences of drugs, or provide some of the escapism?

Yes, that’s possible. There has been a shift in the types of reinforcers available to teenagers. It’s not just social media, it’s video gaming, for example. Video gaming can be very reinforcing, and you can produce patterns of compulsive use. So, you are shifting one reinforcer, one way of escaping, with another one. That may be another factor.

Is it too simplistic to see the decline in drug use as a good news story?

If you look at it in an objective way, yes, it’s very good news. Why? Because we know that the earlier you are using these drugs, the greater the risk of becoming addicted to them. It lowers the risk these drugs will interfere with your mental health, your general health, your ability to complete an education and your future job opportunities. That is absolutely good news.

But we don’t want to become complacent.

The supply of drugs is more dangerous, leading to an increase in overdose deaths. We’re not exaggerating. I mean, taking one of these drugs can kill you.

What about vaping? It has been falling, but use is still considerably higher than for cigarettes: In 2021, about a quarter of high school seniors said that they had vaped nicotine in the preceding year . Why would teens resist cigarettes and flock to vaping?

Most of the toxicity associated with tobacco has been ascribed to the burning of the leaf. The burning of that tobacco was responsible for cancer and for most of the other adverse effects, even though nicotine is the addictive element.

What we’ve come to understand is that nicotine vaping has harms of its own, but this has not been as well understood as was the case with tobacco. The other aspect that made vaping so appealing to teenagers was that it was associated with all sorts of flavors — candy flavors. It was not until the F.D.A. made those flavors illegal that vaping became less accessible.

My argument would be there’s no reason we should be exposing teenagers to nicotine. Because nicotine is very, very addictive.

Anything else you want to add?

We also have all of this interest in cannabis and psychedelic drugs. And there’s a lot of interest in the idea that psychedelic drugs may have therapeutic benefits. To prevent these new trends in drug use among teens requires different strategies than those we’ve used for alcohol or nicotine.

For example, we can say that if you take drugs like alcohol or nicotine, that can lead to addiction. That’s supported by extensive research. But warning about addiction for drugs like cannabis and psychedelics may not be as effective.

While cannabis can also be addictive, it’s perhaps less so than nicotine or alcohol, and more research is needed in this area, especially on newer, higher-potency products. Psychedelics don’t usually lead to addiction, but they can produce adverse mental experiences that can put you at risk of psychosis.

Matt Richtel is a health and science reporter for The Times, based in Boulder, Colo. More about Matt Richtel

Does nothing stop a bullet like a job? The effects of income on crime

Do jobs and income-transfer programs affect crime? The answer depends on why one is asking the question, which shapes what one means by “crime.” Many studies focus on understanding why overall crime rates vary across people, places, and time; since 80% of all crimes are property offenses, that’s what this type of research typically explains. But if the goal is to understand what to do about the crime problem, the focus will instead be on serious violent crimes, which account for the majority of the social costs of crime. The best available evidence suggests that policies that reduce economic desperation reduce property crime (and hence overall crime rates) but have little systematic relationship to violent crime. The difference in impacts surely stems in large part from the fact that most violent crimes, including murder, are not crimes of profit but rather crimes of passion – including rage. Policies to alleviate material hardship, as important and useful as those are for improving people’s lives and well-being, are not by themselves sufficient to also substantially alleviate the burden of crime on society.

When citing this paper, please use the following: “Ludwig, J, Schnepel, K. 2024. Does nothing stop a bullet like a job? The effects of income on crime. Annual Review of Criminology. Submitted.” Thanks to Shawn Bushway, Jillian Carr, Aaron Chalfin and Philip Cook for helpful comments, and to Maggi Ibis, Javier Lopez, Biz Rasich and Alejandro Roemer for outstanding assistance. All opinions and any errors are of course our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Working Groups

More from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .