the effect of juvenile delinquency essay

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.

• Juvenile Delinquency Project: Trends and Theories Words: 5751
• Researching of Juvenile Delinquency Words: 1837
• The Nature of Juvenile Delinquency Words: 1332
• Correlation Between Poverty and Juvenile Delinquency Words: 1952
• Juvenile Delinquency in U.S. Words: 770
• Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Preventive Measures Words: 2953
• Theories for Juvenile Delinquency Words: 2811
• Intervention Plans in Juvenile Delinquency Words: 846
• Juvenile Delinquency: The Marginalized Youths Words: 669
• System and Theory Evaluation for Juvenile Delinquency Words: 2324
• The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency Words: 557
• Juvenile Delinquency Prevention in Our Community Words: 724
• How Social Learning Theories Impact Juvenile Delinquency and Crime Words: 5197
• Why Does Juvenile Delinquency Occur Words: 1140
• Family’s Role in Juvenile Delinquency Policy Change Words: 2829
• Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Impact on Justice Words: 646
• Juvenile Delinquency and Punishment Words: 385
• The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency: Definition and Analysis Words: 2062
• Social Problems Assignment: Juvenile Delinquency Words: 604
• Why Juveniles Should be Tried As Adults Words: 1733
• Juvenile Delinquency in Minority Groups Words: 906
• Juvenile Delinquency as Social Problem of Vulnerable Populations Words: 555

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, 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.

NCJRS Virtual Library

Introduction to juvenile delinquency, additional details.

175 Fifth Avenue , New York , NY 10010 , United States

No download available

Availability, related topics.

Why Youth Incarceration Fails: An Updated Review of the Evidence

Incarcerating youth undermines public safety, damages young people’s physical and mental health, impedes their educational and career success, and often exposes them to abuse.

Related to: Youth Justice

• Download PDF

Executive Summary

Though the number of youth confined nationwide has declined significantly over the past two decades, our country still incarcerates far too many young people.

It does so despite overwhelming evidence showing that incarceration is an ineffective strategy for steering youth away from delinquent behavior and that high rates of youth incarceration do not improve public safety. Incarceration harms young people’s physical and mental health, impedes their educational and career success, and often exposes them to abuse. And the use of confinement is plagued by severe racial and ethnic disparities.

This publication summarizes the evidence documenting the serious problems associated with the youth justice system’s continuing heavy reliance on incarceration and makes recommendations for reducing the use of confinement. It begins by describing recent incarceration trends in the youth justice system. This assessment finds that the sizable drop in juvenile facility populations since 2000 is due largely to a substantial decline in youth arrests nationwide, not to any shift toward other approaches by juvenile courts or corrections agencies once youth enter the justice system. Most youth who are incarcerated in juvenile facilities are not charged with serious violent offenses, yet the United States continues to confine youth at many times the rates of other nations. And it continues to inflict the harms of incarceration disproportionately on Black youth and other youth of color – despite well-established alternatives that produce better outcomes for youth and community safety.

Incarceration Produces Counterproductive Outcomes

Part 1 of the report reviews the research on the outcomes of youth incarceration. The evidence reveals these key findings:

Incarceration does not reduce delinquent behavior. State-level data on recidivism consistently show that youth who are released from correctional confinement experience high rates of rearrest, new adjudications (in juvenile court) or convictions (in adult court), and reincarceration. Studies that track youth outcomes into adulthood have found that an alarming share of young people incarcerated in youth correctional facilities are later arrested, convicted, and incarcerated as adults. Research studies that control for young people’s backgrounds, offending histories and other relevant characteristics have found that confinement most often results in higher rates of rearrest and reincarceration compared with probation and other community alternatives to confinement. Data show that large declines in youth incarceration do not result in increases in youth crime.

Research also shows that the initial decision to incarcerate youth in secure detention facilities pending their court adjudication hearings (akin to trials in adult criminal court) substantially increases the odds that they will become further involved in the justice system. Pre-trial detention greatly increases the odds that youth will be placed in residential custody if a court finds them delinquent, and spending time in detention increases the likelihood that youth will be arrested and punished for subsequent offenses. Numerous research studies have found that once youth are incarcerated, longer stays in custody lead to increased recidivism.

Incarceration impedes young people’s success in education and employment. A number of studies show that incarceration makes it less likely that young people will graduate high school. The school re-enrollment rates of youth returning home from juvenile facilities are low. Studies find that incarceration in juvenile facilities also reduces college enrollment and completion and lowers employment and earnings in adulthood.

Incarceration does lasting damage to young people’s health and wellbeing. Studies find that incarceration during adolescence leads to poorer health in adulthood. This damage exacerbates the serious health problems experienced by many of the youth who enter juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Young people entering youth correctional facilities suffer disproportionately from many physical health challenges (such as dental, vision, or hearing problems, as well as acute illnesses and injuries), and they are far more likely to have mental health problems such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidal thoughts. Incarceration in juvenile justice facilities is associated with shorter life expectancy.

Juvenile facilities are rife with maltreatment and abuse. Systemic or recurring abuses were documented in the state-funded youth correctional facilities of 29 states and the District of Columbia between 2000 and 2015. Since 2015, the stream of abuse revelations in youth incarceration facilities has continued, with alarming revelations of pervasive abuse in Florida, New Hampshire, and Texas, among other states. Surveys of currently or previously incarcerated youth reveal that many have been abused physically or sexually in their facilities by staff or peers, and that most have witnessed abuses – often repeatedly.

Racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration are vast and unjust. Black youth and other youth of color are incarcerated in detention centers (the equivalent of jails in the adult justice system) at far higher rates than their white peers. Many studies have found that these disparities at detention are driven, at least in part, by biased decision-making against youth of color. Youth of color are also incarcerated disproportionately at the correctional phase of the juvenile court process – after they are adjudicated delinquent (found guilty of an offense). Research finds that the disparities in correctional confinement are due primarily to the cumulative impact of large disparities in early stages of justice system involvement (arrest, formal processing in court, and detention).

Why Incarceration Fails

Part 2 of this report reviews the recent research on adolescent brain development and trauma. This research helps explain why incarceration is the wrong response in the vast majority of delinquency cases.

Brain immaturity fuels delinquency. Scientists have confirmed that the brain does not fully mature until age 25, and this lack of brain maturity makes lawbreaking and other risky behaviors more common during adolescence. Research also shows that as their brains develop, the vast majority of youth age out of lawbreaking. Most youth who enter the justice system for delinquency (63%) never return to court on delinquency charges.

Increased maturity is tied to desistance from delinquency. New research also makes increasingly clear that young people’s ability to desist from delinquent behavior is tied to their progress in developing “psychosocial maturity,” including the abilities to control impulses, delay gratification, weigh the consequences of their actions, consider other people’s perspectives, and resist peer pressure. Research finds that incarceration slows young people’s psychological maturation – exactly the opposite of what’s needed to foster positive behavior change and promote desistance from delinquency.

Early childhood trauma often feeds delinquency in adolescence. Studies find that youth who become involved in the juvenile justice system are several times more likely than other youth to have suffered traumatic experiences. This research finds that exposure to multiple types of trauma can impede children’s healthy brain development, harm their ability to self-regulate, and heighten the risks of delinquent behavior.

Incarceration can retraumatize youth and make them less likely to succeed . Often, incarceration is itself a traumatic experience for young people, and it can exacerbate the difficulties experienced by youth who have been exposed to violence and other adverse childhood experiences.

Reducing Incarceration Through Alternatives and Policy and Practice Reforms

Part 3 of this report reviews the research documenting programs and policies that reduce incarceration in ways that lessen delinquent behavior and improve young people’s wellbeing.

Community Alternatives to Confinement Achieve Equal or Better Outcomes at Far Lower Cost. Our review found several types of community-based alternative programs that are especially promising, with powerful evidence of effectiveness. These include:

• Youth Advocate Programs (YAP ) offers intensive support and advocacy to 20,000 justice-involved or otherwise at-risk youth and young adults in more than 100 program sites across the country each year.
• Credible messengers is an approach where adults with experience in the justice system, typically from the same neighborhoods where many court-involved youth live, mentor young people and help them develop more positive attitudes and values.
• Intensive multi-pronged family-focused treatment models , such as Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), assign specially trained therapists to work with youth and their families for several months. The programs are designed to improve family functioning, identify and address root causes of delinquent behavior, and support meaningful behavior change.
• Wraparound programs hire care coordinators to work with behaviorally troubled youth and their families, devise individual plans to address identified needs, and connect youth to a range of targeted services and opportunities.
• YouthBuild , an employment-focused program, engages young people in a combination of high school completion, construction skills training, and personal development activities. It operates in more than 200 program sites across the country.
• Programs led by grassroots neighborhood, civic, and faith-based organizations provide counseling, support, skill-building and recreational programs. Although these programs have not been extensively researched, they show promise in steering court-involved youth toward success.

All of these community interventions cost a small fraction of the price associated with confinement in a youth corrections facility.

Several policy and practice reforms also show substantial promise in reducing youth incarceration while improving youth and public safety outcomes . In addition to programs that provide alternatives to incarceration, many policies and practices can reduce overreliance on youth incarceration by ensuring that youth justice systems make good decisions and provide appropriate responses to youth behavior. Promising approaches include:

• Addressing most youth lawbreaking outside the justice system by reducing the number of young people arrested for less serious offenses and diverting a far greater share of youth following arrest – addressing alleged misconduct outside of the formal justice system rather than processing their cases in juvenile court.
• Revamping juvenile probation to provide individualized supervision focused on long-term success while ending incarceration as a punishment for failing to obey probation rules.
• Sharply limiting the justice system’s use of incarceration by using fiscal incentives that encourage courts and corrections agencies to keep youth at home, and by prohibiting incarceration as a response to lower-level offenses.

This report describes how a number of states and localities have safely and successfully reduced youth incarceration in recent years using one or more of these strategies.

Recommendations

To help readers put this research to work on reducing incarceration, the report offers nine recommendations for state and local justice systems:

• expand the use of diversion
• invest in alternatives to incarceration
• measure results
• limit the use of pre-trial detention
• prohibit incarceration for low-level offenses
• create financial incentives to limit incarceration
• use objective decision-making guidelines
• limit lengths of stay
• focus explicitly on race in efforts to reduce confinement.

The evidence reviewed in this report leaves no doubt that youth incarceration is a failed strategy for rehabilitating young people and protecting the public. While declines in the number of confined youth are welcome, there remain vast opportunities to further reduce youth incarceration and improve public safety by following the evidence and doing what works.

Introduction

Though the number of youth removed from their homes and confined in residential facilities has declined substantially since peaking 20 years ago, the United States still incarcerates far too many young people as a consequence for delinquent behavior.

We do so despite overwhelming and ever-increasing evidence that incarceration is most often not an effective strategy for steering young people away from delinquent behavior* or promoting their long-term wellbeing and success. Simply put, high rates of youth incarceration do not improve public safety.

The evidence makes plain that incarceration – either detention prior to a young person’s court date or correctional confinement after they are adjudicated delinquent (the juvenile system’s equivalent of an adult conviction) – typically makes further delinquent behavior more likely rather than less. Why? Research shows that confinement** harms young people’s physical and mental health, impedes their educational and career success, and often exposes them to abuse. Moreover, the use of confinement is plagued by severe racial and ethnic disparities that are propelled, at least in part, by documented bias against youth of color.

The evidence showing how incarceration harms young people has grown steadily in recent years. Yet not since 2011 has any publication comprehensively reviewed the damage done by correctional confinement, and not since 2006 has any publication reviewed in detail the harms of pre-trial detention. As a result, policymakers, advocates, and journalists examining juvenile confinement policies in recent times have not had access to a single source for in-depth, up-to-date information about the costs and negative impacts of youth incarceration.

This publication aims to fill that void by providing a concise summary of the evidence documenting the many problems associated with the youth justice system’s continuing heavy reliance on incarceration.

The report begins by describing recent incarceration trends in the youth justice system. An assessment of these trends shows that the sizable drop in juvenile facility populations over the past two decades is largely due to a substantial decline in youth arrests nationwide, not due to a shift toward new approaches by juvenile courts or corrections agencies once youth enter the justice system. The rate at which this country incarcerates young people remains far higher than is known to be the case for any other nation in the world.

Part 1 of the report provides a detailed review of the research showing that incarceration does not work: it cites extensive evidence finding that incarcerating youth does not reduce the likelihood that they will break the law again. Rates of recidivism (re-arrests, new convictions or adjudications, or subsequent incarcerations) are high, and research studies consistently show that youth who are incarcerated reoffend at rates equal to or higher than those of youth with comparable backgrounds and offense histories who remain at home. The evidence also shows that incarceration worsens educational and career outcomes and does lasting damage to young people’s health and wellbeing. Finally, abuse and maltreatment are widespread in facilities where youth are incarcerated, and racial and ethnic disparities are pervasive.

Part 2 examines two key reasons why incarceration fails. First, it describes how the immaturity of adolescents’ brains fuels delinquency. The human brain does not fully develop until age 25, and evidence shows that incarceration slows the natural maturation process that enables most youth to grow out of delinquent behaviors. Second, it describes how youth who become involved in the youth justice system are far more likely than other youth to have experienced childhood trauma, which can affect the brain and increase the likelihood of behavioral problems. Incarceration can exacerbate that trauma and reduce young people’s likelihood of success.

Part 3 describes research showing that many alternatives to incarceration result in better outcomes. It also reviews the evidence showing how a variety of justice system policies and practices can reduce reliance on incarceration in ways that enhance public safety. The report then offers recommendations for advocates and justice system leaders on how best to reduce youth incarceration.

This report cites dozens of sources, including many studies, that – after controlling for offending histories and a variety of other background variables – compare the results of incarceration to the alternatives. The report also cites sources documenting the problematic outcomes experienced by incarcerated youth, as well as information about programs and policies that reduce incarceration while improving youth success rates and enhancing public safety.

Taken together, the evidence presented in this report leaves no doubt that substantial opportunities remain for state and local justice systems to further reduce youth incarceration. The need to seize those opportunities is urgent. The time has come for our justice systems to embrace this evidence, reduce the use of incarceration both before and after adjudication, and adopt proven alternatives that are better suited for reducing delinquent behavior and steering young people safely toward success.

*Delinquent behavior is action by a person under 18 for which an adult could be prosecuted in a criminal court, but when committed by a young person, is within the jurisdiction of a juvenile court.

**This report uses a variety of terms — “incarceration,” “confinement,” “custody,” “placement” (or out-of-home placement)— more or less interchangeably reflecting the status of youth generally held in locked facilities as part of the youth justice system.

The U.S. continues to incarcerate young people for delinquent conduct at alarming rates – far higher than anywhere else in the world.

The one-day count of youth in residential custody has fallen substantially in the last two decades, from 107,500 in 1999 1 to 25,014 in 2020 (the latest year for which data are available). 2

However, as detailed in The Sentencing Project’s 2022 report, “Too Many Locked Doors,” this one-day census obscures the reality that youth were incarcerated more than 240,000 times in 2019. 3 This includes 186,000 instances when youth were placed in short-term detention facilities, 4 and 55,000 instances when youth were placed in residential facilities after being found delinquent in court. 5

The recent declines in facility populations have resulted largely from reductions in the number of youth arrested and referred to court, not from any change in how juvenile justice systems nationwide respond to youth who are referred to court for delinquent conduct. Among young people who are referred to court on delinquency charges, the percentage who are placed in pre-adjudicatory detention pending their court dates has actually increased in recent years. 6 Among youth adjudicated delinquent, the share placed in residential facilities declined slightly over the last decade. 7

Most youth who are incarcerated in juvenile facilities are not charged with serious violent offenses.

The more recent one-day count of youth in custody nationwide showed that fewer than a third of the youth confined for delinquency were accused of or adjudicated for a serious violent offense (murder, sexual assault, armed robbery, or aggravated assault). 8

The U.S. continues to incarcerate youth at many times the rates of other nations.

A 2020 United Nations report 9 revealed that the United States youth confinement rate is: 10

• 11 times higher than the rate for Western Europe
• 11 times higher than Asia
• 10 times higher than Eastern Europe
• 7 times higher than Oceania
• 4 times higher than Canada and Mexico
• 3 times higher than South America

Youth correctional facilities are home to appalling stories of physical abuse, including sexual abuse, of teenagers. Through this paper, we share three recent examples out of dozens upon dozens of these stories. Readers are advised that some of the language used and situations described in these text boxes may be upsetting.

Fight Clubs in Florida

The Miami Herald conducted an exhaustive investigation in 2017 into violence inside Florida’s state-funded juvenile facilities. 11 The series was entitled “Fight Club” – a reference to an allegedly widespread practice in the facilities where staff bribed groups of youth with honey bun pastries to assault other youth. 12 Staff used this tactic – which became known as “honey-bunning” – “to exert control without risking their livelihoods by personally resorting to violence.” 13

The Herald revealed a number of other troubling events, including instances where staffers set up fights between youth and bet on them, and where they physically assaulted youth without provocation. 14 In one article, the Herald described a video showing a staff member grabbing a skinny 14 year-old in detention and pinning him against the wall, then tossing him to the ground and – while the boy laid passively on the ground – punching him twice in the face, breaking his nose in two places. 15 In addition, the Herald documented situations where staff showed a teen pornography and watched him “fondle himself;” raped a transgender youth; raped a child detainee in a closet; and abused one female detainee by using her head as a “toilet plunger.” One staffer beat youth so frequently with a broom handle that the practice became known as “a broomie.” 16

The Herald also documented a pervasive pattern of lax oversight by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, including faulty or missing security cameras, failure to report abuses, cover-ups of abuse incidents, and “legal impunity for abusive staffers.”

PART 1: The Evidence on Incarceration’s Counterproductive Outcomes

Incarceration does not reduce delinquent conduct., youth released from incarceration suffer very high recidivism..

State recidivism data consistently show that youth who are released from correctional confinement suffer high rates of rearrest, new adjudications/convictions, and reincarceration. For example, a comprehensive state-by-state review of recidivism data from 2011 found that 70% to 80% of youth who left residential correctional programs were rearrested within two or three years of release. 17 And 45% to 72% of those young people were adjudicated (found to be delinquent in juvenile court) for or convicted (in adult court) for new offenses within three years of release. 18

A review of most recent data measuring recidivism outcomes for youth returning from correctional facilities in 10 states finds little change in recidivism outcomes. Overall, three of the states (Delaware, 19 Texas, 20 and Virginia 21 .) have seen recidivism worsen in recent years, two states saw no change (Colorado 22 and Illinois 23 .), and five states have seen some improvement (Arizona, 24 Florida, 25 Georgia, 26 Louisiana, 27 and Maryland). 28

Studies that track youth over a period of multiple years have found that an alarming share of young people who are incarcerated in youth corrections facilities later get arrested, convicted, and incarcerated in adulthood. For example, in New York State, 89% of boys and 81% of girls released from state youth correctional facilities in the early 1990s were arrested as adults by age 28. Among the boys, 65% were convicted of felonies, and 71% were incarcerated as adults by age 28. 29 A study in South Carolina found that 82% of boys born in 1967 who were incarcerated as juveniles were later imprisoned or placed on probation as adults. 30

Most research studies confirm that incarceration increases recidivism.

Research studies that control for young people’s backgrounds, offending histories, and other relevant characteristics, find that compared to probation and other community alternatives, incarceration most often results in higher rates of rearrest and reincarceration. A few examples include:

• A long-term study of youths in Seattle, published in 2015, found that those incarcerated during adolescence were nearly four times more likely to be incarcerated in adulthood than comparable peers who were not incarcerated (controlling for delinquent conduct, gang membership, peer delinquency, and other relevant risk factors). 31
• In Ohio, a 2014 evaluation of community alternatives to incarceration funded through the RECLAIM Ohio program showed that youths who were assessed as having a low or moderate risk for rearrest who remained in the community were one-tenth as likely to be incarcerated for a future offense as comparable youths placed in juvenile correctional facilities. Among youth assessed as high-risk, those served by community programs were one-third as likely to be incarcerated for subsequent offenses. Youths assessed as low or moderate risk of rearrest who remained in the community were less than half as likely as those placed in juvenile facilities to be adjudicated for a subsequent felony. 32
• A 2009 study of low-income boys in Montréal, Canada, found that boys incarcerated in juvenile correctional facilities were 38 times more likely than those with comparable backgrounds and self-reported adolescent offending histories to have a criminal record by age 25 for offenses committed in adulthood. 33
• An exhaustive 2015 study in Texas showed that adjudicated youth who were allowed to remain in the community on probation were 30% less likely to be arrested for a subsequent offense than comparable youth sent to state corrections facilities. 34
• Unlike the research cited above, the Pathways to Desistance study, which tracked nearly 1,000 youth from Philadelphia and Phoenix who were adjudicated for serious offenses, did not find a significant difference in future offending between those who were incarcerated versus those who received community alternatives. However, the study authors emphasized that “the results show no marginal gain from placement in terms of averting future offending” and that incarceration’s failure to provide any rehabilitative benefit “calls into question the need to expend resources on extended institutional care.” 35

Large cuts in youth incarceration do not result in increased youth crime.

A 2011 analysis found that the states that made the largest reductions in youth incarceration from 1997 to 2007 saw a greater decline in youth arrest rates than states that made smaller reductions or increased youth confinement. 36

The initial decision to confine youth in secure detention pending court substantially increases the odds that youth will become further involved in the justice system.

Detention greatly increases the odds that youth will be placed in residential custody if they are found delinquent in court.

• In Arizona, a 2010 study involving more than 23,000 court-involved youth found that, even after controlling for offense histories and other relevant characteristics, confinement in pretrial detention more than tripled the likelihood that young people would be incarcerated following their adjudication hearings. 37
• In West Virginia, a 2012 study found that youth who were detained pending court were three times likelier to be sentenced to a residential facility (46% versus 15%) than comparable youth who remained at home before trial (controlling for offense history and other relevant factors). 38
• Previous studies in Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio also found that confinement in pre-trial detention significantly increased the odds of correctional confinement in a residential facility. 39

Detention also increases the likelihood that youth will be arrested and punished for subsequent delinquent conduct.

• In Washington State, a 2020 study examined the impact of pretrial detention in 46,000 juvenile cases and found that detention is associated with a 33% increase in felony recidivism. 40
• In Florida, a 2019 study found that youth who were detained for failing to appear for scheduled court hearings were 50% more likely to be adjudicated for a subsequent offense than peers who were not detained for failing to appear, and they were four times more likely to be adjudicated for a subsequent probation violation. 41

Spending time in juvenile detention increases the odds that young people will be arrested and incarcerated in adulthood.

• A 2013 study of more than 35,000 youth in the juvenile justice system of Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, found that incarceration in a locked juvenile detention facility resulted in a 22-26% increase in the likelihood of subsequent incarceration in an adult jail or prison. 42
• A 2022 report in Michigan found that confinement in a juvenile detention center as a youth resulted in a 39% increase in adult arrests for violent offenses and a 40% increase in adult arrests for all felony offenses. 43

Longer Stays in Confinement Don’t Reduce Recidivism Rates – and Often Raise Them

In 2009, an analysis examining youth from Philadelphia and Phoenix who were involved in the Pathways to Desistance study (cited earlier), found essentially no difference in future offending for youth held for 3-6 months vs. 6-9 months, 9-12 months, or more than 12 months. “There is little or no marginal benefit,” the study found, “for retaining an individual in institutional placement longer.” 44

In Ohio, a 2013 study found that the likelihood of reincarceration for a new crime increased steadily the longer young people remained incarcerated for an initial offense. Whereas 34% of youth who were incarcerated for one month or less were later reincarcerated, that share climbed to 61% for youth for who were incarcerated for 60 months. 45

In Washington State, a 2020 study found that every additional day spent in detention increased the odds of felony recidivism by one percentage point. 46 Studies in Florida 47 and New York City 48 have also found that longer periods of incarceration lead to higher rates of recidivism.

In a 2014 study, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that that while incarceration is necessary in some cases to protect public safety, “[c]onfinement of juveniles beyond the minimum amount needed to deliver intensive services effectively is not only wasteful economically but also potentially harmful, and it may impede prosocial development.” 49

Incarceration causes substantial long-term harm to young people’s success in education and employment.

Incarceration reduces the likelihood of high school graduation..

Using data from a nationally representative survey that tracked more than 7,000 youth, a 2008 study found that incarceration before age 17 reduced the likelihood of teens graduating from high school by 26% – a far higher rate than for youth who were arrested and involved in juvenile court but not incarcerated. 50

Since then, several rigorous studies at the state and local levels have also found that incarceration in detention and correctional facilities reduces high school graduation rates.

• A Michigan study (cited above) found that placement into a juvenile detention facility reduced the likelihood of high school graduation by 31%. 51
• In a study from Cook County, Illinois (cited previously), detention reduced the likelihood of high school graduation by 13%. 52
• In Washington State, a 2019 study found that confinement in a juvenile detention facility reduced the likelihood of graduating high school by 28%. 53
• A 2019 paper that tracked educational outcomes of youth in Philadelphia and Phoenix who were referred to court for serious offenses found that those who were incarcerated and then released into the community were less than half as likely as comparable never-incarcerated peers to graduate high school. 54

School re-enrollment rates of youth returning home from juvenile facilities are extremely low.

• In Cook County, Illinois, just 38% of youth who spent time in detention returned to a local public school. 55
• In Florida, a 2014 study found that only 44% of youth released from residential facilities re-enrolled in school within three years. 56
• Another Florida study from 2010 estimated that 79% of youth released from correctional facilities who were 16 or older and behind academically never returned to school. 57
• A 2019 study from the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice estimated that nationwide, only about one-third of youth returning from residential facilities re-enroll in school. 58

Incarceration reduces college enrollment and completion, as well as employment and earnings in adulthood.

An analysis from the most recent National Longitudinal Survey of Youth found significant and consistent differences in college attendance, with youth who were not incarcerated more likely to enroll in and complete college than comparable youth who were incarcerated. 59 Another study using data from the same survey found that incarceration in juvenile facilities significantly reduced employment rates and wages and participation in the labor force. 60 A study examining an earlier round of the National Longitudinal Youth Survey found that incarceration in a youth corrections facility led to lower wages, fewer weeks worked, and less job experience by age 39, as well as reduced total educational attainment. 61

Violence and Racial Epithets Hurled at Incarcerated Kentucky Youth

An investigation by the Lexington Herald-Leader documented at least 116 incidents from February 2018 to May 2021 where staff of Kentucky’s state-run youth correctional facilities used excessive force against confined youth. 62 Several of the incidents resulted in serious injuries that sent youth to hospital emergency rooms. In addition to these incidents, the newspaper found that facility employees “engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with youths; used racial slurs and threats of violence; and sometimes failed to provide appropriate supervision, which sometimes led to illegal drugs being smuggled into facilities, youth-on-youth sexual assault and destructive riots requiring police intervention.” 63

In one incident at the Fayette Regional Juvenile Detention Center in 2020, a member of the facility staff “wrapped his arms around a 17-year-old resident’s neck and dropped him to the floor during a restraint… “’Told you not to try me, n_ _ _ a,’ [the staff member] told the teen, who is Black… ‘You going to prison, n _ _ _ _ r.’”

The worker was suspended for 12 days as a consequence for his behavior, but he continued working for the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice and received a raise just months later. No one from the agency informed the teen’s family about the incident. 64

Incarceration does lasting damage to young people’s physical and mental health.

Incarceration during adolescence leads to poorer health in adulthood..

A national survey that tracked health outcomes from adolescence into adulthood found that “any length of incarceration was associated with higher odds of having worse adult health.” 65 More specifically, incarceration for 1-12 months increased the likelihood of poor general health in adulthood, and incarceration for more than 12 months increased the likelihood of functional health limitations. 66

Incarceration worsens pre-existing physical and mental health problems.

The damage caused by incarceration exacerbates the serious health problems experienced by many youth who enter correctional facilities. Research finds that young people who are incarcerated during adolescence often have health problems. A national survey of youth in custody in 2003 found that two-thirds of the young people had one or more physical health care needs, including dental, vision, or hearing issues (37%); an acute illness (28%); or injury (25%). 67

Those confined during adolescence also frequently suffer with long-term mental health problems. In the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth cited earlier, young people who were incarcerated for less than one month had higher rates of depression in adulthood than comparable peers who were not incarcerated. Young people who were incarcerated for one year or more were over four times more likely to experience depression and twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts in adulthood than comparable peers who were not incarcerated. 68

Incarceration is also associated with shorter life expectancy.

In Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, a 2005 study found that youth who were incarcerated in detention were 4.4 times as likely as youth in the general population to die between the ages of 15 and 24. 69 In Marion County (Indianapolis), Indiana, a 2016 study found that youth involved in the justice system had a 48% higher chance of dying prematurely than the general youth population. 70 Among youth involved in the justice system, those who were incarcerated in detention centers (the equivalent of jails in the adult justice system) or correctional facilities were 1.7 times and 2.5 times more likely to die prematurely, respectively, than youth who were arrested but never confined. 71

The facilities in which juvenile courts incarcerate youth are rife with maltreatment and abuse.

Abuse is common in juvenile corrections facilities nationwide..

A comprehensive national review in 2015 revealed that systemic or recurring maltreatment or abuse had been clearly documented in the state-funded youth correctional facilities of 29 states and the District of Columbia since 2000, and in 43 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico since 1970. 72 From 1970 through 2011, 52 lawsuits over conditions of confinement in state-funded youth corrections facilities resulted in court-sanctioned remedies to address systemic problems with violence, physical or sexual abuse by facility staff, or excessive use of isolation and restraints. 73

Since 2015, the stream of abuse revelations in youth incarceration facilities has continued. Among the multitude of pervasive abuse instances are:

• Wisconsin – In December 2015, law enforcement agents raided the Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls after investigations revealed rampant problems of abuse, neglect, sexual assaults, and excessive use of force. 74
• Florida – In October 2017, the Miami Herald revealed that staff in state-funded youth facilities had been organizing “fight clubs” in which some incarcerated youth were rewarded for attacking other residents. The investigation was triggered when a 17-year-old boy was beaten to death by at least a dozen teens who were allegedly offered pastries by facility staff as a reward for attacking him. The boy was the twelfth juvenile facility detainee in Florida to die under questionable circumstances since 2000. 75 (For more on abusive conditions in Florida facilities, See Textbox about “Fight Clubs in Florida” on p.??.)
• Texas – In October 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice opened an investigation into conditions within five state-run youth corrections facilities after two children’s rights organizations documented pervasive violence and chaos. The problems included an epidemic of physical and sexual abuse, as well as excessive use of isolation and chemical restraints such as pepper spray. High staff turnover and severe understaffing contributed to these problems. 76
• South Carolina – In April 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice released the results of an investigation into conditions at the Broad River Road Complex. After reviewing hundreds of incident reports, the investigation found that facility staff “often used force on young people who were not engaging in physical violence or even threatening violence,” and “in many cases the use of force appeared to be a staff response to previous youth misconduct that had already ceased.” 77

Surveys of incarcerated youth have revealed widespread maltreatment and abuse.

The most recent national survey of youth incarcerated in juvenile facilities, authorized under the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act, questioned 6,000 incarcerated youth in 2018 and found that 7% reported being victimized sexually in the prior year, most of whom reported sexual victimization that involved force or coercion by facility staff or other youth. 78

Earlier surveys also documented widespread abuse. A national survey of incarcerated youth conducted in 2008-09 found that among youth who reported being victimized, more than 80% were victimized more than once. One-third of youth who were victimized by staff and 43% of youth who were victimized by other youth were attacked by more than one perpetrator. 79

In a nationwide survey in 2003, 42% of youth who were incarcerated in correctional facilities said they felt afraid of being attacked by another resident, staff, or both. 80 In addition, 45% said that staff “use force when they really don’t need to,” and 30% said that staff placed youth in solitary confinement as a form of discipline. 81

A 2014 study of youth in southern California who had recently been released from juvenile facilities found that 77% reported suffering one or more types of physical, sexual, or verbal abuse. The study also found that abuse during incarceration led to greater social and emotional problems following release, including posttraumatic stress reactions, depression symptoms, and continued criminal behavior. 82

The abuses and harms of incarceration are inflicted disproportionately on Black youth and other youth of color.

Black youth and other youth of color are incarcerated in detention centers at far higher rates than their white peers..

The most recent one-day count of youth in detention (from 2019) found that Black youth were detained at six times the rate of white youth nationwide, while Latinx youth were detained at nearly twice the rate as white youth, and Tribal youth were detained at four times the rate of their white peers. 83

Youth of color who are referred to court on delinquency charges are far more likely than white youth to be placed in detention. In 2019, Black and Latinx youth were 45% and 55% more likely to be detained, respectively, than non-Hispanic white youth, while Tribal and Asian/Pacific Islander youth were about 25% more likely to be detained. 84

Many studies find that disparities at detention are driven at least partly by decision-making that is biased against youth of color.

A 2018 review of disparities research in youth justice found that 22 of 27 analyses (81%) that compared detention decisions regarding Black versus white youth found clear evidence of bias, as did 14 of 16 analyses (88%) that compared detention decisions regarding Latinx versus white youth. 85

For example, in a 2010 Arizona study (cited earlier), Black, Latinx, and Tribal youth were 49%, 24%, and 93% more likely to be detained than white youth, respectively, even after controlling for offending histories and other relevant factors. 86 A 2018 study that examined court outcomes for more than 50,000 youth in seven Ohio counties found that, non-white youth were “more likely to be detained prior to an adjudication hearing relative to similarly situated [w]hite youth” (after controlling for offense and other relevant factors). 87

Racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration are due primarily to the cumulative impact of substantial disparities that are found in early stages of the justice system.

Youth of color are also confined disproportionately at the correctional phase of the juvenile court process, after they have been adjudicated delinquent (the juvenile system’s conviction). The most recent Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (2019) found that the post-adjudication placement rate for Black youth was 3.6 times the rate for non-Hispanic white youth. For Tribal youth, the correctional confinement rate was three times that of white youth. (There were scant disparities for Latinx youth.) 88 Even among the narrower populations of youth who are referred to delinquency court and adjudicated delinquent, Black and Latinx youth were about 40% more likely than white youth to be removed from their homes and placed in facilities in 2019. 89

Some studies examining court decisions on whether to incarcerate youth after they are found delinquent show that youth of color are significantly more likely to be incarcerated than non-Hispanic white youth with similar characteristics and offending histories. A 2018 review of disparities research found that about half of the analyses that compared secure confinement decisions regarding Black versus white youth and 38% of the analyses that compared secure confinement decisions regarding Hispanic versus white youth documented a clear statistically significant bias. (In many of the other analyses, the results were inconclusive.) 90

Studies find that significant biases against youth of color are most common in decisions regarding arrest, diversion versus formal processing, and especially detention. These disparities in the early stages cause a snowball effect that leads to substantial cumulative disadvantages for youth of color in later decisions around incarceration in correctional facilities.

• A comprehensive review of racial disparities research in 2011 found that “minority youths are more likely than whites to be stopped, arrested, and referred to court by police;” “minority youths are less likely than whites to be diverted from the system;” and “[detention is] the point at which race effects unexplained by offense-related variables are most often found.”
• The authors of a 2018 study in seven Ohio counties (cited earlier) noted that “the often-observed racial disparity in pre-adjudication detention… play[s] a vital role in future decision-making via a cumulative, or “snowball,” effect…. In other words, decisions made at earlier stages can affect—and lead to greater racial overrepresentation in—decisions made at later stages.”

More than 500 Facility Abuse Victims in New Hampshire

More than 500 former residents of New Hampshire’s Sununu Youth Services Center, a 150-year-old juvenile corrections facility, have come forward alleging physical or sexual abuse at the hands of facility staff over the past six decades. More than 150 staff members have been implicated in the abuse, the Boston Globe reported in April 2022. The state’s attorney general launched a criminal investigation in 2019, and 11 former workers were arrested and formally charged with abuse in April 2021.

In its exhaustive investigation of the abuses, the Boston Globe interviewed several youth who had been raped repeatedly by facility staff. One woman described being driven to the woods as a young teen and being raped repeatedly by a staff member in the back seat of his car. When she got pregnant, she was taken to a clinic and given two pills to terminate the pregnancy, but no one from the facility ever asked how she became pregnant. Several men interviewed for the story also described being raped repeatedly during their time at the facility. The Globe quoted one former victim recalling that the sexual abuse in the facility was so prevalent, “you just hoped it wasn’t your turn that night.”

Explanatory Note: The original text of this report miscategorized Colorado as a state where recidivism results have worsened in recent years. However, the two-year rate was roughly equal to 2011, and the 3-year rate was worse than in 201. Therefore, Colorado has been recharacterized as a state where recidivism has seen no consistent change.

PART 2: Understanding Why Incarceration Fails: Lessons from Research on Adolescent Development and Childhood Trauma

Recent research provides a wealth of information about the causes of delinquent conduct, and this new evidence helps explain why incarceration is the wrong response in the vast majority of delinquency cases.

Adolescent Brain Development.

Brain immaturity fuels delinquent behavior..

We now know that the human brain does not fully mature until age 25. 91 Recent advances in brain science have confirmed that the sections of the brain dedicated to impulse control, weighing consequences, and regulating emotions are still developing during adolescence, 92 while the part of the brain focused on sensation-seeking and risk taking is unusually active. 93 In addition, youth are swayed by peer influences far more easily than adults. 94

This lack of brain maturity makes lawbreaking and other risky behaviors more common during adolescence. Rates of self-reported offending and of arrests have historically risen during adolescence and peaked in the late teen years. 95

We also know that, as their brains mature, the vast majority of youth age out of lawbreaking. Most youth (63%) who enter the justice system for delinquency never return to court on delinquency charges. 96 Meanwhile, studies consistently find that offending rates steadily decline during adulthood 97 – even for those who get arrested for serious lawbreaking in adolescence. Indeed, a rigorous study of youth who were adjudicated for serious offenses found that only 9% continued to commit serious offenses throughout the three-year study period. 98

Desistance from delinquency is tied to greater maturity.

New research also makes increasingly clear that young people’s ability to desist from delinquency is tied to their progress in developing “psychosocial maturity,” including the abilities to control impulses, delay gratification, weigh the consequences of their actions, consider others’ perspectives, and resist peer pressure. 99 Youth who persist in delinquency and get arrested repeatedly as adults have far lower levels of psychosocial maturity than their peers who desist from delinquency. 100

Thus, the key challenge for the youth justice system is to help young people who become involved in the system to accelerate their maturation and prepare for productive roles in adult society.

Incarceration slows maturation, creating a roadblock to outgrowing delinquency.

Unfortunately, incarcerating adolescents impedes their ability to mature psychologically – exactly the opposite of what’s needed to foster positive behavior change and promote desistance from delinquency. Studies find that youth who are incarcerated in correctional facilities develop psychosocial maturity at far slower rates than comparable peers who remain at home in the community. 101 In other words, the purported solution (incarceration) does not address the underlying cause of the conduct (immaturity). Rather, confinement hinders the process of desisting from delinquency by disrupting young people’s opportunities to learn, grow, and participate in essential rites of passage associated with adolescent development – everything from dating to employment to driver’s education.

In many cases, childhood trauma fuels delinquency in adolescence.

Studies find that youth who become involved in the juvenile justice system are several times more likely than other youth to have suffered trauma – or adverse childhood experiences 102 – while growing up. For instance, an exhaustive 2014 study in Florida found that justice-involved youth were four times as likely to have experienced four of 10 types of trauma than the general population (50% versus 13%) and just one-thirteenth as likely to have no adverse childhood experiences (less than 3% versus 36%). 103 Up to one-third of incarcerated youth suffer from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). 104

Research also finds that children who experience multiple types of traumatic experiences in early childhood often suffer from “toxic stress” 105 that can impede healthy brain development, harm the ability to self-regulate, and heighten the risks for delinquency. As one study explained, “Traumatized adolescents typically do not lack a sense of self or values, but are often too anxious, angry, or confused to rely upon these psychological resources while struggling with a sense of being in constant danger.” 106

Incarceration can exacerbate trauma and reduce young people’s likelihood of success.

Studies consistently find that incarceration is itself a traumatic experience for young people, and it can exacerbate the difficulties experienced by youth who have previous exposure to violence and other adverse childhood experiences.

Surveys of confined youth consistently find high levels of violence and abuse. For instance, among youth participants in the Pathways to Desistance study (cited earlier) who had been placed in residential facilities, 75% reported witnessing violent encounters between other youth in their facilities, 17% reported being victimized by other residents, nearly two-thirds witnessed violence between staff and residents, almost 10% reported being victimized by staff, and 5% reported being beaten by staff. 107

As a 2016 article in the Juvenile & Family Court Journal explained, “The trauma produced by incarceration may actually increase poor behavior, as youth struggle to cope with the emotional impact of confinement and to manage their subsequent externalizing behaviors.” As a result, the paper concluded, “Higher rates of incarceration may actually create more crime.” 108

PART 3: The Evidence on Reducing Incarceration Through Alternatives and Policy and Practice Reforms

Community alternatives to confinement achieve equal or better outcomes at far lower cost..

Several types of community-based alternative programs are especially promising, with powerful evidence of effectiveness.

Youth Advocate Programs (YAP) , a Pennsylvania-based youth-serving organization, offers intensive support and advocacy to 20,000 justice-involved or otherwise at-risk youth and young adults each year in more than 100 program sites across the country. Studies of the program have found that participating in YAP reduces involvement in the justice system, improves young people’s well-being, and costs less than incarceration. 109 The agency reports that only 3% of participants are adjudicated or convicted of a new offense while in the program, whereas 86% live safely in the community (not in a facility) when exiting the program, and 83% attend school regularly. 110

Credible Messengers is an approach where adults who have been involved in the criminal legal system, typically from the same neighborhoods where many court-involved youth live, mentor young people and help them adopt more positive attitudes and values. A 2018 evaluation found that just 26% of 13-18 year-old New York City youth on probation who worked with credible messenger mentors as part of the Advocate, Intervene, Mentor (AIM) alternative-to-incarceration program were arrested on new charges in the year after enrolling, and just 10% were arrested on felony charges. These rates are far lower than the rates typical for youth who were placed in residential programs historically (49 percent total arrest rate, and 27 percent for felony arrests). 111 New York City’s ARCHES program, which offers credible messenger mentors for youth on probation aged 16-24, reduced reconviction rates by more than 50% in the two years after program enrollment compared to a control group, a recent evaluation found. Program results were the most positive for participants under age 18. 112

Intensive multi-pronged family-focused treatment models include Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT). These programs assign specially trained therapists to intensively engage youth and their families over several months to improve family functioning, identify and address root causes of delinquent behavior, and support meaningful behavior change. These interventions have substantially outperformed traditional probation programming and facility placements, as shown in a long series of studies dating back to the 1980s. 113

For many years, Florida funded a program that offered these modes of therapy to some adjudicated teens in lieu of incarceration through its Redirection Program. An evaluation by the state legislature’s policy analysis office found that the program reduced recidivism by 31% for high-risk youth and saved taxpayers more than $50 million in its first five years. 114

Wraparound programs hire care coordinators to work with behaviorally troubled youth and their families to devise individual plans and connect youth to a range of services and opportunities targeted to their needs and personal goals. These programs have proven effective in reducing delinquency and other negative outcomes. Every year, the Wraparound Milwaukee program serves over 1,000 youth with serious emotional disturbances, including more than 400 who have been adjudicated delinquent. 115 The program, which Harvard University recognized with a prestigious Innovations in American Government award, 116 significantly improves mental health symptoms, increases school attendance, and reduces recidivism by more than half compared with other youth in the justice system. 117 The program also saves taxpayers millions of dollars by reducing the amount spent on incarceration and other out-of-home placements. 118

YouthBuild , an employment-focused program, engages young people in a combination of high school completion, construction skills training, and personal development activities. It operates in more than 200 sites across the country. Studies have found that YouthBuild programs that specifically focus on justice-involved youth reduce recidivism and increase young people’s educational progress. 119 A 2015 cost benefit study found that the YouthBuild program that serves justice-involved youth yields $7.20 to $21.60 in benefits to society for every dollar spent in program services because it reduces participants’ justice system and drug treatment costs, and it increases their lifetime income and tax payments. 120

Programs led by grassroots neighborhood, civic, and faith-based organizations that provide counseling, support, skill-building, and recreational opportunities show great promise in steering court-involved young people away from delinquency and toward success, although they currently lack peer-reviewed research documenting their effectiveness. These organizations include the Youth Empowerment Project in New Orleans; 121 Exalt in Brooklyn; 122 reVision in Harris County, Texas (Houston); 123 Hopeworks in Camden, New Jersey, 124 and La Plazita Institute in Albuquerque. 125 All of these programs engage large numbers of court-involved youth in positive youth development activities, connect them with caring adults, support their families, and address any needs or problems that might be interfering with their success and wellbeing.

These kinds of community interventions all cost a small fraction of the price of incarceration in a youth corrections facility. None of the approaches described above costs more than $25,000 per youth, and some cost far less, 126 whereas one year of correctional confinement has been estimated to cost an average of $214,000. 127

Several policy and practice reforms also show substantial promise in reducing incarceration while improving youth and public safety outcomes.

While alternatives to incarceration programs are essential, they represent only one part of the answer to reducing overreliance on youth incarceration. Just as important are policies and practices designed to ensure that youth justice systems make good decisions and provide appropriate responses to youth behavior. Specifically, the evidence shows that right-sizing the use of incarceration for youth requires states and local justice systems to take the actions discussed here.

Address most youth lawbreaking outside the justice system.

• Reducing the number of young people arrested for less serious offenses at school and in the community. Extensive research shows that arrests in adolescence significantly reduce educational attainment and increase future involvement in the justice system. 128
• Diverting a far greater share of youth following arrest rather than processing their cases in juvenile court. As The Sentencing Project documented in its recent report, “Diversion: A Hidden Key to Combating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Juvenile Justice,” youth referred to juvenile court whose cases get diverted (handled informally) achieve far better outcomes than those whose cases are formally processed in court. 129

Offer effective and developmentally appropriate support and supervision to court-involved youth in the community.

• Revamp juvenile probation to individualize case plans and promote long-term success, rather than focusing on short-term compliance with a long list of standard rules and conditions. Research finds that the traditional surveillance-compliance model of probation is ill-suited to adolescents and ineffective in reducing youth reoffending rates. 130
• End confinement of youth as a punishment for failing to obey probation rules. The most recent census of youth in residential custody found that one of every seven confined youth (14%) in the United States is being held for a technical violation. 131 In a 2020 research brief, The Annie E. Casey Foundation found that confining youth for rule violations conflicts with adolescent development research, exacerbates racial and ethnic disparities, and does not enhance public safety. 132

Sharply limit the justice system’s use of confinement for youth.

• Reform detention practices. The Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative, which was initially launched in a handful of sites as a pilot project in the early 1990s, has proven highly effective in helping participating jurisdictions reduce detention facility populations. The model, which includes eight core strategies, was ultimately adopted by more than 300 counties that are home to nearly one-third of the nation’s young people. 133 Participating jurisdictions reduced detention populations by an average of more than 40% from pre-participation baselines, and they also saw a more than 50% reduction in commitments to state custody. 134 A 2012 evaluation study found that counties involved in the program reduced their detention populations by over five times as much as non-participating counties in their states, with no negative impact on public safety. 135
• Employ fiscal incentives that encourage courts and corrections agencies to work with youth at home in the community, rather than in youth prisons or other residential facilities. In a 2014 report, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (now Evident Change) described the use of incentives as a “good news story” in recent efforts to reduce youth incarceration, noting that incentives had proven effective in at least nine states. 136
• Prohibit incarceration as a response to lower-level offenses. In a 2013 report, the National Juvenile Justice Network and Texas Public Policy Foundation identified disallowing incarceration as one of the key strategies employed by several of the nine “comeback states” that had made the most progress since 2001 in reducing overreliance on youth incarceration. 137

Examples of Progress.

By combining these kinds of process reforms with expanded community programs, several states and localities have dramatically reduced the numbers of incarcerated youth with no harm to public safety.

• Ohio: By providing millions of dollars in funding for community programming each year to counties that reduce their commitments to state youth correctional facilities, plus funding for research-informed and home-based alternatives to confinement, Ohio has been able to close eight of its 11 youth prisons since 1993, reducing the number of youth in state custody from 3,000 to 1,000. 138 In addition, Ohio has launched an ambitious effort to revamp county probation programs to focus on personal development and long-term success rather than short-term rule compliance. 139
• Connecticut: Connecticut closed the last of its youth prisons in 2018 thanks to a comprehensive series of reforms implemented over the prior decade and the allocation of tens of millions of dollars in state spending each year on community programs for court-involved youth. 140 The state was able to shutter its youth prisons despite raising the age of juvenile court jurisdiction from 15 to 17. 141 In addition, Connecticut reduced admissions of youth to adult prisons from nearly 1,500 per year in the 2007-08 fiscal year to 105 a decade later. 142
• California and Texas: Both states enacted rules prohibiting commitments to state youth correctional facilities for misdemeanor offenses, and both saw a dramatic decline in state facility populations. In Texas, the population in state youth correctional facilities fell from nearly 5,000 in 2006 143 to less than 700 in April 2022. 144 In California, state facility populations declined from nearly 10,000 in the mid-1990s 145 to 700 in 2021, 146 when the state approved a complete shutdown of its state youth correctional facilities. 147
• District of Columbia: In 2005, Washington, DC, closed the Oak Hill Youth Center, a long-troubled and overcrowded 200-bed youth prison that was plagued by violence and abuse. 148 The District replaced it with a 60-bed facility that offers model education and youth development programming 149 and an array of new community programs. More recently, the District’s Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services has further ramped up its community programs while embracing the Credible Messengers model described above. In 2020, the population in the District’s juvenile correction facility averaged just 32 youth per day. 150
• Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia: Since 2012, each of these states has worked with the Pew Charitable Trusts to enact comprehensive juvenile justice reform laws designed to reduce overreliance on juvenile incarceration. 151 While details of the laws vary from state to state, most have prioritized reducing or prohibiting confinement for misdemeanor offenses, increasing funds for evidence-based treatment and other community alternatives to incarceration, and limiting confinement for probation violations. 152 Since enacting the reforms, all of these states have seen sharp reductions in youth incarceration. 153
• Los Angeles County. In November 2020, the LA County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a groundbreaking plan to shift responsibility for juvenile probation programming, as well as the county’s youth corrections and detention facilities, away from the county probation department and into a new Department of Youth Development. 154 Based on a plan developed by a community-led Youth Justice Work Group, the county’s new youth justice system will prioritize diversion from the justice system and favor community-centered youth development services rather than correctional custody and surveillance-oriented probation supervision. It will also focus heavily on racial and ethnic equity. 155 Though results of this new approach are not yet available, LA County’s bold plan aligns closely with research and offers a promising model for reform in other jurisdictions. 156

Based on the evidence, states and local youth justice systems should take immediate action to reduce their reliance on incarceration. Specifically, they will find greatest success if they follow the following recommendations.

1. Expand the use of diversion . Diversion from formal court processing lowers re-arrest rates and improves youth success and wellbeing. Yet diversion, where young people’s alleged offenses are addressed outside the formal court system, is used far too seldom, especially for youth of color. Expanding the use of diversion will help youth avoid lengthy offense histories and thereby reduce the likelihood of subsequent incarceration.

2. Invest in alternatives to incarceration. States and local governments should invest in evidence-based and other promising alternatives to incarceration. These alternatives should include programs to supervise youth at home in the pre-trial period as well as home-based dispositions (akin to sentences in the adult justice system) for youth who have been adjudicated delinquent in court and might otherwise be placed in residential custody.

3. Measure results. Youth justice systems should track and report the results of alternatives to incarceration in terms of public safety (re-arrest, new adjudications or convictions, and subsequent incarceration) and youth success (education and well-being). System staff should examine these results to ascertain any differences by race, ethnicity, and gender, and they should compare the results of alternative programs to those of residential facilities, adjusting for young people’s offending histories and their risk-to-reoffend as measured by objective and validated risk instruments.

4. Limit the use of pre-trial detention. Reducing detention benefits youth in the short term by allowing them to remain at home and in school, and it substantially lowers the odds of residential placement following adjudication. Therefore, if they have not already, state and local justice systems should adopt the core strategies of the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative to reduce the number of young people confined in juvenile detention facilities. These strategies include detention screening instruments to ensure rational and objective criteria are used to make detention decisions, expanded alternatives to detention programming, and expedited case processing.

5. Prohibit incarceration for low-level offenses. States should enact rules prohibiting – or at least creating a strong presumption against – incarceration in cases where youth are adjudicated delinquent for less serious offenses, including all status offenses (like running away from home, underage drinking, or curfew violations that would not be crimes if committed by adults), probation rule violations, and misdemeanors, as well as many non-violent felonies.

6. Create financial incentives to discourage overuse of incarceration. Too often, states foster overreliance on incarceration by paying the full cost of state correctional confinement while offering little or no support for local alternatives to residential custody. As Ohio and other states have shown, states can reduce the use of incarceration by employing funding formulas that encourage the use of community- and home-based alternatives.

7. Use objective decision-making guidelines to limit the use of confinement. State and local justice systems should develop and follow response grids that guide decisions and limit confinement in response to probation rule violations, as well as dispositional guidelines that recommend residential custody only for youth adjudicated for serious offenses who pose a high risk for re-arrest according to objective risk assessment instruments.

8. Limit lengths of stay. The preponderance of research shows that lengthy stays in correctional custody do not improve recidivism results. Yet long stays carry an enormous financial cost for taxpayers, and they disrupt young people’s opportunities to experience important rites of passage on the path to healthy and productive adulthood.

9. Focus explicitly on racial equity. Long experience shows that efforts to reduce confinement often exacerbate disparities; reforms benefit Black youths and other youths of color less frequently than their white peers. However, a recent 12-site initiative led by The Annie E. Casey Foundation showed that by placing a clear and determined focus on race and ethnicity, justice systems can substantially lower the number of youths placed in residential custody, and can do so in a way that benefits youth of color at least as much as white youth. “Our systems cannot sit back and expect that so-called race-neutral reforms will erase the troubling inequity that has become the signature characteristic — the shame — of our nation’s juvenile justice systems,” concluded one of the project’s architects. “To make a significant dent in racial and ethnic disparities, we need to employ strategies that focus explicitly on race.” 157

The evidence leaves no doubt: incarceration is a failed strategy for rehabilitating youth and protecting the public. The continued heavy use of incarceration ignores the lessons of emerging adolescent development research. It also damages young people’s health and harms their future progress in education and employment, and it does all this at enormous expense while offering no benefit for young people or their communities. Many programmatic and policy alternatives are available that cost less and achieve much more both in terms of reducing delinquent conduct and boosting youth success.

While declines in the number of incarcerated youth over the past 20 years are welcome, they are nowhere near sufficient. Indeed, the drop in facility populations to date is primarily the product of fewer youth entering the justice system. There remain vast opportunities to further reduce youth incarceration by following the evidence and doing what works.

Related Resources

Building momentum for reform.

In 2024, we look forward to discussing best practices to protect community safety and boost youth success, and strategizing with our partners on ways to win in upcoming legislative sessions.

August 22, 2024

Youth Incarceration Declined 75% Between 2000 and 2022

A new report from The Sentencing Project finds an overall decrease in youth offending, but racial and ethnic disparities in youth incarceration and sentencing persist.

August 14, 2024

Youth Justice by the Numbers

Between 2000-2022, there has been a 75% decline in youth incarceration. However, racial and ethnic disparities in youth incarceration and sentencing persist despite overall decrease in youth offending.

By Joshua Rovner on August 14, 2024

Stay involved & informed

Stay up-to-date on the latest reports and news from The Sentencing Project.

Thanks for subscribing!

By submitting your cell phone number, you are agreeing to receive text messages from The Sentencing Project. Messages may include fundraising. 4 msgs/month. Message and data rates may apply. Text HELP for more information. Text STOP to stop receiving messages. Terms & Conditions . Privacy Policy .

One more thing, !

Please click the link in the email we sent to . Otherwise, we won't be able to contact you.

In the meantime, get social with us! Join our community of over 100,000 followers on Twitter , Facebook , and Instagram .

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

• Argumentative
• Ecocriticism
• Informative
• Explicatory
• Illustrative
• Problem Solution
• Interpretive
• Music Analysis
• All Essay Examples
• Entertainment
• Law, Crime & Punishment
• Artificial Intelligence
• Environment
• Geography & Travel
• Government & Politics
• Nursing & Health
• Information Science and Technology
• All Essay Topics

Cause And Effects Of Juvenile Delinquency

Juvenile delinquency, characterized by the commission of illegal acts by minors, remains a complex social issue with far-reaching ramifications. Understanding the causes and effects of juvenile delinquency is paramount for developing effective intervention strategies and fostering the well-being of adolescents and society at large.

One significant cause of juvenile delinquency is socioeconomic disadvantage. Adolescents growing up in impoverished environments often face a myriad of challenges, including limited access to education, economic opportunities, and social support networks. As a result, they may resort to delinquent behaviors as a means of survival or rebellion against perceived injustices. Furthermore, socioeconomic deprivation can contribute to feelings of hopelessness and despair, fostering a sense of nihilism that predisposes youth to engage in antisocial activities.

Family dynamics also play a pivotal role in shaping juvenile delinquency. Dysfunctional family structures, characterized by parental neglect, abuse, or substance misuse, can significantly impact a child's development and behavior. Children raised in such environments may lack adequate parental supervision, discipline, and emotional support, predisposing them to delinquent behaviors. Moreover, exposure to domestic violence or criminal behavior within the family unit can normalize deviant conduct and perpetuate intergenerational cycles of delinquency.

Peer influence represents another influential factor contributing to juvenile delinquency. Adolescents are inherently susceptible to peer pressure and the desire for acceptance and validation from their peers. In delinquent peer groups, individuals may engage in risky behaviors, criminal activities, or substance abuse as a means of gaining social status or belonging. The influence of deviant peers can exert a powerful sway over impressionable youth, leading them down a path of delinquency and criminality.

The effects of juvenile delinquency extend beyond individual perpetrators, reverberating throughout society and perpetuating a cycle of harm. From a societal standpoint, juvenile delinquency imposes significant economic burdens through the costs associated with law enforcement, juvenile justice interventions, and victim restitution. Furthermore, delinquent behaviors can engender fear and insecurity within communities, undermining social cohesion and eroding trust in institutions. Additionally, the long-term consequences of juvenile delinquency can impede educational attainment, limit employment prospects, and perpetuate cycles of poverty and marginalization.

In conclusion, juvenile delinquency is a multifaceted phenomenon with diverse underlying causes and far-reaching effects. Addressing this societal issue necessitates a holistic approach that addresses root causes such as socioeconomic disadvantage, family dynamics, and peer influence. By implementing evidence-based interventions that promote positive youth development, enhance protective factors, and mitigate risk factors, society can effectively combat juvenile delinquency and nurture the potential of its youth.

Related Essays

• Effects Of Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency And Its Effect On Schools Essay
• Causes Of Juvenile Delinquency
• What Are The Causes Of Juvenile Delinquency

Causes and Solution of Juvenile Delinquency in America Essay

Causes and Solutions of Juvenile Delinquency in Society Juvenile delinquency refers to criminal behavior committed by individuals who are under the age of 18. This issue has become a growing concern in many societies, as it not only affects the lives of young people but also has broader implications for the overall well-being of communities. In order to address this problem effectively, it is crucial to understand the underlying causes and explore potential solutions. One of the primary causes of juvenile delinquency is the breakdown of the family structure. Children who come from broken homes or dysfunctional families are more likely to engage in criminal activities. The absence of proper parental guidance, lack of emotional support, and exposure to violence and substance abuse can contribute to a child's delinquent behavior. In addition, poverty and economic hardships can exacerbate these issues, as young people may turn to crime as a means of survival or to fulfill their material needs. Another significant factor contributing to juvenile delinquency is peer influence. Adolescents often seek acceptance and validation from their peers, and in some cases, they may be drawn towards delinquent activities in order to fit in or gain a sense of belonging. Gang involvement, drug abuse, and participation in criminal activities can all be influenced by peer pressure, leading young individuals down a destructive path. Furthermore, the lack of access to quality education and employment opportunities can contribute to juvenile delinquency. When young people do not have access to proper education or are unable to find stable jobs, they may feel marginalized and hopeless. This sense of despair can lead to frustration and a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior as a means of escaping their circumstances or seeking instant gratification. To tackle the issue of juvenile delinquency, it is essential to implement a multi-faceted approach that addresses the root causes and provides effective solutions. Firstly, strengthening family support systems and promoting healthy parenting practices can play a crucial role in preventing delinquency. Programs that provide counseling, guidance, and assistance to families in need can help create a nurturing environment for children to grow and develop. Additionally, investing in education and vocational training programs is vital to equip young people with the necessary skills and opportunities for a better future. By providing quality education and training, we can empower young individuals and offer them alternatives to a life of crime. Moreover, creating job opportunities and addressing economic disparities can also contribute to reducing delinquency rates, as financial stability can reduce the likelihood of young people turning to criminal activities. Another important aspect of addressing juvenile delinquency is promoting community involvement and engagement. Establishing youth centers, recreational facilities, and after-school programs can provide constructive outlets for young people, helping them channel their energy into positive activities. Encouraging mentorship programs and fostering positive role models can also play a significant role in guiding and inspiring adolescents to make better choices. In conclusion, the causes of juvenile delinquency are multifaceted, ranging from family dynamics to peer influence and socio-economic factors. To combat this issue, it is crucial to address the underlying causes and implement comprehensive solutions that focus on strengthening families, providing education and employment opportunities, and promoting community engagement. By investing in the well-being and development of young individuals, we can create a society where juvenile delinquency becomes a thing of the past....

• Social Issues

Cause And Effect Essay : Causes And Effects Of Stress?

Climate change stands as one of the most pressing challenges facing humanity in the 21st century. Its causes and effects permeate virtually every aspect of our lives, from environmental degradation to socio-economic disparities. This essay delves into the multifaceted dimensions of climate change, elucidating its root causes, far-reaching consequences, and imperative for collective action to mitigate its impacts. At its core, climate change stems from the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Human activities, notably the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes, have exponentially increased the concentration of these gases, trapping heat and disrupting the planet's delicate climate balance. The combustion of fossil fuels for energy production, transportation, and industrial purposes releases vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, intensifying the greenhouse effect and driving global warming. The consequences of climate change manifest in myriad ways, posing existential threats to ecosystems, biodiversity, and human well-being. Rising global temperatures exacerbate extreme weather events, including heatwaves, droughts, hurricanes, and floods, wreaking havoc on communities and infrastructures worldwide. Shifts in precipitation patterns disrupt agricultural systems, compromising food security and livelihoods, particularly in vulnerable regions already grappling with poverty and resource scarcity. Moreover, melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels threaten coastal communities with inundation, displacement, and loss of critical habitats, exacerbating climate-induced migration and geopolitical tensions. In conclusion, climate change represents a complex web of interrelated causes and effects that demand urgent attention and concerted action on local, national, and global scales. Addressing the root causes of climate change requires transitioning to renewable energy sources, implementing sustainable land-use practices, and fostering resilient communities capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions. Furthermore, mitigating the adverse effects of climate change necessitates international cooperation, equitable distribution of resources, and empowering marginalized communities disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation. By embracing a collective responsibility to safeguard the planet for future generations, we can forge a sustainable and resilient future in which humans and ecosystems thrive in harmony with nature....

• Climate & Weather
• Environmental Protection
• Environment Problems

Causes And Effects : Cause And Effect Relationships

Causes And Effects: Cause And Effect Relationships Introduction: Cause and effect relationships are fundamental to understanding the world around us. They help us make sense of the interconnectedness of events and phenomena, and provide insights into how one action or event can lead to another. In this essay, we will explore the concept of cause and effect relationships, delving into their causes, effects, and the significance they hold in various aspects of life. Body Paragraph 1: Causes Cause and effect relationships are rooted in the idea that every action has a consequence. Understanding the causes behind certain events or actions is crucial in comprehending the subsequent effects they produce. Causes can range from simple occurrences to complex, multifaceted factors. For example, in the context of climate change, causes may include human activities such as deforestation, industrial emissions, and the burning of fossil fuels. These factors contribute to global warming, rising sea levels, and adverse weather patterns. By identifying and analyzing the causes of a particular event or phenomenon, we can gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play. Body Paragraph 2: Effects The effects of cause and effect relationships can be far-reaching and impactful. They can manifest in various ways, affecting individuals, communities, and even the entire planet. Effects can be immediate or long-term, and can range from positive to negative outcomes. For instance, the cause of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, can result in devastating effects such as loss of lives, destruction of infrastructure, and displacement of communities. On the other hand, cause and effect relationships can also lead to positive outcomes. For example, investing in education can have a positive effect on individuals, empowering them with knowledge and skills that can lead to personal growth and societal development. Body Paragraph 3: Significance Cause and effect relationships hold immense significance in our lives. They help us understand the consequences of our actions and make informed decisions. By recognizing the causes and effects, we can proactively work towards minimizing negative outcomes and promoting positive ones. For instance, understanding the causes of poverty, such as lack of education and economic opportunities, can guide policymakers in implementing effective strategies to alleviate poverty and create a more equitable society. Furthermore, cause and effect relationships are also integral to scientific research, as they allow scientists to establish causal links and formulate hypotheses that can be tested and verified. Conclusion: Cause and effect relationships are an integral part of our understanding of the world. By analyzing the causes and effects of various events and phenomena, we can gain valuable insights into the interconnectedness of our actions and their consequences. Whether it is in the context of climate change, social issues, or scientific research, recognizing cause and effect relationships empowers us to make informed decisions and work towards creating a better future. Through a deeper understanding of cause and effect relationships, we can navigate the complexities of life with greater clarity and purpose. (Word count: 349)...

• Robotics and Automation

Cause And Effects Of Lightning : Causes And Loss Of Human Systems

Lightning, a natural phenomenon, has fascinated and frightened humanity for millennia. It occurs when electrical charges build up within clouds and between clouds and the ground, resulting in a sudden discharge of electricity in the form of a lightning bolt. The causes of lightning are primarily atmospheric conditions conducive to the buildup and release of electrical energy. Thunderstorms, which are characterized by the rapid upward movement of warm, moist air and the simultaneous downward movement of cooler air, create the perfect environment for lightning formation. Additionally, the presence of ice particles and turbulence within clouds further enhances the likelihood of lightning strikes. Human activities, such as pollution and deforestation, can also influence lightning patterns by altering atmospheric conditions. The effects of lightning can be both awe-inspiring and devastating. One of the most immediate effects is the brilliant flash of light produced by the discharge of electricity. This intense illumination can temporarily blind individuals and cause momentary disorientation. Furthermore, lightning generates thunder, a powerful shockwave produced by the rapid expansion of heated air surrounding the lightning bolt. Thunder can be deafening, causing fear and anxiety in those nearby. Additionally, lightning strikes can ignite wildfires, particularly in dry and forested areas. The intense heat generated by lightning can instantly set vegetation ablaze, leading to widespread destruction of ecosystems and property. On a more positive note, lightning plays a crucial role in the Earth's nitrogen cycle. When lightning strikes the ground, it has the potential to split nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere, allowing nitrogen to combine with oxygen and other elements to form nitrates. These nitrates are essential nutrients for plant growth, contributing to the fertility of soils. Lightning also helps to replenish ozone in the Earth's atmosphere by breaking apart oxygen molecules, which then recombine to form ozone molecules. Ozone plays a vital role in filtering harmful ultraviolet radiation from the Sun, thereby protecting life on Earth from the detrimental effects of excessive UV exposure. In conclusion, lightning is a fascinating natural phenomenon with both causes and effects that impact the Earth and its inhabitants. Atmospheric conditions conducive to the buildup and release of electrical energy primarily cause lightning, with human activities potentially influencing lightning patterns. The effects of lightning range from awe-inspiring displays of light and sound to devastating wildfires and ecological damage. However, lightning also serves important ecological functions, such as contributing to the Earth's nitrogen cycle and replenishing ozone in the atmosphere. Overall, the study of lightning provides valuable insights into the complex interactions between the atmosphere, the Earth, and living organisms....

The Cause And Effects Of Deforestation : Causes And Disasters

The Causes and Effects of Deforestation Deforestation, the widespread clearing of forests for various purposes, is a complex issue with multifaceted causes and far-reaching consequences. One of the primary drivers of deforestation is agricultural expansion. As global demand for food and commodities continues to rise, large swathes of forestland are cleared to make way for agricultural activities such as cattle ranching, soybean cultivation, and palm oil production. This conversion of forested areas into agricultural land not only leads to the loss of valuable ecosystems but also exacerbates biodiversity loss and contributes to climate change. Another significant cause of deforestation is logging, both legal and illegal. Timber extraction for commercial purposes, including the production of lumber, paper, and other wood products, often results in extensive deforestation, particularly in tropical regions with rich biodiversity. Illegal logging, driven by profit motives and weak enforcement of forest protection laws, further compounds the problem, leading to unchecked forest degradation and habitat destruction. Additionally, infrastructure development projects such as road construction, mining operations, and hydroelectric dams contribute to deforestation by fragmenting forest landscapes and opening up previously inaccessible areas to human exploitation. These large-scale infrastructure projects often involve clearing vast tracts of forestland, displacing indigenous communities, and disrupting delicate ecosystems, with long-term consequences for biodiversity and environmental sustainability. The effects of deforestation are manifold and wide-ranging. One of the most immediate consequences is the loss of biodiversity. Forests are home to a diverse array of plant and animal species, many of which are endemic and found nowhere else on Earth. Deforestation disrupts these ecosystems, leading to habitat loss, species extinction, and a decline in overall biodiversity. Furthermore, forests play a crucial role in regulating the global climate by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass and soil. Deforestation releases this stored carbon back into the atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and exacerbating climate change. Moreover, deforestation has profound social and economic impacts, particularly on indigenous communities and rural populations who depend on forests for their livelihoods and cultural identity. Loss of access to forest resources such as food, medicine, and fuelwood can undermine the traditional way of life and lead to socioeconomic marginalization. Additionally, deforestation can increase the risk of natural disasters such as floods, landslides, and droughts, as forests provide vital ecosystem services such as soil stabilization, water regulation, and flood mitigation. In conclusion, deforestation is driven by a combination of factors, including agricultural expansion, logging, infrastructure development, and unsustainable land-use practices. The effects of deforestation are wide-ranging and profound, impacting biodiversity, climate stability, and human well-being. Addressing the root causes of deforestation requires coordinated efforts at the local, national, and international levels, including policy interventions, sustainable land management practices, and conservation initiatives aimed at preserving and restoring forest ecosystems for future generations....

• Environmental Sustainability
• Human Impact

Effecting Animals : Causes And Effects Of Endangered Species

Effecting Animals: Causes and Effects of Endangered Species The issue of endangered species is a pressing concern that affects animals all around the world. There are various causes that contribute to the endangerment of species, including habitat destruction, pollution, climate change, and poaching. These factors have a detrimental effect on the animal populations, leading to a decrease in their numbers and, in some cases, extinction. The effects of endangered species are far-reaching and can have a significant impact on ecosystems and biodiversity. One of the primary causes of endangered species is habitat destruction. As human populations continue to grow, natural habitats are being destroyed to make way for agriculture, urban development, and infrastructure. This loss of habitat disrupts the delicate balance of ecosystems and forces animals to adapt to new environments or face extinction. Additionally, pollution from industrial activities, such as oil spills and chemical runoff, can contaminate water sources and soil, leading to the decline of animal populations. Another significant cause of endangered species is climate change. As global temperatures rise, habitats are changing at a rapid pace, making it difficult for animals to survive. Species that are unable to adapt to these changes may not be able to find suitable food sources or breeding grounds, leading to a decline in their populations. Additionally, extreme weather events, such as hurricanes and wildfires, can devastate animal populations and further contribute to their endangerment. Poaching is another major cause of endangered species. Animals are often hunted for their fur, horns, or other body parts, which are used in traditional medicine or sold on the black market. This illegal activity not only threatens the survival of individual animals but also has a cascading effect on entire populations. As species become more scarce, their genetic diversity decreases, making them more vulnerable to disease and other threats. In conclusion, the causes of endangered species are varied and complex, but the effects are clear. The loss of biodiversity can have a profound impact on ecosystems and the environment as a whole. It is essential that we take action to protect endangered species and their habitats to ensure a sustainable future for all living creatures. By addressing the root causes of endangerment and implementing conservation efforts, we can help preserve the rich diversity of life on Earth for generations to come....

• Earth & Nature

Juvenile And Juvenile Delinquency

Juvenile delinquency refers to illegal or antisocial behavior committed by minors, typically those under the age of 18. This issue has been a significant concern for societies worldwide, as it not only affects the individuals involved but also has broader implications for communities and the criminal justice system. Understanding the causes and consequences of juvenile delinquency is crucial for developing effective prevention and intervention strategies to address this complex social problem. One of the key factors contributing to juvenile delinquency is the influence of peer pressure. Adolescents often seek acceptance and validation from their peers, leading them to engage in risky behaviors to fit in or prove themselves. This pressure can push young individuals towards criminal activities, as they may feel compelled to conform to the norms and values of their social group, even if those norms are deviant or unlawful. Family dynamics also play a significant role in the development of juvenile delinquency. Children who come from dysfunctional or abusive households may be more prone to engaging in delinquent behavior as a way to cope with their challenging circumstances. Lack of parental supervision, inconsistent discipline, and a lack of emotional support can contribute to a child's involvement in criminal activities, highlighting the importance of a stable and nurturing family environment in preventing juvenile delinquency. Furthermore, socioeconomic factors such as poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education and resources can increase the likelihood of juvenile delinquency. Young individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds may turn to crime as a means of survival or as a way to escape the cycle of poverty. Addressing these underlying social and economic inequalities is crucial in preventing at-risk youth from engaging in delinquent behavior and providing them with opportunities for a better future. In conclusion, juvenile delinquency is a multifaceted issue influenced by various factors, including peer pressure, family dynamics, and socioeconomic conditions. By addressing these root causes and implementing targeted interventions that focus on prevention, early intervention, and rehabilitation, societies can work towards reducing juvenile delinquency rates and supporting the positive development of young individuals. It is essential to approach this issue with compassion, understanding, and a commitment to creating a safer and more inclusive environment for all members of our communities....

• Human Rights
• Immigration
• Social Movements

Causes And Effects Of Kidnapping

Kidnapping, a heinous crime that shakes the very foundation of society, is driven by various factors and leads to devastating consequences for both victims and their families. Understanding the root causes and far-reaching effects of kidnapping is crucial in combating this grave issue. One of the primary causes of kidnapping is financial gain. Perpetrators often resort to kidnapping as a means to extort ransom money from the victims' families. The allure of quick and substantial financial rewards prompts individuals or criminal organizations to orchestrate kidnappings, targeting individuals from affluent backgrounds or those perceived to have access to significant resources. This financial motive not only incentivizes kidnappers but also perpetuates a vicious cycle of crime, as successful ransom payments encourage further acts of abduction. Additionally, political motives can fuel incidents of kidnapping, particularly in regions marked by instability, conflict, or ideological strife. Politically motivated kidnappings may target prominent figures, activists, or individuals affiliated with opposing factions. These abductions serve as a means of exerting control, instilling fear, or advancing a particular agenda. The volatile nature of such conflicts often exacerbates the prevalence of kidnappings, as rival groups vie for power and leverage through coercive tactics. Furthermore, social unrest and systemic inequalities contribute to the vulnerability of certain demographics to kidnapping. Marginalized communities, disadvantaged individuals, and undocumented migrants are often disproportionately affected by this crime. Limited access to resources, inadequate protection from law enforcement, and social exclusion create conditions conducive to exploitation and abduction. The intersection of socio-economic disparities and pervasive criminality perpetuates a climate of insecurity, leaving marginalized populations at heightened risk of abduction. The effects of kidnapping extend far beyond the immediate trauma experienced by the victims. Families endure unimaginable anguish, grappling with uncertainty, fear, and emotional turmoil as they await news of their loved ones. The psychological impact on both the abducted individuals and their families can be profound, leading to long-term trauma, anxiety, and mistrust. Moreover, communities are left grappling with the erosion of trust and security, as the specter of kidnapping looms large, instilling a pervasive sense of fear and vulnerability. In conclusion, the causes and effects of kidnapping are multifaceted and deeply interconnected. Addressing this complex issue necessitates comprehensive strategies that address underlying socio-economic disparities, strengthen law enforcement capabilities, and foster international cooperation. By addressing the root causes and mitigating the far-reaching effects of kidnapping, societies can strive towards a future where every individual is safeguarded from the threat of abduction and exploitation....

• Cybersecurity and National Security

Can't find the essay examples you need?

Use the search box below to find your desired essay examples.

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
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Family Instability in Childhood and Criminal Offending during the Transition into Adulthood

Stacey bosick.

University of Colorado Denver

Paula Fomby

University of Michigan

The structure and stability of families have long stood as key predictors of juvenile delinquency. Boys from “broken homes” experience a higher prevalence of juvenile delinquency than those from intact families (Rebellon 2002, Wells and Rankin 1991). Unresolved is whether the consequences of frequently disrupted family contexts endure to shape criminal trajectories into adulthood. Long-term influence may also be indirect. Life course criminologists credit family formation during the transition to adulthood, and particularly marriage, for redirecting men’s criminal trajectories, but children who experience repeated changes in family structure are more likely to experience precarious starts to their own eventual family formation. Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its two child-centered supplemental studies (N=1,127), we find that the experience of repeated family structure change is associated with higher rates of arrest and incarceration during early adulthood for white men but not for black men. This association is partially mediated by a slower transition to marriage among men who experienced three or more changes in family structure during childhood.

Introduction

The study of criminal behavior once centered on juvenile delinquency. In the absence of longer-running longitudinal data, much research focused cross-sectionally on the teenage years – a portion of the life course during which criminal behavior peaks. The family thus played an important role in understanding youthful offending. Criminologists have argued that an assortment of characteristics ranging from the size of the family to parents’ childrearing methods matter ( Farrington 2011 ). No characteristic has been as extensively researched as family structure, however (Wells and Rankin 1991). Popularized by Bowlby’s (1951) World Health Organization report, the conclusion that “broken homes” cause crime has been a sturdy one. Meta-analyses consistently find that children who are raised in homes in which at least one biological parent is absent face a higher prevalence of adolescent delinquency (Rebellon 2002, Wells and Rankin 1991).

With the maturation of life course studies, criminological attention has moved beyond the teenage years to understand criminal behavior over the entire life course. In particular, criminologists have sought to explain why some offenders persist in, while other offenders desist from criminal activity as they enter adulthood. Again, the role of the family has emerged as pivotal in steering criminal trajectories. Life course criminologists contend that marriage, in particular, has the potential to serve as a turning point, redirecting criminal trajectories ( Laub and Sampson 2006 , Sampson and Laub 1995).

Yet for all of their emphasis on the long view of criminal behavior, life-course criminologists have been relatively short-sighted in their view of the family. We know little about whether childhood family experiences endure to impact adult criminal outcomes. Moreover, there is an increasing awareness of the ways childhood family instability undermines transition to adulthood experiences including one’s own family formation ( Fomby and Bosick 2013 , Hofferth and Goldscheider 2010 ). This suggests that if early family instability does not directly contribute to adulthood criminality, it may fuel adult crime by undermining the transition-to-adulthood experiences that might otherwise curtail it.

In this paper we use the long-running US Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) and its two child-centered supplements, which have followed a nationally-representative cohort of youth since 1997 to early adulthood in 2015, to ask whether the experience of repeated changes in mother’s union status during childhood are predictive of men’s higher likelihood of arrest or incarceration during early adulthood (ages 18–26). Furthermore, we consider whether any such association is mediated by differences in the pace of men’s entry into marriage and their higher risk of union dissolution depending on prior exposure to maternal union instability. We consider whether these pathways operate differently for white and black men, an expectation based on research demonstrating that frequent family instability is less consequential for the life course of trajectories of black compared to white young adults (Fomby, Mollborn and Sennott 2010).

Literature review

The life course literature has long acknowledged the role of family formation in redirecting criminal paths. Men who as juveniles were involved in crime and delinquency are less likely to persist in criminal involvement if and when they become married (Sampson and Laub 1995). Criminally active men who remain single are, in contrast, more likely to continue offending well into adulthood. Increasingly, scholars have sought to contend with the complicated lived experiences that render modern family life more complex and varied than in the past, including divorce, cohabitation, nonresidential parenthood, and multipartner fertility. Findings consistently indicate that cohabitation is related to desistance, but its not as strongly associated as marriage ( Forrest 2014 ). Moreover, men who experience divorce or separation experience upticks in their criminal activity, particularly when not living with a spouse (Horney, Osgood and Marshall 1995). Work focusing on the association between parenthood and offending has arrived at less consistent findings, though men’s desistance generally appears to be unmotivated by fatherhood ( Blokland and Nieuwbeerta 2005 ).

There is an increasing tension hinted at when the work in this area calls out analyses for using “old” data. What feels antiquated may not be the data itself. After all, longitudinal and life course researchers appreciate that the aging of data is inherent to prospective longitudinal data. More problematic is that the idea of stable marriage grows increasingly antiquated, especially in contexts in which criminal behavior is most likely. The median age at first marriage for women has increased from 24 in 1990 to 27 today. Black Americans marry at lower rates than whites in every age group, and particularly so during their late twenties, when 115.6 out of every 1000 white women but only 43 out of every 1000 black women marry ( Aughinbaugh, Robles and Sun 2013 , Raley, Sweeney and Wondra 2015). Thus the argument that marriage causes desistance strikes a conservative chord, and is ill-matched to the most problematic offenders who are unlikely to marry at rates similar as offenders who transitioned to adulthood in decades past (Sampson and Laub 1995).

The evolving historical context of marriage reinforces the selection processes that have hampered causal claims about the effect of marriage on criminal outcomes. Clearly, marriage is not randomly assigned; there are forces shaping who becomes married and who does not. Sampson and colleagues (2006) addressed selection issues using a counterfactual approach and found continued support for a marriage effect. That marriage remains effectual is important. Still, we contend that it is also important to understand the selection processes themselves.

The family literature recognizes the impact of repeated family structure change on the children who experience it. Above and beyond having been raised in a single-parent household, or having experienced parental divorce, experiencing family instability appears to undermine educational outcomes, problematizes one’s transition to adulthood, and contributes to risky and delinquent behavior ( Fomby and Cherlin 2007 , Fomby et al. 2010 , Fomby 2013 , Fomby and Bosick 2013 , Lee and McLanahan 2015 , Wu and Martinson 1993). The extent to which these setbacks persist into adulthood is less clear.

Static theories of criminal persistence suggest a direct route from early disadvantages that would include family instability to later criminal behavior. On the other hand, early family instability may produce problems in adulthood through a process of cumulative disadvantage. “Dynamic” theories recognize that setbacks accumulate throughout the life course and grant a causal connection between earlier and later problems (Sampson and Laub 1997). Early family instability is associated with disrupted transition to adulthood experiences of the children who experience it. Thus, early family instability may influence adult offending indirectly by disrupting the very transitional experiences thought to curtail criminal behavior.

This paper advances the literature by taking a longer view of the role of family on criminal outcomes in adulthood. We bring a dynamic measure of family instability to the criminological literature in order to understand whether the association between early family instability and misbehavior persists into adulthood, and whether this association is mediated by men’s own family formation experiences.

Further, we consider whether this approach is equally useful for describing the probability of offending in early adulthood among non-Hispanic white and black men. A substantial literature has demonstrated that family instability is more strongly associated with externalizing behavior, delinquency, and early transition to adulthood experiences among white adolescents and young adults compared to their black peers. Little research has sought to explain racial differences in the influence of union instability on behavior, but some research suggests that black youth may have more social protection through enduring relationships with extended kin, neighbors, and peers following family disruption compared to white adolescents; there is also some evidence that economic stress may overwhelm the effects of repeated family structure change on behavior, and economic stress occurs more often in black compared to white families ( Fomby et al. 2010 ). Given the disproportionately high incarceration rates among black young adults in the United States and the popular perception that family structure in black children’s families plays a causal role in criminal behavior leading to arrest and incarceration, it would be an important contribution to demonstrate the absence of any such association if none is present.

Methodological background

Cross-sectional studies characteristically struggle to establish temporal order, making causal connections difficult to infer. Mature longitudinal studies more successfully track the temporal order of life events, but leave researchers the task of capturing this order in their analysis.

To capture the diverse experiences navigating the transition to adulthood period, researchers have employed methods including latent class analysis (e.g. Macmillan and Eliason 2003 , Osgood, Ruth, Eccles et al. 2005) and conjunctive analysis of case configurations ( Doherty and Cwick 2016 ). These methods allow researchers to identify and describe the most typical role configurations and summarize the typical pathways through adulthood. These strategies are useful in describing conceptually related events in the life course. Analyses become more complicated as they move toward establishing causal order between life experiences.

The most straightforward analyses are those which examine experiences in one period of life on experiences in later life. Macmillan’s ( Macmillan and Hagan 2004 ) use of the National Youth Survey to identify a “chain-like” sequence in which victimization experienced in adolescence diminishes educational self-efficacy at 18, which ultimately undermines socioeconomic attainment in early adulthood. In studies of the relationship between transition-to-adulthood experiences and crime, researchers recognize that these events and behaviors are occurring simultaneously. In order to sort out sequence, some impose temporal order by censoring the data into distinct age periods. Bosick (2015), for instance, dodges the issue of overlapping events by modeling transition-to-adulthood in early adulthood and examining the association between these pathways and later adulthood crime.

Other strategies include modeling risky and criminal behavior as part of the transition to adulthood, where both transitional experiences and criminal activity are simultaneously taken as indicators of a latent construct ( Massoglia and Uggen 2010 ). Uggen and Janikula (Uggen and Janikula 1999) have used event history analysis to capture how time-varying voluntary labor experiences influence the duration until arrest. Similarly, Uggen (2000) tests for job-treatment effects by randomly assigning over 3,000 people with arrest histories to either a control or treatment group. He use an event history approach in order to aid in determining the sequence of work and criminal behavior. Horney, et al ( Horney et al. 1995 ) use hierarchical linear modeling to capture the month-to-month impact of life circumstances (e.g. living with a romantic partner) on criminal behavior.

Data and Method

We use data from The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) and two of its supplemental studies, the Child Development Supplement (CDS) and the Transition into Adulthood Supplement (TAS). PSID began in 1968 as a nationally-representative sample of approximately 4,800 households. Original respondents and their descendants have been followed annually until 1997 and biennially since then. To maintain population representativeness, a sample refresher in 1997 added approximately 500 households headed by immigrants who had entered the United States since 1968. At each wave, the household head or the spouse or cohabiting partner of the head reports on family household composition, employment, earned and unearned income, assets, debt, educational attainment, expenditures, housing characteristics, and health and health care in the household. In 2015 (the most recent wave available), the study collected information on almost 25,000 individuals in approximately 9,000 households.

The PSID Child Development Supplement (CDS) is a longitudinal study of children’s development in family, school, and neighborhood context designed to identify and articulate the circumstances and characteristics of childhood experience that are predictive of status attainment and well-being across the life course ( McGonagle, Schoeni, Sastry et al. 2012 ). The first wave of CDS, conducted in 1997, collected information on up to two eligible children aged 0 to 12 years per PSID household through interviews with children’s primary and secondary caregivers and with older children and through assessments and interviewer observations. Children and their caregivers were re-interviewed in 2002 and 2007, or until children reached age 18.

Beginning in 2005, the Transition to Adulthood Supplement (TAS) absorbed children from the original CDS cohort when they reached age 18 or left high school and has continued to interview respondents biennially. TAS is conducted as a telephone survey interview and collects information on transition-to-adulthood events such as school enrollment and completion, employment, cohabitation, marriage, and childbearing, as well as information about health, attitudes, expectations, social relationships, and illegal behavior and contact with the criminal justice system. In 2015, TAS respondents were between 18 and 27 years old. The youngest respondents (born 1996–97) participated in TAS for the first time in 2015, while older respondents participated in as many as five waves. 1

Our analytic sample includes young men from the 1997 CDS cohort who identify racially as non-Hispanic white or non-Hispanic black, who responded to at least one wave of the Transition to Adulthood Supplement between 2005 and 2015, and who provided information on whether they had ever been arrested, on probation, or incarcerated (N=1,127). We exclude young adults from the 1997 immigrant refresher for two reasons. First, our analysis includes an indicator of parents’ history of contact with the criminal justice system, which was reported in 1995, prior to the inclusion of the immigrant refresher; and second, our analysis focuses on non-Hispanic white and black young adults, who appear only in small numbers in the immigrant refresher. Young adults who were not observed at least once in TAS were younger on average, more often non-white, and from families with lower household income at birth. We also exclude information about young adults at age 27 because small cell sizes contribute to unreliable estimators when predicting outcomes at that age. Weighted statistics are representative of young adults aged 18 to 26 years who were born between 1985 and 1997 and whose families have resided in the United States since 1968.

Dependent variables

Our analysis predicts TAS respondents’ contact with the criminal justice system in each year between age 18 and age 26 as a function of family structure history in childhood and own family formation in early adulthood. At each wave, respondents are asked in separate questions whether they have ever been arrested or in jail for an offense and if so, whether the event occurred once or more than once. (To protect respondent confidentiality, the actual number of occurrences beyond one is not available.) In follow-up questions, respondents report their age at the first event and at the most recent event. The same question format is administered to respondents at each wave; hence, over time, respondents may provide discrepant reports of the timing of the same event. In the absence of any external validation, we use all available information and thus may overestimate event occurrence. From these reports, we construct dichotomous indicators of whether a respondent experienced each type of contact with the criminal justice system at each age.

Key independent variables

Our attention to young adults’ family structure history is focused on their exposure to maternal union instability, or a mother’s repeated changes in union status when a young adult was between 0 and 17 years old. To construct a mother’s union history, we relied on five sources of information. First, for all adults age 15 or older ever observed in a PSID household, the marriage history file provides an accounting of the start and end dates of each marriage, a unique identifier for each spouse, and, where relevant, the reason the marriage ended (death, divorce, or separation). Second, the birth history file includes information about each live birth experienced by those 12 years and older, 2 including each child’s birth date and the unique identifier of the child’s other biological parent. Third, at each interview, the household roster identifies couples in the household who are married to or cohabiting with each other through the marital pairs indicator. Fourth, the household roster also gathers information on the move-in dates of all new household members who have joined and the move-out dates of all former household members who have departed since the last interview. Finally, the Family Identification Mapping System (FIMS) links each individual ever observed in a PSID household to the unique identifiers for their biological and adoptive parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and siblings wherever those individuals have also been observed in a PSID household.

We use FIMS to identify the biological or adoptive mother and father of each TAS participant and apply this information to link each parent back to their own marriage and birth history in order to determine whether a young adult’s mother was married to her child’s biological/adoptive father or to another partner at each year of the young adult’s life up to age 17. If the marriage history indicated that the mother was unmarried in a given year, we used the marital pairs indicator from that year’s PSID household roster to determine whether she was in a cohabiting relationship with the child’s father or with another partner. Finally, we used the move-in and move-out date information to determine when a mother’s cohabiting partner entered and left a young adult’s household in order to determine her cohabitation status in off-years after PSID moved to biennial interviewing.

From this information, we constructed a three-category measure of mother’s union status at each year of a young adult’s life from birth to age 17: unpartnered; married to or cohabiting with a child’s biological father; or married to or cohabiting with another partner. (Sample sizes were insufficient to allow us to break out marital and cohabiting unions into separate categories.) From this annual accounting, we constructed a summed indicator of the total number of maternal union status changes a child experienced to age 17. Approximately 42 percent of children experienced at least one change in maternal union status and 20 percent experienced 3 changes or more. We topcoded the count variable at 3 or more changes in union status. We treat this topcoded variable as categorical, assessing whether the likelihood of arrest or jail is different on average for young adults who experienced 1, 2, or 3+ changes in maternal union status compared to those who experienced no changes in union status. Our primary focus is on young adults who experienced three or more union status transitions. This approach allows us to capture nonlinear associations between maternal union instability and child outcomes and is consistent with the conceptualization of family instability as an experience of frequent or chronic change to which family systems struggle to adapt ( Fomby and Mollborn 2017 ). To isolate the association of maternal union instability with each outcome, we also control for maternal union status at birth and in late adolescence (i.e., age 16 or 17 in most cases) (Wu and Martinson 1993).

We consider whether the experience of three life course transition events mediates any observed association between exposure to maternal union instability in childhood and the likelihood of arrest or incarceration in each year during early adulthood. At each TAS wave, respondents report whether they are currently or have ever been married, and if so, at what age the union began. If the marriage has ended, respondents also report their age at union dissolution. Respondents who are cohabiting with a romantic partner at interview report the start date of the current cohabiting union. From these reports, we construct time-varying measures of marital and cohabitation status at each age from 18 to 26. (Note that cohabiting unions that begin and end between biennial interviews are not reported. The same issue arises in the core PSID interview.) Respondents also report on whether they have ever had any biological children and if so, at what age the first child was born. From these reports, we constructed a time-varying measure of parenthood status. In the time-varying measures of union status, a young adult may move into or out of the state of being in a union over time. In contrast, in our coding scheme, a young adult cannot exit the status of being a parent. In our multivariate analyses, indicators of marriage, cohabitation, and parenthood are lagged one year.

Control variables

A variety of circumstances and characteristics also may be associated with young adults’ prior exposure to maternal union instability and with events in early adulthood, including contact with the criminal justice system and union and family formation. To isolate the association between the variables of interest in our empirical model, our multivariate analyses include statistical controls for sociodemographic characteristics including young adult gender and age, mother’s age at the child’s birth, and the family income-to-needs ratio in 1997 (the year CDS began). Because we anticipate that the association of maternal union instability with criminal offending in early adulthood will differ for white and black young adults, we included a dichotomous indicator for race and interacted this with the categorical measure of maternal union instability in our multivariate models.

A substantial body of research has demonstrated that exposure to parents’ relationship instability is associated with children’s and adolescents’ externalizing behavior and delinquency. We included reports of young adults’ behavior measured at two points in time. First, at each wave of CDS, primary caregivers completed the Behavior Problems Index ( Peterson and Zill 1986 ) an inventory of occasional or frequent child behaviors that are predictive of psychological disorders and poor social adjustment. We used the 17-item BPI externalizing behavior subscale from the earliest CDS wave available (wave I for children who were 3 or older in 1997, and wave II otherwise). Second, at each TAS wave, young adults report how often they have been in a physical fight or have damaged public or private property in the last six months. We dichotomized each item at 2 occurrences or more vs. none or one and used the earliest report available – typically reported when young adults are between 18 and 20 years old – to create a two-item index describing frequent illegal behavior in late adolescence/early adulthood. 3 To account for the possibility that parents who have criminally offended may be more likely both to experience union instability and to have children who offend, we included an indicator of whether either parent had ever been arrested or charged with a crime as of the 1995 PSID interview. Models also adjusted for whether the young adult’s family was originally included in the SRC (general population) sample or SEO (low-income) oversample and whether the young adult’s family participated in the Core PSID interview consistently when the young adult was growing up.

Our multivariate regression models address three questions: First, is there an association between exposure to maternal union instability and contact with the criminal justice system in early adulthood? Second, does any such association differ by race? Third, do union formation and childbearing mediate any observed association? To address these questions, we used logistic regression to estimate the log-odds of arrest or incarceration each year from age 18 to age 26 as a function of exposure to maternal union instability, the interaction of that exposure with young adult race, own family formation events, and background characteristics. Our data are organized in person-year format with each individual contributing up to nine records. Models are clustered on individuals’ unique identifiers to adjust for non-independence of observations. We explored random effects models as an alternative specification to account for this non-independence and to exploit the panel nature of the data. The panel-level variance component (rho) was not statistically significant from zero, indicating that variation in the probability of experiencing the outcome across years is unimportant in the model and that the random effects model was no different from the pooled model used here. For each outcome, we present two model specifications, one including only our indicators of maternal union status change, race, and background characteristics and one that also accounts for whether a respondent was married, cohabiting, or a parent in the preceding year. To facilitate interpretation of results, we discuss estimated probabilities of experiencing arrest or incarceration by level of maternal union status change and race.

Coefficients from nested logistic regression models cannot be directly compared to assess mediation. In order to assess the impact of accounting for a young adult’s recent union formation or dissolution and parenthood, we present results from the KHB method for decomposing total effects (or associations) into direct and indirect effects. This method compares the full model with a reduced model that substitutes the mediators with the residuals of those mediators from a model in which the mediators are regressed on the key variable of interest (Breen, Karlson and Holm 2013).

Table 1 summarizes weighted descriptive statistics for the dependent variables, key variables of interest, and control variables overall and by race from the person-year file. Statistically significant group differences by race (p<.05) are starred. Overall, 4.8 percent of men were arrested in each year and 1.5 percent were incarcerated. Arrest and incarceration probabilities were about twice as high for black compared to white men. Considering the key variables of interest, approximately one in five men experienced three or more changes in maternal union status. One-sixth of white men and nearly one-third of black men experienced such union instability. In young adulthood, approximately 4 percent of men were married, and 3.6 percent were cohabiting in each year, and 11 percent had become a father. The probability of marriage was lower and the probability of fatherhood higher for black men compared to white men. For both white and black men, approximately 12 percent had a parent who had been arrested or charged with a crime by 1995. Black men had higher caregiver-reported externalizing behavior and more frequent risky behavior (fighting and property damage) in early adulthood compared to white men.

Weighted descriptive characteristics, non-Hispanic white and black men age 18–28, 2005–2015 PSID Transition into Adulthood Supplement

Figures 1 to ​ to3 3 provide an assessment of our expectation that men’s contact with the criminal justice system and their own family formation trajectories will differ by maternal union history and race. Figures 1 and ​ and2 2 summarize the incidence of arrest and incarceration at each age by race and by two categories of maternal union status history: having experienced no changes or having experienced three or more changes. At each age, white young adult men who experienced three or more changes in maternal union status were arrested or incarcerated more often compared to same-race peers who experienced no changes in maternal union status. No such disparity appears for black men. Figure 3 describes the proportion of men who were married at each age for the same groups. Marriage rates are low among all men until about age 23. At age 24, those who experienced no maternal union status change pull away from those who experienced 3 changes or more among white men. Among black men, marriage rates remain low, but those who experienced frequent maternal union status change are somewhat more likely to be married compared to their peers who experienced no union status change.

Incidence of arrest at each age by race and maternal union status history

Incidence of incarceration at each age by race and maternal union status history

Proportion of men who were married at each age by race and maternal union status history

Table 2 presents results from multivariate models predicting arrest and incarceration. For each outcome, the baseline model includes indicators of maternal union status change, race, the interaction of race and maternal union status change, and control variables. The full model adds lagged measures of the young adult’s marital status, cohabitation status, and parenthood status at each age. Table 3 reports estimated probabilities from each model, varying exposure to maternal union status change and race and holding all other variables constant at their means.

Coefficients and robust standard errors from logistic regression models estimating log-odds of arrest and jail, non-Hispanic white and black men age 18–28, 2005–2015. PSID Transition to Adulthood Supplement.

Estimated probability of arrest or jail by maternal union status history and race, baseline and full models

Baseline models indicate that white young adults who experienced three or more maternal union status changes are significantly more likely to be arrested (p<.01) and marginally more likely to be incarcerated (p<.10) in a given year compared to white peers who experienced no maternal union status change net of covariates. Interaction terms indicate that while black men have an elevated likelihood of being arrested or incarcerated compared to white men overall, the probability of these events for black men is unrelated to their history of maternal union status change. This pattern of findings is consistent with prior research on the association of family structure instability with white youths’ behavioral trajectories and with research suggesting that this association is largely absent for black youth.

The full models describe the association between frequent maternal union status change and each outcome when a young adult’s own family formation events are taken into account. The main effect of frequent family change in childhood remains strongly significantly associated with the log-odds of arrest and marginally associated with the log-odds of incarceration. The interaction term associated with frequent maternal union status change for black young adults is marginally significant. Having been married in the prior year is associated with lower log-odds of arrest, while having a child is associated with higher log-odds of both arrest and incarceration. Living in a cohabiting union in the prior year is not significantly associated with either outcome.

Tables 3 and ​ and4 4 provide two practical interpretations of the regression results summarized in Table 2 . Table 3 presents estimated probabilities of arrest and jail for white and black young adults at each level of maternal union status change in childhood. White young adults who experienced no maternal union status change had predicted probabilities of arrest and jail in each year of .038 and .011 respectively in the baseline model. These probabilities were reduced trivially in the full model. The probability of arrest increased by about one-third for white youth who experienced one or two maternal union status changes compared to none in both the baseline and full models, but for those who experienced 3 or more changes, the probabilities of arrest (.082) and jail (.027) were more than twice as high in the baseline model, suggesting that the association of family change with criminal offending is better characterized by a threshold model than by a linear model. The probability of arrest for this group was reduced to .078 in the full model, but the probability of jail was not significantly affected. Black young adults had higher predicted rates of arrest and jail compared to whites except among white young adults who experienced three changes or more in maternal union status. Overall, changes in maternal union status did not substantially alter the predicted probabilities of arrest and incarceration for black men.

KHB decomposition of total effects of 3+ maternal union status changes for white young adult men into indirect and direct effects as mediated by family formation behavior in early adulthood

Table 4 provides a decomposition of the total effect of three or more changes in maternal union status on the likelihood of arrest or jail for white youth into an indirect effect, or the portion that is attributable to mediators, and a direct effect, or the portion that remains unexplained by mediation. The underlying regression models are weighted but not clustered on the unique identifier as are the models summarized in Table 2 . We assess the mediating effect of the lagged indicators for young adults’ marital, cohabiting, and parent status in separate decomposition models that control for the other family formation events and all covariates included in the full model. Men who were married in the preceding year were less likely to be arrested or in jail in a given year compared to men who were not married, and this association significantly mediated the association between frequent maternal union status change and each outcome. Relating this to our conceptual model, white men who experienced three or more changes in maternal union status were less likely to marry in early adulthood, and this disparity compared to other men partially explains their higher probability of arrest and time in jail. Cohabitation status and parenthood did not mediate the association between maternal union status change and either outcome.

Nearly one in five contemporary young adults experiences three or more changes in maternal union status in the course of childhood. A substantial literature has documented that exposure to frequent union instability is associated with increased behavior problems and delinquency across the course of childhood and adolescence, but to date, little research has investigated whether this association extends to criminal offending in early adulthood. On the one hand, this relationship may not persist: most young offenders stop engaging in delinquent and criminal behavior when they enter adulthood, so any association between family structure and behavior in childhood may not be consequential for behavior in adulthood. Alternatively, family instability may be associated with persistent offending through a number of potential pathways, including through selection mechanisms, such that parents who are likely to have criminally offended themselves are more likely both to experience union instability and to raise children who become criminal offenders; through a process of cumulative disadvantage by which the experience of each additional change in family structure compounds children’s risk of delinquent or criminal behavior over the life course; or through a more indirect process whereby children who experience frequent family change are less likely to enter stable unions themselves and thus remain more likely to criminally offend compared to peers who enter early marriage.

Our analysis considered these competing alternatives to explain patterns of contact with the criminal justice system for contemporary white and black young adult men who experienced varying levels of maternal union status instability in childhood. We found that for white men, but not for black men, the experience of three or more changes in maternal union status is positively associated with the likelihood of arrest and incarceration through age 26. The probability of arrest in a given year was .082 and the probability of incarceration was .027 for this group in the baseline model, more than double that for young white men who experienced no family structure change. This relationship holds net of parents’ own criminal offending history and indicators of early child behavior problems, suggesting that the association is not attributable to selection mechanisms or to problem behavior established early in life. White men’s lower odds of marriage explain about 12 percent of the association, indicating that some portion of the relationship is indirect and attributable to men’s generally more precarious transitions to adulthood when they experience frequent family structure change. Yet much of the direct association remains after taking these mechanisms into account.

To some extent, the relatively small attenuating effect of marriage on exposure to maternal union instability is to be expected. Disparities in marriage probabilities between those who experienced no family change themselves and those who experienced three or more changes did not begin to emerge until men were in their mid-20s, so would not explain differences in contact with the criminal justice system at earlier ages. But even the relatively modest influence of marriage is striking. We note that while prior work has argued that marriage has a causal role in desistance from crime, we cannot entirely eliminate self-selection into marriage as a competing explanation. For the birth cohort considered, observed marriages occurred relatively early: during the period of observation (2005–15), men’s median age at first marriage increased from 27 to 29 years (U.S. Census Bureau 2017), and prior work has demonstrated that family instability in childhood is associated with lower rates of marriage in early adulthood overall ( Fomby and Bosick 2013 ). Thus, the group of young men who experienced frequent maternal union status change and who subsequently married at a relatively young age may be self-selected either on traits that also make them less likely to engage in criminal behavior or more likely to be responsive to marriage as a social control mechanism compared to their peers.

Notably, other family formation events including cohabitation and the birth of a first child did not diminish the likelihood of arrest or incarceration. In fact, the birth of a first child positively predicted both arrest and incarceration. We do not interpret this as a causal relationship; rather, we expect that early fatherhood, and what is most often nonmarital fatherhood in this population, is indicative of prior disadvantage or diminished educational and employment opportunities in early adulthood that may in turn contribute to more frequent offending. Accounting for current employment did not weaken the association between having a child and the outcome variables, but we will investigate other factors such as educational attainment and current school enrollment and nonresidence with children that may refine or explain this relationship.

The majority (58%) of PSID respondents experienced stable family arrangements from birth through adolescence. Those who experienced highly unstable arrangements characterized by three or more changes in maternal union status were more likely to be black. Most black children experienced at least one family structure change, with a third (31%) experiencing three or more.

Prior literature suggests these unstable family backgrounds would have negative implications for adolescent risk behavior and transition-to-adulthood experiences (e.g. Fomby and Bosick 2013 ). The findings presented in this article suggest that these unstable family contexts shape criminal outcomes even in adulthood. Our findings predict that whites who experience a single change in maternal union status during childhood are significantly more likely to be arrested in adulthood. Those who experience high levels of family instability (three or more transitions) are not only more likely to be arrested, but are also significantly more likely to experience incarceration in adulthood. These findings point to a need for criminologists to move beyond the classic, yet static focus on “broken homes” toward measures of family instability, which more accurately capture the dynamic nature of modern family contexts.

Despite black children’s disproportionate exposure to family structure transitions, these changes are not significantly related to their interactions with the criminal justice system in adulthood. Black men who grow up in unstable families are not more likely to experience arrest or incarceration than black men from stable family structures. This is not to suggest family instability does not impact blacks in the long term. Like white men, their experiences with family structure appear to shape their own family formation during their transitions to adulthood. Those who experience a single family structure transition, or two family structure changes are significantly less likely to marry or cohabitate, respectively, than those from stable family structures. Further, the greater number of family structure transitions they experienced in childhood, the more likely it is that they will become fathers in early adulthood.

Consistent with the life course criminology literature, marriage during the transition to adulthood surfaces as particularly consequential for adult criminal outcomes. Indeed, our findings suggest marriage attenuates the relationship between early family structure instability and adulthood arrest and incarceration. Put differently, men who marry are less likely be arrested or incarcerated in adulthood, but selection into marriage is not random. Childhood experiences with family instability, among other factors, shape those experiences. Thus we observe an accumulation of disadvantage wherein children from unstable family contexts are more likely to become involved with the criminal justice, and less likely to experience life events like marriage that might otherwise curtail that involvement.

This analysis contributes to research in life course criminology by drawing upon long-running, multigenerational data that includes prospective information on mothers’ and children’s experience. However, the study does have some limitations. First, we cannot infer a causal relationship between either exposure to maternal union status change or one’s own family formation behavior and subsequent probabilities of offending. We have controlled for factors that are theoretically related to each of the key variables of interest, but there is always the possibility that observed associations are driven by unobserved factors. In supplemental analyses, we tested other plausibly related covariates such as parental education, parent and young adult religiosity, and young adults’ delinquent behavior in adolescence, and young adult employment but did not find that these substantially improved model fit or mediated the association between family instability and criminal offending.

Nevertheless, this paper encourages a fuller focus on the role of families in shaping criminal behavior over the life course. Rather than analyzing early childhood family experiences as separate from one’s own family formation, we advocate taking a long-view of family influence. Doing so allows us to understand the multiple avenues by which intergenerational forces shape criminal behavior.

1 Children born or adopted into PSID families become respondents to the biennial Core PSID interview themselves when they establish economic independence in a household separate from their parents’. By 2015, the majority of young adults from the original CDS sample who were 28 years or older had become Core PSID respondents themselves. As a result of that transition and to contain study costs, young adults who were age 28 or older in 2015 were not interviewed in TAS in that year.

2 As of 2015, the birth history is collected only from PSID household members age 15 and older.

3 Other items such as illegal substance use, driving under the influence, and thrill-seeking, were unrelated either to maternal union instability or the outcome measures and were excluded from the young adult behavior index.

Contributor Information

Stacey Bosick, University of Colorado Denver.

Paula Fomby, University of Michigan.

• Aughinbaugh Alison, Robles Omar and Sun Hugette. 2013. ” Marriage and Divorce: Patterns by Gender, Race, and Educational Attainment .” Monthly Labor Review (October) . doi: 10.21916/mlr.2013.32. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blokland Arjan AJ and Nieuwbeerta Paul. 2005. “ The Effects of Life Circumstances on Longitudinal Trajectories of Offending .” Criminology 43 ( 4 ):1203–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowlby John. 1951. Maternal Care and Mental Health , Vol. 2 : World Health Organization; Geneva. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Breen Richard, Kristian Bernt Karlson and Anders Holm. 2013. “ Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects in Logit and Probit Models .” Sociological Methods & Research 42 :164–91. [ Google Scholar ]
• Doherty Elaine Eggleston and Cwick Jaclyn M.. 2016. “ Unpacking the Complexity of Life Events and Desistance: An Application of Conjunctive Analysis of Case Configurations to Developmental and Life Course Criminology .” Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology 2 ( 1 ):45–63. doi: 10.1007/s40865-015-0023-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington David P. 2011. “ Families and Crime .” Crime and public policy :130–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fomby P and Cherlin AJ. 2007. “ Family Instability and Child Well-Being .” American Sociological Review 72 ( 2 ):181–204. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fomby Paula, Mollborn Stefanie and Christie A Sennott. 2010. “ Race/Ethnic Differences in Effects of Family Instability on Adolescents’ Risk Behavior .” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 ( 2 ):234–53. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fomby Paula. 2013. “ Family Instability and College Enrollment and Completion .” Population Research and Policy Review 32 ( 4 ):469–94. doi: 10.1007/s11113-013-9284-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fomby Paula and Bosick Stacey J.. 2013. “ Family Instability and the Transition to Adulthood .” Journal of Marriage and Family 75 ( 5 ):1266–87. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fomby Paula and Mollborn Stefanie. 2017. “ Ecological Instability and Children’s Classroom Behavior in Kindergarten .” Demography 54 ( 5 ):1627–51. doi: 10.1007/s13524-017-0602-2. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forrest Walter. 2014. “ Cohabitation, Relationship Quality, and Desistance from Crime .” Journal of Marriage and Family 76 ( 3 ):539–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofferth SL and Goldscheider F. 2010. “ Family Structure and the Transition to Early Parenthood .” Demography 47 ( 2 ):415–37. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horney Julie, Osgood D. Wayne and Ineke Haen Marshall. 1995. “ Criminal Careers in the Short-Term: Intra-Individual Variability in Crime and Its Relation to Local Life Circumstances .” American sociological review 60 ( 5 ):655–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Laub John H. and Sampson Robert J.. 2006. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives . Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee D and McLanahan S. 2015. “ Family Structure Transitions and Child Development: Instability, Selection, and Population Heterogeneity .” American Sociological Review 80 ( 4 ):738–63. doi: 10.1177/0003122415592129. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Macmillan Ross and Eliason Scott R.. 2003. “Characterizing the Life Course as Role Configurations and Pathways” Pp. 529–54 in Handbook of the Life Course , edited by Mortimer JT and Shanahan MJ. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Macmillan Ross and Hagan John. 2004. “ Violence in the Transition to Adulthood: Adolescent Victimization, Education, and Socioeconomic Attainment in Later Life .” Journal of Research on Adolescence 14 ( 2 ):127–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massoglia Michael and Christopher Uggen 2010. “ Settling Down and Aging Out: Toward an Interactionist Theory of Desistance and the Transition to Adulthood .” American Journal of Sociology 116 ( 2 ):543–82. doi: 10.1086/653835. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McGonagle Katherine A., Schoeni Robert F., Sastry Narayan and Freedman Vicki A.. 2012. “ The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: Overview, Recent Innovations, and Potential for Life Course Research .” Longitudinal and life course studies 3 ( 2 ):188. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osgood, D. Wayne, Gretchen Ruth, Jacquelynne S. Eccles, Janis E. Jacobs and Bonnie L. Barber 2005. “Six Paths to Adulthood: Fast Starters, Parents without Careers, Educated Partners, Educated Singles, Working Singles, and Slow Starters” Pp. 320–55 in On the Frontier of Adulthood , edited by Settersten RA Jr., Furstenberg FF Jr. and Rumbaut RG. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson James L. and Zill Nicholas. 1986. “ Marital Disruption, Parent-Child Relationships, and Behavior Problems in Children .” Journal of Marriage and Family 48 :295–307. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raley R. Kelly, Megan M. Sweeney and Danielle Wondra 2015. “ The Growing Racial and Ethnic Divide in U.S. Marriage Patterns .” The Future of children / Center for the Future of Children, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation 25 ( 2 ):89–109. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rebellon Cesar J. 2002. “ Reconsidering the Broken Homes/Delinquency Relationship and Exploring Its Mediating Mechanism (S) .” Criminology 40 ( 1 ):103–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J and John H Laub. 1997. “ A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency .” Developmental theories of crime and delinquency 7 :133–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J, John H Lauband Christopher Wimer. 2006. “ Does Marriage Reduce Crime? A Counterfactual Approach to within‐Individual Causal Effects .” Criminology 44 ( 3 ):465–508. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sampson Robert J. and Laub John H.. 1995. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life . Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Census Bureau US. 2017. “ Table Ms-2. Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present .” edited by ms2.xls. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. [ Google Scholar ]
• Uggen Christopher and Janikula Jennifer. 1999. “ Volunteerism and Arrest in the Transition to Adulthood .” Social forces 78 ( 1 ):331–62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Uggen Christopher. 2000. “ Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism .” American sociological review 65 ( 4 ):529–46. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wells L Edwardand Joseph H Rankin. 1991. “ Families and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Broken Homes .” Social problems 38 ( 1 ):71–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu LL and Martinson BC. 1993. “ Family-Structure and the Risk of a Premarital Birth .” American Sociological Review 58 ( 2 ):210–32. doi: 10.2307/2095967. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

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

• Get new issue alerts Get alerts
• Submit a Manuscript

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Impact of social factors responsible for Juvenile delinquency – A literature review

Abhishek, R; Balamurugan, J

Department of Social Sciences, School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Address for correspondence: Dr. J Balamurugan, Department of Social Sciences, School of Social Sciences and Languages, Vellore Institute of Technology, Vellore - 632 014, Tamil Nadu, India. E-mail: [email protected]

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

BACKGROUND: 

Juvenile delinquency appears to be the most widespread social issue in comparison to other social issues. Social factors and conditions have a significant impact on the prevalence of delinquency. Individuals who engage in criminal behavior before reaching the age of 18 are commonly referred to as juvenile offenders. The aim of this study is to comprehensively elucidate the research and work carried out on juvenile offenders, with a specific focus on the critical role played by social factors in all facets of juvenile delinquency. Additionally, this research seeks to investigate the social roots and influences that contribute to the criminal behavior of young offenders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 

This article uses a literature review methodology to analyze research on social factors influencing juvenile delinquency. It synthesizes and evaluates prior findings to understand the complex interplay between social factors and young individuals’ involvement in delinquent behaviors. The study analyzed 80 articles from reputable online databases, focusing on juvenile delinquency, offenders, crime, and social factors. Out of the 80 articles, 53 were cited, meeting inclusion criteria, including publication within 2000–2023, rigorous peer-review, and reputable database indexing.

RESULTS: 

As per the findings of the research, it has been observed that children who grow up in households that exhibit affection, hospitality, and encouragement are comparatively less susceptible to the manifestation of societal maladies. Children who have experienced parental abandonment are at heightened risk of developing delinquent behaviors.

CONCLUSION: 

The presence of negative family dynamics and associations with delinquent peers are widely recognized as significant contributors to the development of drug abuse behavior. It is imperative for policymakers and preventive initiatives to have a comprehensive understanding of this complex relationship. Therefore, this literature review presented a distinct overview of the influence of social factors on juvenile offenders in India.

Introduction

The negative behavior of some people within a society is one of the difficulties in nation-building because it can ultimately have an impact on a country’s infrastructure, financial stability, cultural identity, and overall societal progress. [ 1 ] There exist multiple categories of societal issues, among which is the issue of adolescent delinquency. Researchers in various fields such as criminology, psychology, and philosophy have been attempting to understand the reasons behind individuals’ immoral behavior for a considerable period of time. The primary focus of researchers and theorists has been to identify risk factors that may contribute to delinquency, such as individual, social, and environmental factors that can increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. [ 2 , 3 ] However, this review study was performed to profile the different social factors and their causes of juvenile delinquency, which will be presented in this article. Worldwide, more than three-quarters of the population lives in countries with higher levels of criminality. Particularly in Asia, there are the highest levels of criminality, whereas India holds a criminality score of 5.53 and is placed in rank 64 among all countries. [ 4 ] In many countries, violent crimes were committed by the younger generation and were increasing rapidly. Delinquency is typically brought on by poverty, difficult familial circumstances, and a lack of education. [ 5 ] India is home to a significant number of 444 million children who are aged 0 to 18 years and a 253 million adolescent population in the age group of 10 to 19 years, and there is a growing concern about juvenile delinquency in the country. [ 6 , 7 ] This includes involvement in various illegal activities such as robbery, burglary, riots, murder, rape, possession of illegal weapons, drug use, and participation in gambling activities. [ 8-11 ]

The phenomenon of juvenile delinquency is nothing new. [ 12 ] In other terms, it refers to a set of actions that are antisocial and illegal when carried out by an individual who has not yet reached the age of 18 (i.e. who is not an adult). These actions contradict existing criminal codes and laws. [ 13 ] The antisocial acts, which include begging, dropping out, insults, hanging out, stealing, drinking, and lying around, were socially unacceptable at any given moment and consisted of unethical and opposing behavior. [ 14 , 15 ]

Juvenile delinquency in India

The topic of juvenile delinquency in India has emerged as a significant worry for both the community and the government. Efforts have been made by the Indian government to address the issue. As per Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000, a person who is under the age of 18 is referred to as a “junior.” Two significant terminologies have been introduced in the field: juveniles in need of care and protection and juveniles in conflict with the law. A juvenile offender is an individual who has engaged in conduct that is considered a violation of the law and subject to legal punishment. A juvenile in need of care and protection includes individuals who are street kids, lack a guardian, are neglected, are at risk of mistreatment by a guardian, are terminally ill, are abandoned, or are in similar circumstances. [ 16 ]

The amendment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, was a response to the Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case. The amendment permits the trial of a juvenile over the age of 16 as an adult, but it cannot be subsequently applied. The amendment has categorized in the offences committed by a juvenile into three distinct categories, namely, “heinous, serious, and petty offences.” Individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 who have committed serious crimes are to be regarded as adults and face trial in regular courts. [ 17 ] In 2021, as per the report, there were 31,170 cases of juvenile apprehension in India, indicating a 4.7% rise from the previous year. The data show that a significant number of juveniles, specifically 32,654 under the IPC and 4,790 under SLL crimes, were apprehended within the age range of 16–18 years old. [ 18 ]

Leading causes of juvenile delinquency

Family Factors: The deterioration of juvenile reprobate behavior is a solid illustration of the familial circumstances associated with it. These home circumstances include a lack of proper parental guidance, a lack of constant monitoring of the children, growing conflict between the parents, and parental neglect or abuse, whether it be psychological, mental, or physical. [ 19 ] Children with parents who do not respect the law or societal norms are likely to be intelligent. Homes have severed links with one another and ruined close interactions. A major contributing factor to youth crime could be shattered households. [ 20 ] It could prove challenging for foster parents, stepparents, or guardians to support a kid’s sustainable integration if indeed the youngster resents the fact that they are required to become his adoptive parents, stepparents, or guardians. This may cause him to stand out from the other children and cause further problems. This resentment makes it harder for them to have an impact on children through their profession or example. It is not possible to use the child’s inherent suggestibility to lead him painlessly and unintentionally down the path to an excellent behavior. If a teen does not feel loved and is constantly yelled at, he may become so angry and frustrated that he tries to leave home and turns to a life of crime. The following factors may contribute to inadequate love and care from their parents: inadequate knowledge and curiosity, a mother who engages in household work, and inadequate family support. [ 21 ] Like a child’s body, their emotions need the right food to work well. When a youngster lacks empathy and compassion at home, he or she misses out on learning from a positive role model how to treat someone else with respect and kindness. He loses the short break from certain responsibilities that is both refreshing and necessary for him to do his fair share of social duties, both as a child playing with his friends and as an adult. Even tangential factors in the family could contribute to crime. Parents influence the child’s psychological and physiological state as a result of their reactions, and that in turn significantly influences how he behaves. It is possible that elements that have a greater impact on a student’s emotional well-being and familial dynamics can have a greater impact on misbehavior than those that primarily influence their physiological health. [ 22 ] Although hailing from a similar family, one youngster may develop criminal tendencies, whereas his sibling can develop into a brilliant leader.

Individual Factors: Following the importance of a child’s home environment is the significance of their social circles. If parents are too restrictive, their children may seek solace in the wrong crowd and violate the rules in order to feel better about themselves. In a similar vein, if a kid’s parents are not there and the youngster is unable to distinguish between wrong and right, the child may choose to go with a circle so that they may feel in charge and protected. The child may have to conform to the behaviors of the group that they want to associate with in order to be accepted into that group, whether those behaviors include drug use or criminal activity. [ 23 ]

School factors: A child’s poor performance in school, whether measured by attendance or grades, is a major contributing factor in the commission of juvenile offences. The person in charge is the one who is responsible for taking care of something. Learning is just one benefit of attending an educational institution. A youngster who attends school is more likely to have a lifestyle that is beneficial to their health, including waking up, getting dressed, riding the bus to school, studying, and going home. The establishment of good habits and self-discipline is facilitated by these routines. If a student does not consistently attend school, they will have extra time on their hands, which might lead to their participation in risky behaviors. If the kid disobeys fundamental norms as they grow up, such as going to school on a consistent basis, they will eventually become an adult who has little regard for other restrictions that society imposes. In addition to this, a child’s learning skills are also a contributing factor. Those students who have difficulty meeting the academic standards at their schools report feeling alone. If the youngster is motivated, even when they are not doing well academically or otherwise, it is unlikely that they would turn elsewhere to feel good about themselves or to be acknowledged. Bullying may be a significant contributing factor in and of itself, producing feelings of social exclusion and ultimately leading to participation in illegal activities. [ 24 ] An excellent school cares more for its students, especially its younger ones, and maintains a discipline that is helpful for them. The majority of our underfunded and overcrowded schools do not have the necessary level of control. In these types of environments, when there is a lack of law and order, the youngster feels the need to take matters into their own hands in order to defend themselves. In addition, the degree to which the kid’s parents and instructors are involved in their child’s academic success is another aspect that plays a role in deciding how the child will feel about education. Due to the frequent inspections, the kid will eventually acquire a feeling of accountability since they are aware that they will be questioned about their work and their advancement. [ 25 ]

Substance abuse Factors: Some youngsters are unable to function as regular members of society because they are exposed to harmful substances either at home or in their surroundings. Long-term use of such substances can lead to dependency as well as the development of unhealthy coping mechanisms to manage cravings. In the vast majority of the time, these people wind up committing crimes that they never would have considered committing otherwise. In situations like these, children seek the assistance of therapy professionals so that they can reclaim their sense of self-worth and value. [ 26 ]

Socio-economic factors: Although criminal activity may be found in every neighborhood, the incidence of unlawful behavior is significantly higher in economically disadvantaged regions. Children who live in these neighborhoods are more likely to engage in illegal behavior, such as shoplifting or getting into violent altercations, simply because they believe they have no other choice but to do so. It is possible that youngsters living in such regions may not feel the need to turn to criminal activity in order to make ends meet if they are given access to an appropriate education and the essentials for survival. [ 12 ]

Materials and Methods

This article utilizes a comprehensive literature review methodology to critically examine and analyze the existing body of research pertaining to social factors influencing juvenile delinquency. By synthesizing and evaluating the findings from prior studies, this article aims to contribute to the understanding of the complex interplay between social factors and the involvement of young individuals in delinquent behaviors. The present study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of the research outcomes while also highlighting any existing deficiencies in the current body of knowledge. A thorough and extensive search was undertaken to identify pertinent articles from reputable online databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The search terms employed encompassed various aspects of the topic, such as juvenile, offenders, crime, juvenile delinquency, delinquent behaviour, and social factors. A comprehensive analysis has been conducted on a total of 80 articles that have been systematically collected and compiled for the purpose of this study. In due course, the present study successfully referenced a total of 52 scholarly articles out of the 80 articles that were gathered for analysis. The inclusion criteria for the selection of articles encompass the following specifications: the articles must have been published within the time span of 2000 to 2023, they should have undergone a rigorous peer-review process, and they must be indexed in reputable databases. Furthermore, only articles will be considered for inclusion in this study.

Social factors responsible for Juvenile Delinquency

Family, peers, school and neighborhood.

The importance of the family unit in the process of bringing up children to adulthood is frequently disregarded, despite the fact that this factor can play a considerable part in determining whether a kid will engage in antisocial behavior. Factors such as traditional family values, child-rearing practices, mass media, parental responsibility, and a lack of parental supervision have been found to contribute to juvenile delinquency. [ 9 ] However, the probability of juvenile delinquency is influenced by multiple factors rather than a single factor, such as inadequate household finances, familial status (nuclear or joint families, homeless persons), and parenting indifference towards kids’ well-being. Recently, there appears to be a substantial correlation between criminal activity and a variety of socioeconomic and demographic factors, including dysfunctional family dynamics, drug addiction, and unpleasant experiences. [ 27 ] Children who grow up in loving, accepting, and supportive families are much less likely to experience the ills of society. [ 28 ] As a direct consequence of this, children who have been rejected by one or both of their parents are the ones who are most likely to develop antisocial behaviors. The child’s family is one of the most essential and influential factors in their social development, which in turn has a significant impact on how the child will behave and how their personality will develop. The breakdown of the traditional nuclear family unit is another factor that can play a role in the maturation of criminal conduct. Family violence has a major influence on the growth of children’s personalities and self-concepts, making it an essential component in the construction of these aspects of the children’s identities. [ 29 ] Earlier studies show peers encourage delinquency since they appreciate and emulate nonconventional social behavior, whereas parents limit it because they respect the conventional. [ 30 ] It is considered that peer groups are mostly responsible for the development of deviant behavior. [ 31 ]

In our contemporary age, juvenile delinquency has gradually begun to develop into a significant problem that has to be addressed. Because of this, there is a significant threat to the community. The criminal activity of young people is steadily on the rise, mirroring the overall trend in the country. It is vital to have an understanding of the primary factors that contribute to the development of juvenile delinquency. [ 32 ] This is the only way to prevent younger people from engaging in illegal, unethical, and damaging activities. There are still a great many ways in which all of these literature evaluations might be enhanced in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of how these structures connect to the factors that contribute to criminal behavior and its various components. [ 33 ] Even though society’s methods, which are concentrated on rehabilitative compliance with the objective within the judiciary, have a larger influence on conformity, educational institutions are increasingly using severe parenting practices to govern school discipline. [ 34 ] This is despite the fact that the purpose of the judiciary is to rehabilitate in accordance with the goal. The field of criminal science has attempted to determine whether environmental factors are responsible for increases or decreases in crime rates by utilizing concepts such as social disorganization, collective efficacy, and social investment. [ 35 ]

Mass media and substance use

The number and impact of the media have both grown significantly throughout the course of history. Newspapers were the first form of mass media to receive widespread use throughout history, and then came radio, television, and ultimately computers. In the modern, linked world, information is simple to obtain by just pressing a button, which creates the impression that the entire globe has been shrunk down to the size of a town. [ 36 ] Today, children’s lives are dominated by a variety of forms of media, including both classic media such as television and new media such as mobile devices, iPads, the internet, and social media. [ 37 , 38 ] New technologies are becoming more common among children and teenagers, and a lack of self-regulation has resulted in a significant increase in criminal activity and aggressive conduct, which results in the emergence of juvenile crime. [ 39 ] The use of illicit substances is yet another significant contributing factor. There is a rising public health issue over the incidence of drug use among adolescents in India. According to earlier studies, there is a correlation between increased levels of engagement in the use of substances and more significant levels of involvement in criminal activity. It is possible that factors such as poverty, dysfunctional households, and a family history of criminal activity might serve as predictors of criminal behavior and substance use among juveniles. [ 26 ] Teenagers may resort to illegal activities such as theft, robbery, prostitution, or assault in order to get the funds necessary to purchase a narcotic. Furthermore, adolescents may commit violent crimes connected to the trafficking and sale of the substance. [ 40 ] It is said that the use of illegal substances such as alcohol and marijuana, in particular, has a substantial influence on criminal activities such as theft, deceit, and robbery. [ 41 ]

Poverty and socioeconomic conditions

Children from low-income homes have a higher risk of becoming juvenile delinquents. Being poor can lead to feelings of inadequacy, unhappiness, and even criminal behavior. When parents are unable to purchase basic necessities, they may get their children engaged in the drug trade, which in turn causes criminality and young delinquency. [ 12 ] When it comes to a child’s whole physical, social, psychological, and moral growth, the function that society plays is absolutely essential. The effect of social standards and values on the behavior of a youngster can sometimes result in delinquency in that child. Children who were not properly watched over by their parents, who failed to teach them how to recognize good and bad, who failed to keep an eye on their activities, who were disciplined in a manner that was inconsistent and harsh, and who witnessed some level of violence in the home, are more likely to develop into delinquents. Children who were not properly watched over by their parents are more likely to become delinquents. [ 19 ]

Children who display immaturity or who have difficulties distinguishing between right and wrong are more likely to be affected by detrimental societal practices and ideals, which in turn increases the possibility that these children will engage in antisocial activity. In this scenario, education plays a significant role in the effort to reduce the number of illegal activities. It is possible for there to be an increase in the rate of juvenile delinquency in a society when there is an inadequate supply of educational opportunities. [ 42 ]

Psycho-social conditions

There are a few potential psychosocial factors that may lead to juvenile delinquency, which might raise the chance of juveniles engaging in antisocial activity. Being male, having a lower intellectual capacity, belonging to a specific race, being an adolescent, suffering from immigration and poverty, interacting with delinquent friends, experiencing child abuse, having poor academic accomplishment, and not having appropriate assistance from their parents are some of these risk factors. In delinquent youths, the commission of more severe crimes is associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and conduct disorder (CD), among other psychiatric factors. [ 43-45 ] Individuals with ADHD commonly experience comorbidities such as substance use and personality disorders. [ 46 ] Some of the factors, like psychological stress and depressive mood disorder, are usually found in juvenile delinquents and mainly result in stress, anxiety, and depression. [ 47 ]

In this review, our aim was to present an updated summary of the research that has been conducted on social factors and their impact on involvement in delinquency. This review also emphasizes significant areas that should be taken into account for future research. Several potential areas for future research have been identified but have not yet been extensively explored. It implies that the associations are far from straightforward and that the impact of these conceptions depends on a range of personal, societal, and environmental factors. [ 40 ] One of the findings of this review is that family factors are the most powerful socializing factors in children’s lives. Children who come from homes with negative family characteristics, such as a lack of parental supervision, are thought to be at a greater risk of becoming delinquents or criminals than children who do not come from such homes. [ 48 ] Peer groups have been widely acknowledged as a significant factor in determining youth problem behaviors. Numerous studies have demonstrated the negative impact of peer influence on youth behavior, including academic dishonesty, illicit drug use, underage drinking and smoking, teenage pregnancy, and criminal activities. [ 49 ] It is important for future research to consider the role of self-control and the changing nature of attachment among parents and delinquent peer relationships in predicting criminal behavior.

Further investigation is required to ascertain the effects of commitment and attachment to school, parents, and delinquent peers. [ 50 ] The key findings of this review suggest that preventative measures aimed at improving the well-being of children can effectively reduce juvenile delinquency. Additionally, it is important to avoid placing blame solely on the child and instead consider the role of their environment in shaping their behavior. Furthermore, the approach to averting juvenile delinquency in children involves the utilization of rehabilitation programs or rehabilitation centers for children. These facilities provide instruction on appropriate behavior and how to react in similar circumstances. [ 51 ] It is suggested that providing proper direction, schooling, and guidance both in school and at home can help prevent children from engaging in criminal behavior. [ 52 ] Children who commit crimes are not only the perpetrators of the crime but also the wounded of this broken society. If proper precautions are taken or guided at home and at school, juvenile offenders will be controlled and stopped at an early stage. Children’s attitudes and minds must be shaped and nurtured by their parents and teachers. The consequences of actions must be implemented and performed to allow young offenders opportunities for correction rather than designating them as offenders.

Social factors play an important role in juvenile offenders’ behavior in India. Juvenile offenders are when a child or teen does something erroneous and is younger than the legal minimum age in India. Juvenile offenders who defy the law are vagrants who persistently ignore orders and engage in behavior that puts their own and their families’ morals in jeopardy. Social factors significantly contribute to juvenile offenders in India, and one that has attracted the attention of Indian society is adolescent misbehavior. It is well understood that the depraved child of today may grow up to be a habitual criminal tomorrow. So, it is mandatory to organize and regulate juvenile offenders financially and socially in India.

In conclusion, this review highlights the ways in which social factors have contributed to a better understanding of the underlying causes of juvenile delinquency. Simultaneously, it is apparent that in each of the corresponding fields of study, there exist significant subjects of investigation that necessitate further examination. With this objective in mind, it is our aspiration that this analysis motivates upcoming researchers to further unravel the diverse mechanisms through which social factors hinder or encourage engagement in delinquent behavior.

Suggestions and implications

The results of the study show that preventative interventions are needed to halt juvenile misbehavior before it begins. One of the suggested preventative methods is to identify young people who are at risk or who may become involved in juvenile delinquency by looking at the major risk factors. When choosing their friends and interacting with technology, teenagers should exercise prudence. Their parents and teachers can and should encourage strong relationships and open communication in order to create a happy environment at home and at school.

The researcher came to understand the precise research gap where he is going to investigate and extend his subsequent study as a result of the review, which forms the only basis of this work. Through this study, recommendations for further protecting children from all societal ills may be made.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar
• PubMed | CrossRef |
• View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef |

Crime; delinquent behavior; juvenile; juvenile delinquency; offenders; social factors

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

Development of accreditation modules based on hospital types in iran: protocol..., negative expectations (nocebo phenomenon) in clinical interventions: a scoping..., comparison of the iranian and scandinavian bachelor of nursing curriculum..., innovative aetcom session on health care as a right: experience at the medical..., compensation based on work relative value unit for cardiovascular surgeons in....

Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Mike threatened his mother, stole her stove, sold it, and used the money to get himself drunk. In the process, he tried to commit a robbery and was arrested. His mother later turned him over to the juvenile court. Some children drink, others fight while others are involved in violent robberies where they use guns causing injury or even death of innocent folks. These children, Mike included, can be considered juvenile delinquents.

Juvenile relates to age and varies from state to state. In some states, the maximum age for which a child can be tried in a juvenile court is 14 years while in others it is 21 years. Nonetheless, the 16 to 20 olds are considered to be adults in most states. (Colombia encyclopedia, 2008) There are two types of juveniles. Delinquent offenders and the status offenders. (Roberts, 2008) But what is delinquency? The juvenile justice system has always approached juvenile justice from two perspectives. Firstly, that the juvenile offenders are primarily troubled children who are in need of help (rehabilitation). On the other hand, that the offenders are criminal and the solution is punishment so that they can refrain from such behaviors. From this, there are at least two definitions of delinquents. The legal definition and the case workers definition. (Tappan, 1949) In the legal definition, a juvenile delinquent is one who has decided to act contrary to laid down law and rules (offender). As such, this person deserves to be dealt with accordingly to deter him and others like him from engaging in such behaviors. However, no offender can be classified as a delinquent unless the court has established it to be so. In the case workers definition, a delinquent is one who is personally and socially maladjusted in his behaviors, which is the root cause of his problems (involvement in offences). The type of child who maybe involved in such offences as running away from home or disobedience thus a status offender. (Tappan, 1949) A juvenile delinquent can therefore be regarded as a child offender.

According to Heilbrun, Goldstein and Redding (2005), the nature of juvenile offences have been changing/evolving over the years. Nowadays there are far more serious and violent crimes committed by juveniles than ever before in history. The very first juvenile court had been established way back in 1899 in Cook County Illinois. Before, this the children were mainly put into the same jails as the adults. The reformers were concerned with this situation and called for the establishment of a separate court system for the minors. However, the court was not established for punishment purposes rather to identify the causes of delinquency in addition to formulating individual based rehabilitation programmes. Hence, the principle of Parens Patriae which meant that the court was to act as the child’s guardian with a view to protecting the minor.

Fast forward, today all states have separate court systems for juveniles. (Roberts, 2000).

Boys seem to be the most susceptible to juvenile delinquency more than the girls though there has also been an increase over the years in the number of girls involved. This could be attributed to the fact that juvenile offences are related to peer pressure and anti social behaviors such as drug and substance abuse. The role of the family and parents cannot be discounted in the causes of juvenile delinquency. With parents holding more than one job, they have little or no time for their children. The result is that the children do as they please because they have no one to discipline them. According to Kulla, parenting practices have considerable impact on children. Accordingly, delinquent parents more often than not bring up delinquent children. (2006) For instance, an alcoholic abusive father has a very high chance of bringing up children who may be just like him. The other aspect of parenting that may contribute to delinquency is the single parent family resulting from divorce, abandonment or even separation. The mother is all alone and the duty of bringing up the children and also disciplining them rests squarely on her. She might fail. In a large family the same is true because then all the children do not get the attention they deserve. This then brings into close focus the environment that the child lives in and other people who live in this environment too. Peer pressure is a cause of juvenile delinquency. Children get involved in certain activities because everyone else in their families and communities seems to be involved. They may also get involved just to fit in with their friends. This is the reason they might engage themselves in drug or substance abuse and in violent crimes. (Kulla, 2006) Other causes include early child bearing and maternal substance abuse when pregnant. The result is that the mother is less likely to become an effective parent while the child may be born already an addict which makes them more likely to become delinquents. Another reason has to do with the social economic status. Children born to poor households may become delinquents as they engage in criminality to supplement incomes. There are also situational influences where the child maybe seeking an activity for the thrill of it. (Kulla, 2006).

With the rise of juvenile related crimes from the 1990’s, the stakeholders, policy makers, legislators and the public were calling for more serious and effective ways of dealing with juvenile crime. There was a 28% increase in the number of juvenile offenders held in both public and private facilities between 1991 and 2003. (Juvenile offenders and victims report, 2006) The call was for federally enacted laws because then the juvenile courts were appearing to be too lenient on juvenile offenders with the rehabilitation efforts failing. In 1993, for instance, the Gallup Poll passed the state proposition that would result in the trial of juveniles like adults especially those accused of violent crimes. A whooping 75% of the public voted in favor of this proposition. (Heilbrun et al, 2005) At the time, there were high numbers of juvenile related crimes including in schools. The media is involved in highlighting issues pertaining to juvenile delinquency including the failures and successes of existing prevention rehabilitation and intervention strategies. The courts and the lawyers are involved in the trial and sentencing of juvenile offenders. They are charged with the duty of openly laying out the offences and penalties leveled so as to protect the same offenders from undue process or ill treatment by the police. The juveniles also have the right to a fair trial. More over, communities and health workers are also involved in the rehabilitation and subsequent re-entry into the community of juveniles.

There is general consensus that the juvenile justice system is working. However, it needs to be strengthened. More over, Heilbrun et al are of the opinion that early intervention, adoption of prevention programmes in addition to rehabilitation make better alternatives to punishment of juvenile offenders especially in minor crimes. Accordingly, only very serious offences should result in jail terms. According to statistics, about 63% of the public seemed to be in favor of rehabilitation while a paltry 19% was in favor of punishment. (2005) Over the past few years the juvenile system has undergone considerable changes/reforms. More serious offenders have found themselves in criminal courts as new laws have been enacted that places them outside the juvenile courts jurisdiction. More over, the new laws seem to be in favor of punishing offenders as opposed to rehabilitation. Further more, laws have also been revised such that some offences can only be tried and sentenced in criminal courts. For instance, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 permitted the transfer of 13 year old offenders, especially those who had committed crimes using weapons such as guns, to criminal courts. Concomitantly, prosecution decision making jurisdictions have been widened. This has resulted in the restriction of confidentiality laws in juvenile courts.

Ultimately, there have been calls from stakeholders that the juvenile system is not working like it should and therefore needs to be abolished. However, current reforms seek to combine punishment of juvenile offenders with treatment and rehabilitation. The Office of Juvenile Justice System and Delinquency Prevention through the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders proposes that juveniles who enter the system should first be subjected to an assessment after which they are to be subjected to early intervention. The strategy also proposes the employment of various intervention strategies, to address the numerous risk factors, mental health, social service systems and even after care. The main problem with the juvenile delinquency system seems to lie in the fact that is has been somewhat ‘adultified’. According to Heilbrun et al, the solution lies with the understanding that the prevention and intervention methods adopted will serve the public and the juvenile offenders better if only the policy makers could understand that the offenders are not innocent children neither are they mature adults. The enhancing of the authority of the courts as far as sentencing goes is one strategy that has been adopted as part of the reforms. With this it is well within the mandate of the juvenile courts to extend their sentencing into early adulthood. (2005).

There has also been the establishment of specialized courts that are to deal with particular offences and by extension offenders. This is in line with the development of a prevention and treatment programme in the juvenile justice system. In the United States, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has been key in juvenile prevention/intervention programmes. Among the strategies adopted include the use of the media to educate the public and also the use of partnerships. Through the media, information is provided about the causes and the nature of juvenile delinquency including ways of prevention. This calls for partnerships with individuals, community groups and other institutions. First, is the community/faith involvement. The Office funds delinquency prevention efforts that are community based. Through the use of art (music, dance, drama) the Office also seeks to educate the youth on the problems that their communities face including the importance of preventing crime and the best ways of doing so. Secondly, the Office focuses on effective intervention programmes and ways of dealing with conflict. These include anger management classes, training on social and communication skills plus the use of mediation and legal services. Thirdly, is family strengthening and parenting through the safe start initiative. The Office aims at early prevention, intervention treatment and response including the delivery of quality services to children who are exposed to violence in their families and also those who are a risk. The Office has included the cross age teaching techniques in it mentoring programme. The youth are able to share knowledge and skills with others their age, or others who are younger or older. The programme is also involved in providing information to community based organizations on how to start and run effective mentoring programmes on their own. In the risk and protective factors programme, the gang reduction initiative is central. The aim is to reduce gang activities in certain neighborhoods. More over, in this programme there is also the girls study group where information pertaining to risk and protective factors of female juvenile offenders is obtained. Within the youth involvement programme the activities of the youth courts, which is a community intensive programme, are highlighted. The youth are involved in judging their peers on minor offences. (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2008).

The use of the mass media in the dissemination of information is a workable intervention. It has the potential to reach many people. However, it may not reach as many people depending on the medium used. Various methods need to be used together for the success of this intervention, thus newspapers, pamphlets, seminars may all be used together. Involving the community and community groups is a good endeavor because they involve many different people and groups all who have something to offer. However, some groups need funding so that they can effectively carry out their programmes. The strategy of teaching the youth various social and communication skill is important in conflict resolution as they may not have been taught at home. However, this requires dedicated personnel who are also patient. The interventions have a high probability of success though the drawbacks lie in as far as misplaced priorities, unclear responsibilities, lack of information and resources. This in turn results in poor implementation of the interventions and policy gaps. Leadership then becomes indispensable. The Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has set the pace.

Reforms in the juvenile justice system will highly influence the prevention and intervention strategies even in future. According to Roberts, existing justice systems are unsuccessful when they fail to satisfy the need of the victims, communities and the juvenile offenders. The future lies in the balanced approach strategy that focuses on compensation for harm to victims and the community. (2004) In addition, the offender competencies need to be increased and the public protected through the inclusion of victims, offenders and the community as equal participants. This requires the formulation of new intervention goals and objectives, the reallocation of funds plus the formulation of new reporting measures as well as methods of data collection. Moreover, the provision of programmes that are well supervised out of school and detention may be of immense help. Investing more into the strategies that have been successful in reducing re-entry of offenders into the justice system will also produce results. (King County Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan, 2000).

Juvenile delinquents are common in our communities. There are various reasons why they became delinquents. The failure of the family institution is the most important reason. The parents not being keen on disciplining their children because they might be too busy. Divorce, separation and the parents themselves being delinquents. Society has however contributed through the presence of social classes. As these children try to get out of theses classes they become delinquents. Peer pressure from friend and neighbors alike is another cause of delinquency.

The justice system established juvenile courts for the trial and sentencing of these minors. However, there is need for more proactive approach aimed at preventing the causes of delinquency in addition to offering solutions. These prevention and intervention strategies require the use of the media for effective sharing of information pertaining to juvenile delinquency. Besides, partnership with other individuals, community groups and agencies who are stake holders serves to strengthen the intervention strategies. The future however lies in the improvement of these strategies and strengthening those that have currently been the most successful.

Colombia encyclopedia, 6 th Edition. (2008). Juvenile delinquency . 2008. Web.

Heilbrun, K., Goldstein, S. E. & Redding, R. E. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: Prevention assessment and intervention. New York: Oxford University Press.

King County Juvenile Justice Operational Master Plan . (2000). Web.

Kulla, C. (2006). The causes of juvenile delinquency. Associated content . 2008. Web.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2008). Juvenile offenders and victims report, 2006 . Web.

Roberts, A. R. (2004). Juvenile Justice source book: Past, present and future . New York: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, C. H. (2008). Juvenile delinquency: Causes and effect. Yale-new Haven Teachers Institute. Web.

Tappan, P. W. (1949). Juvenile delinquency . New York: McGraw – Hill.

• Juvenile Offender: Prevention, Diversion and Treatment.
• Individual Causes of Delinquency
• Theories of Juvenile Delinquency
• The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Delinquency is a Product of Nurture
• Juvenile Offences and Modern Law
• Juvenile Delinquency: The Columbine Shootings
• The Cognitive Theory in Juvenile Delinquency
• Why Some Juveniles Violate the Law?
• Children’s Rights: Article 12 of UNCRC
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, September 29). Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-intervention/

"Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention." IvyPanda , 29 Sept. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-intervention/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention'. 29 September.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention." September 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-intervention/.

1. IvyPanda . "Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention." September 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-intervention/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Juvenile Delinquency: Causes and Intervention." September 29, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/juvenile-delinquency-causes-and-intervention/.