Juvenile Delinquency
In 2000, approximately 2.4 million juveniles were arrested (Synder, 2002). Approximately 99,000 arrests were associated with a violent crime (e.g. murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault). Approximately 518,000 arrests were associated with a property crime (burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson). The remaining arrests were associated with a “nonindex” crime (e.g. drug abuse violation, liquor laws, vandalism). Although declining in recent years, delinquency continues to be a major social problem. Thus, it is important to understand the etiology of these behaviors.
Prior research has established a relationship between disruptions and transitions within the family system and delinquency. Using data from three longitudinal studies (Rochester Youth Development Study, Denver Youth Survey, and Pittsburg Youth Study), researchers modeled the relationship between family transition and delinquency (Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, Huizinga, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1999). The sample was comprised of 4000 youth and interviews were completed every 6 months with children between 13 and 18 years of age. Family disruption and transition was measured by comparing the structure of the family unit between interviews. The authors report that youth in urban areas were likely to experience at least one disruption or transition during adolescence. Approximately 45% of the sample experienced two or more changes in family units. These changes had a significant effect on the probability of delinquency. In Pittsburg, 90% of the youth with five or more disruptions or transitions reported engaging in delinquent behavior.
The study of family instability and delinquency is not a recent development, nor is the conceptualization of disruption and transition limited to the residential or familial context. Prior research indicates that instability within the educational system is predictive of a variety of negative outcomes including delinquency (Reynolds, Chang, & Temple, 1998) and failure to complete high school (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). We anticipate finding similar problems associated with placement instability in foster care.
The instability of foster care is often associated with a range of negative outcomes including child behavior problems, feelings of insecurity, and overall dissatisfaction with the foster care experience (Festinger, 1983, Kurtz et al., 1993 and Redding et al., 2000). In part, the problems associated with placement instability inspired the development of federal initiatives intended to increase family permanence for children who might otherwise would languish in long-term foster care. More relevant to the current study, the provision of child welfare services, the use of substitute care placement, and placement instability are often, but not always identified as predictors of involvement with juvenile corrections (English et al., 2000, Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000a, Jonson-Reid & Barth). Prior research has established a relationship between disruptions and transitions within the family system and delinquency. Using data from three longitudinal studies (Rochester Youth Development Study, Denver Youth Survey, and Pittsburg Youth Study), researchers modeled the relationship between family transition and delinquency (Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, Huizinga, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1999). The sample was comprised of 4000 youth and interviews were completed every 6 months with children between 13 and 18 years of age. Family disruption and transition was measured by comparing the structure of the family unit between interviews. The authors report that youth in urban areas were likely to experience at least one disruption or transition during adolescence. Approximately 45% of the sample experienced two or more changes in family units. These changes had a significant effect on the probability of delinquency. In Pittsburg, 90% of the youth with five or more disruptions or transitions reported engaging in delinquent behavior.
The study of family instability and delinquency is not a recent development, nor is the conceptualization of disruption and transition limited to the residential or familial context. Prior research indicates that instability within the educational system is predictive of a variety of negative outcomes including delinquency (Reynolds, Chang, & Temple, 1998) and failure to complete high school (Rumberger & Larson, 1998). We anticipate finding similar problems associated with placement instability in foster care.
The instability of foster care is often associated with a range of negative outcomes including child behavior problems, feelings of insecurity, and overall dissatisfaction with the foster care experience (Festinger, 1983, Kurtz et al., 1993 and Redding et al., 2000). In part, the problems associated with placement instability inspired the development of federal initiatives intended to increase family permanence for children who might otherwise would languish in long-term foster care. More relevant to the current study, the provision of child welfare services, the use of substitute care placement, and placement instability are often, but not always identified as predictors of involvement with juvenilecorrections (English et al., 2000, Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000a, Jonson-Reid & Barth).
References
D. English, C. Widom and C. Branford, Childhood victimization and delinquency, adult criminality, and violent criminal behavior: A replication and extension (grant 97-IJ-CX-0017), National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC (2000).
T. Festinger, No one ever asked us, Columbia University Press, New York (1983).
M. Jonson-Reid and R.P. Barth, From placement to prison: The path to adolescent incarceration from child welfare supervised foster or group care, Children and Youth Services Review 22 (2000) (7), pp. 493–516.
M. Jonson-Reid and R.P. Barth, From maltreatment report to juvenile incarceration: The role of child welfare services, Child Abuse and Neglect 24 (2000) (4), pp. 505–520.
A. Reynolds, H. Chang and J. Temple, Early childhood intervention and juvenile delinquency: An exploratory analysis of the Chicago child–parent centers, Evaluation Review 22 (1998) (3), pp. 341–372.
0 comments:
Post a Comment