FREE ESSAY ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, CURRENT RESEARCH AND INTERVENTION

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, CURRENT RESEARCH AND INTERVENTION

Juvenile delinquency is a complex social problem that significantly
impacts all members and processes of a social structure. Delinquency refers to a set of
behaviors that are not in line with the collective practices and/or ethics of the
dominant social group. Essentially, these behaviors deviate from societal norms and more
specifically they violate established criminal codes and laws. Juvenile delinquency
incorporates not only general criminal activity but conduct that is only unlawful for
youths such as running away from home and skipping school. Current research into this
difficult and pressing issue reflects a vast range of theories about, and predictors of
delinquency as well as a multitude of strategies to control and reduce overall
delinquency. The consensus among practitioners and researchers however maintains that
juvenile delinquency is a dynamic, multifaceted problem with numerous potentially causal
factors. Subsequently, investigators and professionals suggest that treatment procedures
must focus on not only the immediate issue of the offender's deviant behavior but on
every element within the context of that behavior as well, including for
example, family relations and social support services/networks.
Conventional practice has long associated early preventive measures with positive
delinquency reduction results. In particular, timely recognition of at-risk youth and
correction of ineffective or minimally effective parenting techniques are critical to the
prevention of future delinquency (Lundman, 1993). Numerous risk factors have been
identified as indicators or predictors of juvenile delinquency and those factors
represent dysfunction at several levels, specifically within the structure of the
offender's family. Some of these factors include conflict within the family, a lack of
adequate supervision and/or rules, a distinct lack of parent-child attachment,
instability, poor home life quality, parental expectations, out-of-home placements and
inconsistent discipline (Shumaker, 1997). Social service professionals who frequently
come into contact with children must be especially vigilant in order to detect the
presence of any of the possibly contributory conditions mentioned above and to refer
families to appropriate sources of assistance as early as possible. 
Generally speaking, the relationship between family conflict and delinquency is
significant. There are many types of family conflict but the absence of communication and
the inability to solve problems are two of the most fundamental forms relative to future
delinquency. The nature of these conflicts is cyclical in that communication and
problem-solving breakdowns increase the incidences of delinquency which in turn increase
the stress and conflict levels within the family leading to more instances of deviant
behavior (Smith & Stern, 1997). Educators, clinicians and other professionals who provide
services for children should carefully evaluate reports from children regarding such
things as parental fighting, abuse and/or neglect so that they may obviously address
those immediate concerns but also assess the possible need for preventive intervention. 
Structure is very important in the life of a developing child. Most of that necessary
structure is provided by the parents/family. Rules or guidelines are inherently part of
that structure and careful parental supervision is essential to the derivation and
implementation of those rules. For example, children should always have to tell their
parents where they are and whom they're with. A parent should be diligent in his/her
supervision to the extent that (s)he actually knows the whereabouts of his /her children
at all times ( Shumaker, 1997). Service professionals should understand the relationship
between lack of supervision/rules in the home and possible future criminal behavior among
youths and should be solicitous in their observations. 
Parent-child attachment is also a key factor in the delinquency of a minor. Attachment
refers to the process that bonds a child to a parent and is usually completed in infancy.
It is generally held that children who are insecurely attached to their parents are more
likely to commit crimes. However, there are some therapeutic techniques which can be
employed to increase the strength of a relationship throughout childhood (Shumaker,
1997). Researchers suggest that social service workers should pay close attention to a
child feeling "unloved" or unimportant as these feelings can be indicative of poor
attachments and may lead to juvenile criminality. 
Delinquency can further be related to degrees of instability in an offender's life.
Instability is generally characterized by stress, carrying out threats or promises
(Patterson, 1986), frequent changes of residence/friends, dramatic changes in the family,
sickness, alcoholism (Bennett, 1960), absence of household routine, precarious financial
situations, eviction, death, desertion, separation or divorce (Glueck and Glueck, 1950).
Attempts should be made by service providers to assess the extent to which a child
experiences instability in the home as unchecked instability can contribute to
delinquency.
The quality of a child's home life can also positively or negatively affect behavioral
outcomes. A home life of poor quality can involve low levels of affection, comfort,
supervision and home security (Shumaker, 1997). If a child's home life is inadequate or
unsatisfactory then professional intervention will almost assuredly be necessary to
address all of the problem components of the home life. Multiple strategies will have to
be employed concurrently and optimally all members of the family will have to be involved
in improving the overall quality of the home environment.
Studies have shown that what parents expect from their children also affects the
likelihood of future delinquency. Typically parents who set high but reasonable standards
of conduct have children who are less likely to commit crimes (Wilson, 1980; Laybourn,
1986; Glueck & Glueck, 1950). Parents must teach and encourage their children to behave
within a certain set of clear and realistic expectations. Children who underachieve in
school for example may have parents whose expectations of them are comparatively lower.
Child service workers may have to intervene to help parents set limits and positively
reinforce appropriate behavior.
The removal from the home and placement of children outside the home has been linked to
delinquency among juveniles. Research has suggested that children who are removed from
their homes or frequently transferred between foster homes will exhibit higher rates of
delinquency (Bennett, 1960; Towberman, 1994). The out-of-home placement factor has the
potential to create serious problems for the child as it may exacerbate many of the other
previously mentioned factors such as instability, quality of home life and attachment
formation. Researchers suggest that service providers avoid removal from the home
whenever possible and to minimize the frequency with which a child moves between foster
homes (Shumaker, 1997).
Inconsistent discipline has been found as a significant, contributing factor to juvenile
delinquency. Parents who ignore inappropriate behavior, are negligent about consistently
punishing all misbehaviors with pre-established punishments or who threaten punishment
but don't follow through with it will raise children who are more likely to engage in
delinquent behavior ( Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Laub & Sampson, 1998; Wells and Rankin,
1988). Social workers and other professionals might need to help families establish
guidelines for appropriate conduct and consequences for misbehavior.
In addition to the previously discussed contributing factors, there are several theories
that attempt to explain why juveniles engage in criminal behavior. Current research
suggests that delinquent behavior is learned behavior and not genetically encoded. Two of
the most prominent theories are Differential Association theory and Social Control
theory.
Shoemaker's (1994) Differential Association theory relies on three fundamental
assumptions. First, this theory assumes that all behavior that is not genetically derived
is learned behavior. The second assumption states that the acquisition of behavior occurs
in relatively small and informal groups. The final assumption maintains that behavior
develops from a person's entire life experience as a whole as well as from particular
instances and recent events. Differential Association theory posits that if a child
displays deviant/delinquent behavior then (s)he ultimately learned that behavior from the
people closest to him/her. Clearly this theory supports investigation of delinquency
within and through the context of the family, close peer groups and close social groups.
The second notable theory, Social Control theory, was proposed by Curran and Renzetti
(1994). Social Control theory suggests that a person's ties or bonds to social
institutions such as family, church, school, etc. prevent him or her from pursuing
criminal activity. This theory is based on the concept that people commit crime because
it is the easiest, most efficient, most gratifying way to satisfy one's needs and/or
wants. Therefore, if children are relatively unattached to elements of their surrounding
social institutions, they are more likely to become juvenile offenders.
Despite the prominence of these theories, recent studies have shown that regardless of
the theory utilized, there has been little impact on the reduction of juvenile arrest and
crime (Jensen & Howard, 1998). Generally speaking, intervention in an attempt to
understand and reduce juvenile criminality has been family centered. Several current
studies employing a variety of methods have shown some promising effects.
Intensive, home-based treatment programs such as Home Ties have demonstrated a degree of
success. The data collected show that these treatment programs were able to significantly
reduce the need for out-of-home placements both initially and after a twelve month period
(Haapala &Kinney, 1988). This study examined participants who were already involved with
the juvenile justice system however and therefore the need to incorporate these treatment
strategies/modalities into early intervention/prevention programs becomes apparent
(Shumaker, 1997). 
Parent training classes have also proven somewhat beneficial but there are still some
systemic problems which inhibit their success (Shumaker, 1997). For instance, parents
must be able to perceive some reward for participating in training programs.
Additionally, programs must broaden their value and belief systems to include those of
other religious, economic and political convictions as opposed to trying to impose
democratic, middle class values on service recipients. Furthermore, new parent training
regimens must focus on problem-specific curriculum to educate parents about contributing
factors and warning signs.
According to Lipsey, Wilson and Cothern (2000), there were several treatment modalities
that demonstrated positive effects. This study observed consistent, positive effects
among noninstitutionalized juvenile offenders through the employment of individual
counseling, improvement of interpersonal skills (including problem solving, role taking
and anger management), as well as the implementation of behavioral programs (established
by court-ordered family therapy sessions). Consistent, positive effects were also
observed in institutionalized juvenile offenders as a result of improvement in
interpersonal skills and use of Teaching Family Homes (community-based residential
programs where "teaching parents" attempt to correct delinquency through behavior
modification).
Although there has been considerable investigation into juvenile delinquency, there are
no definitive answers to the questions of causation or treatment. Literature reviews
suggest that there are a multitude of causal variables and subsequently a multitude of
potentially effective treatment modalities. It is clear that delinquency among minors
does not exist in a vacuum and therefore solutions to this problem must take into account
all of the contextual and situational elements surrounding the youth at risk. Further
research is necessary in order to attain a more complete understanding of the complex
nature of juvenile crime and how society can combat its detrimental effects.
Bibliography
REFERENCES
Bennett, I. (1960). Delinquent and neurotic children: a comparative study with 100 case 
histories. New York: Basic Books.
Corcoran, Jacqueline (1997). A solution oriented approach to working with juvenile 
offenders. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14, 4, 277-288.
Curran, D. J., & Renzetti, C. M. (1994). Crime. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon 
Publishing.
Glueck, S. &Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University Press.
Haapala, D. A., & Kinney, J. M. (1988). Avoiding out of home placements of high-risk 
status offenders through the use of home-based family preservation services. 
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15, 334-348.
Jennings, M. A., & Gunther, J. (2000). Juvenile delinquency in search of a practice 
model: family health, differential association and social control. Journal of 
Family Social Work, 5, 1, 75-89. 
Jensen, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (1998). Youth crime, public policy and practice in the 
juvenile justice system: recent trends and needed reforms. Social Work, 43, 324-333. 
Laub, J. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Unraveling families and delinquency: a reanalysis
of the Glueck data. Criminology, 26, 355-380.
Laybourn, A. (1986). Traditional strict working class parenting: an undervalued system.
British Journal of Social Work, 16, 625-644.
Lipsey, M. W., Wilson, D. B., Cothern, L. (2000). Effective intervention for serious 
juvenile offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department
of Justice.
Lundman, R. J. (1993). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency, 2nd Ed.
New York: Oxford Press. 
Patterson, G. R. (1985). Performance models for antisocial boys. American Psychologist,
41, 432-444.
Shoemaker, D. J. (1996). Theories of delinquency. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Shumaker, A. W. (1997). Preventing juvenile delinquency through early family 
intervention. Journal of Family Social Work, 2, 3 73-85.
Smith, C. A., & Stern, S. B. (1997). Delinquency and antisocial behavior: a review of
family processes and intervention research. The Social Service Review, 71, 3
382-420.
Stern, S. B., & Smith, C. A. (1999). Reciprocal relationships between antisocial
behavior
and parenting: implications for delinquency intervention. Families in Society, 80,
2, Mar-Apr, 169-181.
Towberman, D. (1992). National survey of juvenile needs assessment. Crime and 
Delinquency, 30, 230.
Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H. (1988). Direct parent controls and delinquency. 
Criminology, 26, 263-285. 
Wilson, H. (1980). Parental supervision: a neglected aspect of delinquency. British
Journal of Criminology, 20, 203-235.