Behavioral Theories and Juvenile Delinquency

3 Characteristics of Juvenile Offenders

Chapter Learning Objectives
On completion of this chapter, students should be able to do the following:

Recognize differences between delinquency profiles based on official statistics and behavioral profiles
Recognize and discuss the multitude of factors related to delinquency
Discuss the impact of social factors (e.g., family, schools, social class) on delinquency
Discuss the effects of physical factors (e.g., gender, age, race) on delinquency

What Would You Do?

You are a juvenile probation officer for youth referred through the court system. Recently, the Mendez family was referred to you at the time of Isabella’s third
arrest, this time for drug possession. Isabella is a 15-year-old Latina who lives with her mother, Juanita, and younger brother, Gustavo. Juanita is a single parent
whose husband is currently locked up in a medium-security prison for a robbery charge. Gustavo is 12 years old and loves his sister but views her as trouble for her
mother. Juanita is upset about her daughter’s behavior and because she is afraid of losing custody of her daughter to the state.

Recently, the family was referred to the regional office of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Because Juanita only speaks Spanish, the family
was assigned to a Latina bilingual case worker who made a point to call the family. When she called, she noted that there was screaming and fighting in the house
during the call. The caseworker noted that the mother, Juanita, sounded overwhelmed. When the caseworker tried to arrange a session for the family, Juanita
explained that she could not ever get Isabella to attend.

You indicate to Juanita that you plan to visit the home but would like to time it so that Isabella would be there when her mother was also there. Juanita works during
the day as a domestic worker in a hotel, and Isabella is seldom home unless it is later at night, if at all. You set the time for about 8:30 p.m. the next evening. When
you arrive, you find Ms. Mendez at home alone with Gustavo. Juanita explains that Isabella came to the house for a few brief moments and, without warning, left
with her friends, giving no explanation. Juanita indicates that she has no idea when her daughter would be home. Young Gustavo also confirms his mother’s story
and states that Isabella is always causing problems for his mother. He feels that because she does not want to be with them, she should just go away.

What Would You Do?
1. In today’s multicultural society, how important is it to have multilingual abilities in juvenile justice agencies?
2. In your opinion, do you think that because Isabella’s father is in prison that this is, perhaps, affecting her current behavior?
3. How likely do you think it is that Isabella’s behavior will affect Gustavo’s behavior when he is a teenager?
4. Do you believe that Juanita is a responsible parent?

The complex shown in this picture processes juvenile offenders, taking into consideration their various characteristics and their circumstances
when determining the outcome for these young offenders.

Rampart Police Station by Ucla90024, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rampart_Police_Station.jpg. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0,
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

In any discussion of the general characteristics of juvenile offenders, we must be aware of possible errors in the data and must be cautious
concerning the impression presented. In general, profiles of juvenile offenders are drawn from official files based on police contacts, arrests,

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rampart_Police_Station.jpg

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

and/or incarceration. Although these profiles may accurately reflect the characteristics of juveniles who are or will be incarcerated or who have
a good chance for an encounter with the justice system, as we saw in Chapter 2, they might not accurately reflect the characteristics of all
juveniles who commit offenses.

Studies have established that the number of youthful offenders who formally enter the justice system is small in comparison with the total
number of violations committed by juveniles (Langton, Berzofsky, Krebs, & Smiley-McDonald, 2012). Hidden-offender surveys, in which
juveniles are asked to anonymously indicate the offenses they have committed, have indicated repeatedly that far more offenses are committed
than are reported in official agency reports. In addition, even those juveniles who commit offenses resulting in official encounters are
infrequently formally processed through the entire system. The determination of who will officially enter the justice system depends on many
variables that are considered by law enforcement and other juvenile justice personnel. It is important to remember that official profiles of
youthful offenders might not actually represent those who commit youthful offenses but rather represent only those who enter the system.

It is common practice to use official profiles of juveniles as a basis for development of delinquency prevention programs. Based on the
characteristics of known offenders, prevention programs that ignore the characteristics of the hidden and/or unofficial delinquent have been
initiated. For example, there is official statistical evidence indicating that the major proportion of delinquents comes from lower socioeconomic
families and neighborhoods. The correlates of poverty and low social status include substandard housing, poor sanitation, poor medical care,
high unemployment, and exposure to violence (Zahn et al., 2010). It has been suggested that if these conditions were altered, delinquency
might be reduced. However, as Harcourt and Ludwig (2006) found out in their study of broken-windows policing, changing the disorder does
not necessarily reduce or eliminate criminal behavior. (Recall our comments on middle-class delinquency in Chapter 2.)

The factors causing delinquency seem to be numerous and interwoven in complex ways (Tapia, 2011). Multiple factors must be considered if
we are to improve our understanding of delinquency. For example, Mallett (2008), in a study using a random sample of all adjudicated
delinquent youths who received probation supervision from the Cuyahoga County (greater Cleveland) Juvenile Court in 2004 and 2005, found
that over 57% of delinquent youths on probation supervision had either a mental health disorder or a special education disability. Thornberry,
Huizinga, and Loeber (2004) found that drug, school, and mental health problems are strong risk factors for male adolescents’ involvement in
persistent and serious delinquency, although more than half of persistent serious offenders do not have such problems. Still, more than half of
the males studied who did have persistent problems with drugs, school, or mental health were also persistent and serious delinquents. Fewer
than half of persistent and serious female delinquents studied had drug, school, or mental health problems, but these problems alone or in
combination were not strong risk factors for serious delinquency. However, Zahn and colleagues (2010, p. 11) concluded that “attachment to
school has protective effects against delinquency for both genders, although several recent studies find a stronger effect for girls.” Mitchell and
Shaw (2011) also noted that adolescent offenders have high levels of mental health problems, many of which go undetected and lead to poor
outcomes. Most criminologists contend that a number of factors combine to produce delinquency (see In Practice 3.1). Further, at least some
research indicates that risk factors for delinquency may be different for boys and girls (Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, & Brick, 2010; Martin,
Golder, Cynthia, & Sawning, 2013; National Girls Institute, 2013; Zahn et al., 2010).

In Practice 3.1: Ending Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System
Issues related to racial disparity in the treatment of youth processed through the juvenile justice system are still problematic, despite efforts to eliminate this problem.
Evidence that this problem still warrants substantive attention exists when one considers that the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
continues to allocate funds for grant-funded projects to address disparity problems in processing youthful offenders in the juvenile justice system. The Smart on Juvenile
Justice: Technical Assistance to End Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System is one such project initiated by the OJJDP to do this. The overall goal of
this project is to establish, operate, and maintain OJJDP’s initiative to end racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile system, serving as a comprehensive clearinghouse
on issues related to eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in juvenile justice and to strategically focusing DMC reduction efforts.

This project supports the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, which requires participating states to address the disproportionate number of minority youth
who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. Disproportionate minority contact (DMC) exists if the rate at which a specific minority group comes into contact
with the juvenile justice system significantly differs from the rate of contact for non-Latino Caucasians or other minority groups. Research indicates that various
contributing factors cause DMC, including but not limited to implicit bias; racial stereotyping; and laws, policies, and procedures that can have a disparate impact. As a
result, racial and ethnic disparities throughout the juvenile justice system can occur.

The OJJDP has found that African American youth are arrested more than twice as often as non-Latino Caucasian youth and are diverted from the juvenile justice system
less often than Caucasian youth. Going further, Native American youth are diverted less often and are transferred to adult court at more than 1.5 times the rate of
Caucasian youth. National estimates from state data through the OJJDP show that Latino youth are placed in secure detention more than 1.5 times as often as Caucasian
youth, with similar rates of transfers to adult court as Native American youth. Data such as these provide clear evidence from valid government sources that there is still
work to be done to establish consistency in the justice system’s response to our youth who run errant of the law.

S o u rc e :S o u rc e : Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2017).

Questions to Consider
1. True or False: Latino youth, but not Native American youth, are transferred to adult court more frequently than Caucasian youth.
2. Multiple Choice: The OJJDP has found that African American youth are arrested more than _____________ as often as non-Latino Caucasian youth:

a. twice
b. three times
c. four times
d. None of the above

3. What reasons do you think are likely to explain the disproportionate minority contact noted in In Practice 3.1?

epub://pjfuxuqkpdxhmvhq39bh.vbk/OEBPS/s9781506348988.i655.xhtml

epub://pjfuxuqkpdxhmvhq39bh.vbk/OEBPS/s9781506348988.i655.xhtml

epub://pjfuxuqkpdxhmvhq39bh.vbk/OEBPS/s9781506348988.i725.xhtml#s9781506348988.i744

epub://pjfuxuqkpdxhmvhq39bh.vbk/OEBPS/s9781506348988.i725.xhtml#s9781506348988.i744

Unfortunately, simplistic explanations are often appealing and sometimes lead to prevention and rehabilitation efforts that prove to be of very
little value. With this in mind, let us now turn our attention to some of the factors viewed as important determinants of delinquent behavior. It
must be emphasized once again that most of the information we have concerning these factors is based on official statistics. For a more
accurate portrait of the characteristics of actual juvenile offenders, we must also concentrate on the vast majority of juveniles who commit
delinquent acts but are never officially labeled as delinquent.

Social Factors
As they grow up, children are exposed to a number of social factors that may increase their risk for problems such as abusing drugs and
engaging in delinquent behavior. Risk factors appear to function in a cumulative fashion—that is, the greater the number of risk factors, the
greater the likelihood that youth will engage in delinquent or other risky behavior. There is also evidence that problem behaviors associated
with risk factors tend to cluster. For example, delinquency and violence cluster with other problems, such as drug abuse, mental health issues,
teen pregnancy, and school misbehavior.

Shown in Chart 3.1 are a number of factors experienced by juveniles as individuals, as family members, in school, among their peers, and in
their communities. For further information concerning the indicators of these risks and data sources associated with such indicators, visit the
website from which the chart was adapted.

Chart 3.1 Risk Factors for Health and Behavior Problems

Individual

Antisocial behavior and alienation, delinquent beliefs, general delinquency involvement, and/or drug dealing

Gun possession, illegal gun ownership, and/or carrying

Teen parenthood

Favorable attitudes toward drug use and/or early onset of alcohol and other drug (AOD) use

Early onset of aggression and/or violence

Intellectual and/or developmental disabilities

Victimization and exposure to violence

Poor refusal skills

Life stressors

Early sexual involvement

Mental disorder and/or mental health problem

Family

Family history of problem behavior and/or parent criminality

Family management problems and poor parental supervision and/or monitoring

Poor family attachment or bonding

Child victimization and maltreatment

Pattern of high family conflict

Family violence

Having a young mother

Broken home

Sibling antisocial behavior

Family transitions

Parental use of harsh physical punishment and/or erratic discipline practices

Low parent education level and/or illiteracy

Maternal depression

School

Low academic achievement

Negative attitude toward school, low bonding, low school attachment, and/or low commitment to school

Truancy or frequent absences

Suspension

Dropping out of school

Inadequate school climate, poorly organized and functioning schools, and/or negative labeling by teachers

Identified as learning disabled

Frequent school transitions

Peer

Gang involvement and/or gang membership

Peer alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use

Association with delinquent or aggressive peers

Peer rejection

Community

Availability or use of ATOD in neighborhood

Availability of firearms

High-crime neighborhood

Community instability

Low community attachment

Economic deprivation, poverty, and/or residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood

Neighborhood youth in trouble

Feeling unsafe in the neighborhood

Social and physical disorder or disorganized neighborhood

S o u rc e :S o u rc e : Adapted from youth.gov.

Family
One of the most important factors influencing delinquent behavior is the family setting. It is within the family that the child internalizes those
basic beliefs, values, attitudes, and general patterns of behavior that give direction to subsequent behaviors. Because the family is the initial
transmitter of the culture (through the socialization process) and greatly shapes the personality characteristics of the child, considerable
emphasis has been given to family structure, functions, and processes in delinquency research. Although it is not possible to review all such
research here, we concentrate on several areas that have been the focus of attention.

Homelessness and poverty have been linked to delinquent behavior, although not all homeless youth or those living in poverty commit
crimes.

Pixland/Thinkstock

A great deal of research focuses on the crucial influence of the family in the formation of behavioral patterns and personality. Contemporary
theories attach great importance to the parental role in determining the personality characteristics of children. More than half a century ago,
Glueck and Glueck (1950) focused attention on the relationship between family and delinquency, a relationship that has remained in the

spotlight ever since (see In Practice 3.2).

To young children, home and family are the basic sources of information about life. Thus, many researchers and theorists have focused on the
types of values, attitudes, and beliefs maintained and passed on by the family over generations. Interest has focused on the types of behavior
and attitudes transmitted to children through the socialization process resulting in a predisposition toward delinquent behavior. For example,
the New Jersey Parents’ Caucus (2013) said the following:

In Practice 3.2: The Prevent Delinquency Project
“These days, our lives are busier than ever. It’s difficult for families to find time to be together. Yet, never before has it been more important. The National Center on
Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University released a 2011 report stating that simply having dinner together as a family, five to seven times each week,
substantially lowers your child’s risk of experimenting with drugs, including using tobacco, alcohol and marijuana.

“Studies also cite that children, including teenagers, whose parents provide little or no emotional support or involvement in their lives, and fail to monitor the child’s
activities, are at far greater risk to become bullies. It’s sobering to discover that 60 percent of boys who have been classified as bullies ages 12 to 15 have at least one
criminal conviction by the time they reach age 24, according to the US Dept. of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.”

The Prevent Delinquency Project is a group of dedicated volunteers who subscribe to one simple notion—that the majority of juvenile delinquency cases are preventable,
through the implementation of proactive parenting techniques. Unfortunately, many parents, despite being well intentioned, don’t adequately supervise and guide their
children toward leading healthy, happy, and productive lives. And those who do often lack an understanding of the threats their children face until it is too late. The goal
of the Prevent Delinquency Project is to assist parents in improving their knowledge in each of these areas, so that they will be in a better position to safeguard their
children from harm, and intervene at the first sign that trouble exists.

Some parents express discomfort with the idea of monitoring what their kids are up to. We ask them to consider the following: After September 11, 2001, few would
argue against the merits of noninvasive intelligence programs, carefully constructed to protect civil liberties, in gathering information necessary to identify our enemies
and safeguard us against outside forces. After all, we were, and continue to be, under the threat of constant attack, on our own soil and abroad. In a smaller and more
personal sense, so are our families. Gangs, drugs, reckless sexual practices, and violence have taken footholds in our communities and represent increasing threats to the
health and safety of our children. Is it wrong to educate ourselves, identify what may harm our kids, and take proactive measures to protect them?

The present juvenile justice system supports this level of intervention. By far the most common court-ordered disposition in delinquency matters is probation supervision.
Few cases warrant the removal of children from the community and placement in more restrictive settings. The majority of wayward youth can be turned around and put
back on track with supervision that monitors their adherence to curfews, mandates that they attend school, and ensures compliance with other reasonable terms and
conditions, such as counseling, deemed in their best interests. If thought of in its simplest form, probation supervision is the court acting as a surrogate parent. In a lot of
instances, this would not be necessary if parents knew what to do early on. Through the Prevent Delinquency Project, that is exactly what volunteers attempt to teach, by
meeting with parent/teacher associations, community organizations, and individual parents who seek out our assistance.

S o u rc e :S o u rc e : Prevent Delinquency Project (n.d.). © Carl A. Bartol.

Questions to Consider
1. True or False: Most juvenile sanctions would not be needed with youth if their parents knew what to do early on when raising their child.
2. Multiple Choice: About ___________ of boys ages 12 to 15 who have been classified as bullies have at least one criminal conviction by the time they reach age

24.
a. 40%
b. 50%
c. 60%
d. 70%

3. What are some of the interventions mentioned that can be used to reform juvenile offenders who are on community supervision?

The NJPC Parents’ Empowerment Academy is a comprehensive training and education program that enables parents of children with
emotional and behavioral challenges to appropriately and collaboratively negotiate with government agencies and other system
partners . . . [and] professionals and providers in the child-serving arena to strengthen their knowledge of family engagement and
provides practical tools and strategies which they can implement in their local organizations. (n.p.)

The primary objectives of the academy include the opportunity for parents to

1. Enhance their skills
2. Provide valuable input toward the development and implementation of services for their children
3. Build their capacity to serve as keepers for the vision of “effective and timely services for children with emotional and behavioral

challenges”
4. Empower other parents through the use of education, advocacy, and supportive services
5. Better serve their local communities

The primary objectives of the academy include the opportunity for professionals and providers to

1. Explore engagement strategies and barriers, history and principles of family involvement, and specific strategies for high-risk families
2. Develop additional skills focused on building consensus and collaboration with parents and family members, the critical elements of

family engagement, the impact of community in family engagement, family-specific strategies, and recruitment and retention

epub://pjfuxuqkpdxhmvhq39bh.vbk/OEBPS/s9781506348988.i725.xhtml#s9781506348988.i757

Further support for this argument comes from Worthen (2012), who found that both parent–child bonding and friend relationships affect
delinquency and that these relationships differ by both gender and stage of adolescence. And, using data from a sample of 18,512 students in
Grades 6, 8, 10, and 12, Fagan, Van Horn, Antaramian, and Hawkins (2011, p. 150) found the following:

Across grades, parents treated girls and boys differently, but neither sex received preferential treatment for all practices assessed, and
younger children reported more positive parenting than older students. Family factors were significantly related to delinquency and
drug use for both sexes and for all grades. Their findings suggest that “complexities in parent/child interactions that must be taken
into account when investigating the causes of adolescent offending and when planning strategies to prevent the development of
problem behaviors.” (p. 150)

Considerable research indicates a relationship between delinquency and the marital happiness of the children’s parents. Official delinquency
seems to occur disproportionately among juveniles in unhappy homes marked by marital discord, lack of family communication, unaffectionate
parents, high stress and tension, and a general lack of parental cohesiveness and solidarity (Davidson, 1990; Fleener, 1999; Gorman-Smith,
Tolan, & Loeber, 1998; Wright & Cullen, 2001). In unhappy familial environments, it is not unusual to find that parents derive little sense of
satisfaction from their child-rearing experiences. Genuine concern and interest are seldom expressed except on an erratic and convenient basis
at the whim of the parents. Also typical of this familial climate are inconsistent guidance and discipline marked by laxity and a tendency to use
children against the other parent (Simons, Simons, Burt, Brody, & Cutrona, 2005). It is not surprising to find poor self-images, personality
problems, and conduct problems in children of such families. Families are primary venues for identity disruption, loss, and inner turmoil. The
effects of troublesome family circumstances such as separation or divorce, illness, and death are well known and might be summarized by the
concept family trouble (Francis, 2012). If there is any validity to the adage “chip off the old block,” it should not be surprising to find children
in unpleasant family circumstances internalizing the types of attitudes, values, beliefs, and modes of behavior demonstrated by their parents.

It seems that in contemporary society, the family home has in many cases been replaced by a house where a related group of individuals reside,
change clothes, and occasionally eat. It is somewhat ironic that we often continue to focus on broken homes (homes disrupted through
divorce, separation, or desertion) as a major cause of delinquency rather than on unbroken homes where relationships are marked by familial
disharmony and disorganization. There is no doubt that the stability and continuity of a family may be shaken when the home is broken by the
loss of a parent through death, desertion, long separation, or divorce. At a minimum, one half of the potential socializing and control team is
separated from the family. The belief that one-parent families produce more delinquents is supported both by official statistics and by
numerous studies. Canter (1982), for example, indicated the following:

Youths from broken homes reported significantly more delinquent behavior than youths from intact homes. The general finding of
greater male involvement in delinquency was unchanged when the focus was restricted to children from broken homes. Boys from
broken homes reported more delinquent behavior than did girls from broken homes. (p. 164)

Canter concluded, “This finding gives credence to the proposition that broken homes reduce parental supervision, which in turn may increase
involvement in delinquency, particularly among males” (p. 164). In the Pittsburgh Youth Study, Browning and Loeber (1999) found that the
demographic variable most strongly related to delinquency was having a broken family. According to the Forum on Child and Family
(2006), when children live with two parents who are married to each other, they tend to have more favorable life course outcomes.

There is also, however, some evidence that there may be more social organization and cohesion, guidance, and control in happy one-parent
families than in two-parent families marked by discord. It may be that the broken family is not as important a determinant of delinquency as
are the events leading to the broken home. Disruption, disorganization, and tension, which may lead to a broken family or may prevail in a
family staying intact “for the children’s sake,” may be more important causative factors of delinquency than the actual breakup (Browning &
Loeber, 1999; Emery, 1982; Stern, 1964; Texas Youth Commission, 2004). According to Rebellon (2002), broken homes are strongly
associated with a range of delinquent behaviors, including minor status offenses and more severe property or violent offenses. According to
Brown (2004), adolescents in single-parent families are significantly more delinquent than their counterparts residing with two biological,
married parents. Further, “Seven of the eight studies that used nationally representative data, for example, found that children in single-parent
or other non-intact family structures were at greater risk of committing criminal or delinquent acts” (Americans for Divorce Reform, 2005).
However, as just noted, several factors, including divorce or separation, recent remarriage, gender of parent, and the long-term presence of a
stepparent, appear to be related to different types of delinquency.

Not all authorities agree that broken homes have a major influence on delinquency. Wells and Rankin (1991), reviewing the relationship
between broken homes and delinquency, concluded that there is some impact of broken homes on delinquency, although it appears to be
moderately weak, especially for serious crime. Bumphus and Anderson (1999) concluded that traditional measures of family structure relate
more to criminal patterns of Caucasians than to those of African Americans. Rebellon (2002) found that single parenthood per se does not
appear to be associated with delinquency; rather, certain types of changes in family composition appear to be related to delinquency. Schroeder,
Osgood, and Oghia (2010), using data from the National Youth Study, determined that the process of family dissolution is not associated with
concurrent increases in delinquency.

Demuth and Brown (2004), using data from the 1995 National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health, extended prior research
investigating the effects of growing up in two-parent versus single-mother families by also examining delinquency in single-father families.
The results indicate that juveniles in single-parent families are significantly more delinquent than their counterparts residing with two

biological married parents. However, the authors found that family processes fully account for the higher levels of delinquency exhibited by
adolescents from single-father versus single-mother families.

In 2011, 69 percent of …