Juvenile Delinquent and Mental Disorders Analyze Empirical

Juvenile Delinquent and Mental Disorders

Analyze Empirical

Maltreated youth and delinquent behaviors

Maltreatment, Family and Childhood

Peers and Adolescence

Aging into Early Adulthood

Crime risk and out-of-home care youth

Juvenile Delinquent and Mental Disorders

The transition of youth from adolescence to adulthood is usually a difficult and painful period. This is an even more difficult time for the youth who are removed from the home of biological parents to be placed into out-of-home care. For them, they not only had the experience of maltreatment, hurt or neglected, but also are facing the uncertainties associated with being removed from the original family. Under this situation, their behavior development may be troublesome, as they may desire returning to the original home or conflict with foster parents and siblings. As a result, such children may join a delinquency group for support. If the experience of out-of-home care affects youth behavior negatively and can promote delinquency, then out-of-home care is at least the second great tragedy in a difficult upbringing.

There is a great risk for delinquent or crime behavior among those who experience physical abuse, rejection or neglect from parents. Every year, federal, state and local governments spend tremendous sums on child welfare to protect children from maltreatment and abuse. However, how youth experience out-of-home care and whether out-of-home care effectively reduces the risk for delinquency among those who are in placement should be a noteworthy question for examination. Studies reveal several relationships between out-of-home care experience and youth delinquency. For example, there is a positive correlation between number of placements and increased delinquency levels (Runyan & Gould, 1985; Ryan & Testa, 2005; Widom C. S, 1991). As for more detailed study, only a few studies examine the delinquent behavior difference among different placements. For example, about a quarter of the youths in out-of-home care responded with delinquency, and the most commonly reported delinquency were less serious offenses (Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001). Children who entered kinship care have a lower estimated risk of behavioral problems than children who entered foster care, and children who moved from foster care to kinship care also showed less behavioral problems (Rubin, Downes, O'Reilly, Mekonnen, Luan, & Localio, 2008). The present paper is a research paper on the juvenile delinquency and mental disorders.

Maltreated youth and delinquent behaviors

Research on risk factors and prevention of youth violence show a greater risk for aggressive behavior and antisocial behaviors among those who experience physical abuse or rejection and neglect from parents (Dahlberg, 1998; Fraser, 1996; Borum, 2000). According to Cusick and colleagues' practical findings, youth who are 16-17 years old and were in out-of-home care at least one year before because of neglect or abuse, report higher involvement in delinquent or criminal behaviors than the general majority youth. For most offences, youth in out-of-home care engage in at least twice that of the comparison group for both the minor delinquent and criminal behaviors. The offending pattern curve has highest delinquency level at ages of 17-18 and declines later into early adulthood. This general offending curve has fewer differences between out-of-home care and normal peers, but the behaviors of damaging property, stealing something worth more than $50, taking part in a group fight, and pulling a knife or gun on someone are more reported from youth in out-of-home care. At the age 19, youth in out-of-home care engaged in more violent offending, with "nearly a quarter participating in a group fight and six percent is having pulled a knife or gun on someone (Cusick, Courtney, Havlicek, & Hess, 2010, p. 35)." In the age group of 21-22, there is less difference between out-of-home care youth and their peers, but they differ significantly on some offenses, like damaging property, burglary, and pulling a knife or gun on someone (Cusick, Courtney, Havlicek, & Hess, 2010).

Although youth in out-of-home care service reported some delinquent or criminal behaviors more than their peers at some ages, the overall delinquency curve is no different compared to the normal majority. Both out-of-home care youth and normal peers show a pattern of delinquency reaching the highest level during late adolescence and declining during the early transition to adulthood. This behavior pattern matches what criminologists describe as the "age-crime curve." During adolescence, delinquent behaviors onset around the age of 12 or 13 where delinquency shows a sharp and steady incline (Beaver, 2009). During middle adolescence, almost all youth are involved in at least one minor delinquent act, like alcohol drinking or smoking. Later into the ages of 18 and 19, the delinquent behaviors begin to decrease sharply and by the mid-to-late twenties most people who previously conducted delinquent behaviors desist and return to normal behaviors.

Maltreatment, Family and Childhood

A child's social development is deeply rooted in very complex interactions with friends, family, peers, teachers and neighborhoods (Fraser, 1996). Children's behavior problems have long been considered precursors of juvenile delinquency and adult criminality (Broidy, et al., 2003). A number of studies indicate that disruptive or troublesome behaviors in childhood can predict delinquent or criminal behaviors in later adolescence and adulthood, including violent offending and non-violent offending (Broidy, et al., 2003; Fraser, 1996; Herrenkohl, Maguin, Hill, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalano, 2000; Wilson, Stover, & Berkowitz, 2009; Tremblay, 2000). For example, physical aggression and violent behaviors, the most socially costly acts, show remarkable continuity during life (Broidy, et al., 2003; Fraser, 1996).

The National Research Council defines violence as "behaviors that intentionally threaten, attempt, or inflict physical harm on others" (Council, 1993). This type of behavior has characteristics that distinguish it from minor delinquent behaviors. Illegal violent behavior includes physical assault, threatening behavior, robberies, possessing an offensive weapon, and other physically harmful behaviors. Unlike violent behaviors, nonviolent behaviors purportedly have less physical harm. For example, stealing, burglary, vandalism, fraud and drug use are nonviolent acts. Many scholars consider aggressive behaviors to be generated in early childhood and to exhibit a great deal of stability across time (Fraser, 1996; Farrell & Flannery, 2006; Herrenkohl, Maguin, Hill, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalano, 2000; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989; Reid & Patterson, 1989).

Factors that lead to youth violence are complex and developmental. And some investigators indicate that the risks relating to youth violence may play different roles at different development stages (Dahlber & Potter, 2001; Herrenkohl, Maguin, Hill, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalano, 2000). Among the multiplicity of social factors that have significant effect on child development, family is considered the most crucial element in shaping early childhood behavior (Fraser, 1996; Farrell & Flannery, 2006). Those children who are more violent often hail the families where parents did not supervise children consistently, used harsh punishment, exhibited neglect in rewarding and placing limits, and where negative parent-children relationships are observable (Patterson, Capaldi, & Bank, 1991).

As Fraser explains (1996), children often react to parents' requests undesirably, such as when parents ask a child to turn off the TV and crying or yelling occurs. At this moment, unskillful parents usually implement the coercive method to handle the child-parent interaction. Because coercion is modeled and acquiescence frequently follows resistance, children learn that aggression pays. Children will increase the frequency of aggressive strategies in following interactions, and gradually children will escape punishment and more often continue to confront parents' management. Without intervention, in the long run, aggressive behavior will continue to increase. This is a relatively common family interaction process.

A more serious situation is children living with an abusive or neglectful family and this may lead to more problematic behaviors during the following years. For example, Dembo, Williams, Wothke, Schmeidler and Brown (1992) found that child maltreatment experiences were stronger predictors than socioeconomic status of delinquent behaviors. Research suggests that children that witness violence or physical abuse during childhood have a risk of violent behavior during adolescence as mush as 40% higher (Elliott, 1994). It appears that children who grow up in families where violence and other antisocial behaviors are modeled consistently by siblings or parents are more likely to engage in violence. Living with a family member with antisocial norms and values, also has a negative effect (Herrenkohl, Maguin, Hill, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalano, 2000). This is partly because aggression and violence are modeled for children frequently. As a result, these children lack effective internal controls (Wilson, Stover, & Berkowitz, 2009). Also, children exposed to trauma and violence has impaired neurological structures and physiology related to stress responses, affect regulation, memory, social development, and cognition (DeBellis, et al., 1999; Glaser, 2000). As DeBellis and colleagues'(1999) review states, children who suffered from maltreatment in the form of neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse or emotional maltreatment, have problems in delay and exhibit failure of multisystem developmental achievements in behavioral, cognitive and emotional regulation. Maltreated or neglected children have diminished recognition of norms and inhibitions. Consequently, behaviors during later adolescence are built on a poor foundation and lead to relatively unchecked individual will.

Peers and Adolescence

Later into adolescence, youths are exposed to a more complex society beyond the family environment. Among a number of risks predicting youth violence, several factors can be indentified as having strong relationships with adolescent delinquency. These include: individual factors (like biological and psychological factors), family, peers, schools, and community (or neighborhood). As Fraser (1996, p352) summarizes:

"For children who grow up in neighborhoods where schools are weak, where opportunities for success in conventional activities are blocked, where adults are committed to illicit activities, and where gangs offer alternative social roles and financial rewards, violence may be a product of social context in which force and coercion are used routinely to resolve disputes and protect property. Gang-related violence, in particular, appears to be more strongly associated with local economic, school, and peer factors than with biological and family factors." (Fraser, 1996, p. 352).

In the period of adolescence, youth may experience the demands of physical, psychological and social pressures. They begin to distance themselves from the parental authorized world, and to develop new identities and independence. The first key factor in transforming family-centered life to socially involved life is peer relationships. A number of studies indicate that peer relationships play an extremely significant role in understanding and assessing youthful aggressive behavior (Borum, 2000; Fraser, 1996; Elliott, 1994; Herrenkohl, Maguin, Hill, Hawkins, Abbott, & Catalano, 2000; Dahlberg, 1998). The factors of early exposure to violence, weak self-regulation, negative family controls and aggressive behavior tendencies can influence youthful choices of which type of friend they want. There are two results of "making friends." One result is to be accepted by the group, and if the support from friends is positive, it definitely can shape adolescent's emotional and social development well; but if the feedback from friends is negative, especially if peer demands for conformity include strong social pressures for engaging in risk behaviors, the risk of antisocial behaviors is exacerbated. Usually, the delinquent behavior in a group is not solely an individual decision; more often it is a group delinquent phenomenon (Dahlberg & Potter, 2001; Dahlberg, 1998). This kind of group phenomenon was proved by Thornberry and colleagues' study (1993). Their study showed that compared to non-gang members, gang members have lower rates of delinquent behavior before they enter a gang, and have higher rates of delinquent behavior when they are in gang. Moreover, they are back to lower rates of delinquent behavior when they left gang.

Within a group, delinquent or violent behaviors show up and are accepted gradually, violent behavior is then encouraged and rewarded; eventually, one's group processes shape justifications for crime (Elliott, 1994). Youth rejected by peers also are more likely to join delinquent peer groups (Dahlberg & Potter, 2001). In order to be accepted by delinquent groups, youth are likely to engage in behaviors that show common interests with delinquent peers, including mild delinquency. In the extreme case of gang involved youth, friendship often is developed with heavy delinquency, and in some cases, violent behavior is respected as ritual and establishes hierarchy (Elliott, 1994).

Aging into Early Adulthood

As Cusick and colleagues' (2010) demonstrate, the pattern of offending among youth by age is almost the same as that in the general population, as offending declines when entering early adulthood. The general offending pattern therefore is worth addressing.

Moffit's classic study on antisocial behaviors divides delinquency behaviors into two types: adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent (Moffit, 1993). Moffitt hypothesized that life-course-persistent delinquents could be distinguished from adolescence-limited ones in terms of neuropsychological deficits, especially in verbal skills and executive functions, biologically-based personality factors and environmental adversity. Adolescence-limited delinquents, on the other hand, were hypothesized to engage in antisocial behaviors as a social group phenomenon. We see from the factors related to life-course-persistent offending that environmental adversity perhaps is the most feasible place for intervention. Environments may be easier to change than stable thinking or biology. As Elliott's early review indicates, the successful transition into adult roles, like employment, marriage and parenting, reduces the chance of violent behaviors (Elliott, 1994). He points out that the rate of crime continuity was low after youth entering into adulthood, and there were no differences in rate of crime continuity by race among those people who were employed at age 21. This finding suggests that in adulthood, environmental influence has more powerful affects than other biological or social factors.