The relationship between social welfare programs and juvenile crime rates

¶ … Social Welfare State and Juvenile Crimes

Youth Offenders and Social Welfare: An Evaluation of the Relationship between the Social Welfare State and Juvenile Crimes

Despite some reductions in various types of juvenile crime during the late 1990s and early 2000s, the problem of youthful crime has once again resurfaced as a national priority. When something is made a priority, though, it is by definition supposed to get better, but this has not been the case with youth offenders and the lower socioeconomic background that characterizes the lives of the majority of them. According to Everett and Chadwell (2009), U.S. Department of Justice statistics indicate that juvenile crime remains a national social problem in the United States today. In fact, Everett and Chadwell report that, "In 2000 alone, over 2.3 million juveniles were arrested for criminal offenses; since 1980, juvenile arrest rates have increased 36% for aggravated assault and 64% for drug violations" (p. 39). Despite the urgency and nature of the problem, juvenile delinquency remains largely the provenance of government and academia at present. In fact, Mincey and Maldonado point out, "Community members are [only] gradually [becoming] more aware of this growing epidemic and its impact on communities and family lives" (2008, p. 8).

Complex problems, of course, require complex solutions and helping youthful offenders from impoverished backgrounds identify alternatives to crime when few or no other opportunities exist remains a challenge for government organizations at all levels, as well as the communities in which these young people live. In this regard, Mincey and Maldonado conclude that, "This issue requires the attention of both policy makers and citizens given the deleterious impact of juvenile recidivism on youth and their communities, notwithstanding their shared or mutually exclusive viewpoints" (2008, p. 9).

In response to continuing large increases in the numbers of youthful offenders across the country, the proposed study will provide a comprehensive review of the relevant peer-reviewed and scholarly secondary literature to determine the extent to which, if any, a relationship exists between the social welfare state (including characteristic programs such as food stamps; women, infants and children assistance; and poverty-related initiatives) and youthful crimes.

Purpose of the Study

The overarching purpose of the proposed study will be to determine whether youth who are subjected to a lifetime of welfare, including handouts from the government and free social programs, are more likely to commit crimes than their mainstream peers who do not receive such governmental assistance.

Hypothesis

The proposed study's hypothesis and null hypotheses are as follows:

H1:

There will be a direct correlation between the poverty level of a community and its juvenile crime rate.

N1:

There will be no direct correlation between the poverty level of a community and its juvenile crime rate.

Tentative Timeline

A tentative timeline for the completion of the proposed study is set forth in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Timeline of proposed research and study conclusion

ACTIVITIES/TASKS

TIME (MONTHS) (2013-2014)

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

1

Bibliographic Searches

X

X

2

Photocopy info from non-bibliographic sources

X

X

3

Reading

X

X

X

4

Submission of study proposal

X

5

Fine tune research question and methodology

X

X

8

Data collection

X

X

X

X

9

Data analysis

X

X

X

X

10

Writing up of study

X

X

11

Revision, editing and submission

X

12

Submission of study

X

X

Literature Review

The research concerning the relationship between youthful offenders and their socioeconomic background has a fairly lengthy history, beginning in the late 19th century and becoming more intensified thereafter. Much of this research has regarded the problem of juvenile delinquency as being multifaceted, of course, but there is a general consensus that a lack of social services resources and a dearth of meaningful educational employment opportunities have contributed to the problem which are the responsibilities of the government (Ellis, 2011). In reality, though, the focus on youths at risk of becoming involved with the law enforcement community is relatively recent in origin. For example, the publication of the National Commission on Excellence in Education's 1983 study, A Nation at Risk, caused educators and governmental policymakers to attempt to identify the country's at-risk youth populations for the first time in an effort to reverse the tide of declining test scores and growing dropout rates that were the major antecedents to success later in life (Fusick & Bordeau, 2009).

In this context, young people are regarded as being at risk for social and academic failure as well as increased involvement with the criminal justice system when their potential for realizing their full academic and professional potential as responsible and productive adults is restricted by barriers such as poverty, illicit drug use and a lack of parental supervision (Fusick & Bordeau, 2009). Indeed, the research to date suggests that the most accurate predictor of involvement in youth crime is ineffective parenting. In this regard, Bogenschneider (2004) reports that, "Researchers have learned that 30% to 40% of the antisocial behavior of early offenders, who are those most likely to become violent and chronic offenders later, can be tied to harsh, inconsistent parenting during the preschool years" (p. 59).

Other authorities add a virtual laundry list of other factors that have been shown to contribute to increased involvement by youth people with the law enforcement community. For instance, Everett and Chadwell (2002) report that, "The term 'at-risk' has become controversial and somewhat of a cliche in recent years, as it has been applied to a wide range of youths, including juvenile offenders, school dropouts, drug abusers, teenage mothers, premature infants, and adolescents with personality disorders" (p. 39). The overarching issue that emerges from the secondary data, though, is that socioeconomic factors play an important role in shaping young people's behaviors, with virtually all of the youthful offending being tied to the same factors that are characteristic of a social welfare state. For instance, according to Hornel, Freiberg and Lamb (2009), a growing body of research since the publication of A Nation at Risk confirms that one of the most significant antecedents to youthful criminal behaviors is an impoverished background. In this regard, Hornel et al. report that, "Impulsivity, low school achievement, poor parental child-rearing practices, and poverty have all been identified as key predictors of involvement in juvenile crime" (2009, p. 2).

Although each of these key predictors of involvement with the law enforcement community is highly intractable to interventions, they must all be dealt with in order to achieve meaningful outcomes. For example, Bogenschneider and Gross (2004) emphasize that, "At first blush, risky adolescent behaviors like juvenile crime can seem intractable and impervious to policy responses. Policy makers are inundated with information whose sheer volume and complexity can be overwhelming" (p. 19). Moreover, juvenile crime is not the result of a single cause or even a multitude of causes that can be identified with precision (Bogenschneider & Gross, 2004).

In this regard, O'Connor and Trest (1999) point out that, "The problem of serious, chronic, and violent juvenile offenders arises at the nexus of numerous social welfare issues because these youths tend to grow up in environments in which both family structures and opportunity structures have deteriorated" (p. 1299). This point is also made by Weatherburn and Lind (2000) who suggest that addressing the problem of youth crime at the local, regional and national levels must first begin with its primary antecedents: poverty and unemployment. For example, Weatherburn and Lind note that, "The notion that we can reduce crime by programs designed to reduce poverty and unemployment hardly needs introduction or defense. The provision of income support undoubtedly reduces the level of economic stress [making] it an effective long-term crime prevention strategy" (p. 160).

In such deprived environments, it is not surprising that many young people resort to behaviors that inevitably involve them with law enforcement authorities. As O'Connor and Trest conclude, "Poverty, inadequate housing/education, racism, child abuse, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, alcoholism, and endless other social ills can push youths onto paths of violent and criminal behavior. Eradicating juvenile crime without addressing its relationship to these other issues is an impossibility" (p. 1300).

It would be disingenuous, of course, to suggest that poverty must first be solved before social priorities can move on to juvenile crime, but it is important to note that the problem's causes are multifaceted and dynamic, and differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making the application of "one size fits all" solutions inappropriate, and indeed impossible. It would also be disingenuous to argue that social services programs should be withheld for fear of their doing more harm than good. Nevertheless, the relationship between socioeconomic factors and youth crime is well established but its exact solution remains elusive. The problem of identifying an effective solution is further complicated by prevailing social attitudes in the United States concerning these issues. For instance, Allen (2007) emphasizes that, "As a nation we tout our children as our hope for the future and our most cherished asset. We exhort the global village to share responsibility in their upbringing. Yet as a nation, we tolerate the highest child poverty rate of any nation in the developed world" (p. 28).

Likewise, these topsy-turvy priorities extend to how educators are paid and regarded compared to other professionals in the United States. In this regard, Allen adds that, "As a nation, people to whom we entrust our children, are paid less, are less regulated, and perhaps most significantly, are less respected in their fields than other professionals and nonprofessionals alike" (2007, p. 28). With many teachers in America struggling to make it from paycheck to paycheck, the results of these misguided economic priorities have included many teachers searching for greener career fields elsewhere and many children being left behind despite the mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (Allen, 2007).

Federal mandates for social programs for housing, Social Security, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Medicaid, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income programs together with state and local initiatives for women, children and infants (WIC) have all been cited as characteristic of a social welfare state with the intended outcome being reduced poverty and improved social and employment opportunities that will reduce the need for young people to resort to crime in the first place (Flammang, 1997). There are few Americans who would likely argue with the need to feed hungry infants, children and women, but some critics charge that the social welfare system only perpetuates reliance on government assistance without providing any incentive for recipients to change their lives for the better.

Indeed, not everyone is of a like mind when it comes to the provision of these social services, though, because the efforts thus far have met with mixed results, with some initiatives proving dismal failures and others where the reforms have actually done more harm than good in others (Flamming, 1997). As a result, many Americans view current efforts to reduce juvenile crime by simply throwing more money after bad at the problem as unwarranted, and for good reason. For instance, according to Weatherburn and Lind (2000), "In some quarters, however, there is a view that direct Government efforts to reduce poverty and unemployment are doomed to failure. American expenditure on such programs nearly doubled in real terms between 1950 and 1980 but, despite this, from the early 1970s onwards poverty levels in the United States began to rise" (p. 127). These perplexing outcomes fly directly in the face of common sense, but these unintended and unexpected outcomes have nevertheless continued to adversely affect the poor despite governmental efforts at all levels to reduce poverty and the conditions that contribute to it (Weatherburn & Lind, 2000).

These recent trends have been matched by an increasingly aggressive stance by the law enforcement community against youthful offenders. According to Brown (2009), "Instead of indeterminate sentencing and job training, the U.S. criminal justice system is now oriented toward a war on drugs, stiffer sentences, mandatory minimums, and an overall punitive orientation" (p. 103). These trends have also been matched by changesin the American juvenile justice system that are characterized by so-called "get-tough," "zero-tolerance" and "accountability" policies in primary and secondary educational institutions (Brown, 2009). In fact, Scott and Steinberg (2008) suggest that the American justice system now "operates on the principle of 'adult time for adult crime'" and "seems to many to take too little note of age and immaturity in calculating criminal punishment" (p. 16). This focus on punishment vs. rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system represents a sea change in direction compared to years past. These changes have "transformed the juvenile court from a nominally rehabilitative social welfare agency into a scaled-down, second-class criminal court for young people" (Brown, 2009, p. 103). In addition, studies have shown that the juvenile justice system continues to adjudicate and incarcerate an inordinate number of minorities youths compared to their white mainstream counterparts (Brown, 2009).

Indeed, Cooper (2009) reports that today's social welfare state is similar to England during the 1830s for one fundamental reason: the fact that America's impoverished people are simply forgotten by mainstream society, and are viewed as being as inferior second class because of their reliance on social welfare, especially food stamps and subsidized housing. In the Land of Opportunity, the theory goes, anyone and everyone can and should get a job -- even a minimum wage job -- and work themselves into a better life and those that fail to do so and not worthy of the American Dream. According to Cooper, although the poor in the United States are provided with social workers, subsidized housing, healthcare services and food stamps, among other social services, they remain invisible, ignored and shunned by more affluent Americans. In this regard Cooper also notes that, "America today is in at least one way like the England of the 1830s: most of us see the underclass as a seething, abstract mob" (2009, p. 49).

When individual faces are placed on this "seething, abstract mob," though, a far different picture quickly emerges that indicates that not all young people who are subjected to the conditions of a social welfare state necessarily turn to crime or self-destructive behaviors, and many, perhaps the majority, manage to overcome these constraints to become self-actualized adults with meaningful employment. For far too many young people, though, the resilience to resist these powerful social forces during a critically formative period in their lives compels them to experiment with behaviors that ultimately land them in the hands of the local constabulary as juvenile delinquents. In this regard, Span (2008) reports that, "Juvenile delinquency is defined as the antisocial behavior of a minor, not more than 18 years of age, which is in violation of the general welfare of people in a larger society" (p. 108). Because the human and economic costs that are associated with violent and property crimes committed by juvenile offenders are enormous, it is not surprising that the problem has become the focus of nationwide attention in recent years. As Mincey and Maldonado (2008) report, "Juvenile delinquency and recidivism in America are major issues being debated by federal, state, and local governments. Criminologists and lawmakers consider what can be done to impart intervention and prevention measures" (p. 9).

Although the relationship between youth crime and a social welfare state is well documented, the precise relationship between population size and local juvenile crime rates remains less clear (Carcach & Huntley, 2002). According to Carcach and Huntley, "In the United States, victimization rates increase with population size, but only for total populations up to about 25,000. Population size affects juvenile crime rates only for populations of up to about 4,000 juveniles" (p. 3). Some researchers have examined the correlation between poverty and child neglect and juvenile crime by using reports to law enforcement authorities based on postal codes (Weatherburn & Lind, 2006). The variables developed for the Weatherburn and Lind (2006) study that were analyzed using a regression analysis were as follows:

Neglect: the number of children with at least one notification during the 5-year period 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1991 for either neglect or emotional abuse (but not for physical or sexual abuse), divided by the number of 0- to 15-year-olds resident in the postcode at the 1991 census;

Delinquency: the number of juveniles with at least one court appearance during the 5-year period 1 July 1990 to 30 June 1995 where the most serious offence was a property or violent offence, divided by the number of 10- to 17-year-olds resident in the postcode at the 1991 census;

Poverty: households with an annual income of less than $16,000, as a proportion of all households at the 1991 census;

Geographic mobility: families who had a different address 5 years earlier, as a proportion of all families at the 1991 census;

Ethnic heterogeneity: persons who arrived in Australia less than 5 years previously, and who do not speak English well, as a proportion of all persons at the 1991 census (p. 385).

These researchers found that poverty was the strongest predictor of neglect, but was less significant in predicting involvement in juvenile crime. Based on their overall findings, Weatherburn and Lind conclude that, "It is possible that poverty, geographic mobility, ethnic heterogeneity and poor parenting combine to produce both low levels of collective efficacy and, independently, high levels of crime" (2009, p. 386). Likewise, other researchers have examined the relationship between poverty and juvenile crime through literature reviews (Barton & Watkins, 1997), case studies (Bogenschneider & Gross, 2004) and longitudinal studies (Mann & Reynolds, 2006). This body of secondary resources provides a robust source of data that can be mined for fresh insights concerning the relationship between a welfare state and juvenile crime.

Because there are such a diverse range of factors that influence juvenile crime, though, more research is needed to establish the connection between population size and youth crime rates, particularly during periods of rapid demographic change. In this regard, Carcach and Huntley conclude that, "The relationship between population size and crime may be spurious because it reflects displacement of juvenile crime to larger areas with greater opportunities" (2002, p. 4).

More research is also needed concerning the effects of ineffective parenting on youth crime rates. According to Bogenschneider (2002), because many impoverished parents also engage in inappropriate parenting methods, their children fail to learn the social skills they need to successfully navigate their way through school and into a meaningful career. For example, Bogenschneider points out that:

Negative consequences snowball, and these youngsters, who are poorly monitored by their parents, drift into deviant peer groups and increase their use of illegal substances. Over time, they fail to develop the skills for stable work or marriages that might enable them to drop out of crime as an adult. (2002, p. 60)

In a follow-up study, Bogenschneider and Gross (2004) identified a direct relationship to an impoverished socioeconomic background that is characterized by the hallmarks of a social welfare state and the incidence of juvenile delinquency. In this regard, these researchers found that violent juvenile crime is "rooted in harsh, inconsistent parenting during early childhood and later branches out to rejection by peers, poor school performance, involvement in a deviant peer group, substance use, and early arrest" (p. 20). Taken together, it is clear that youthful offending and being the recipient of social services based on impoverished conditions are related, and these results suggest that interventions that are designed for youths only will not be as effective as multidisciplinary approaches that involve the family and peers. As Bogenschneider concludes, "Based on this evidence of family and peer influences on juvenile crime, it is not surprising that programs focusing disproportionately on individual youth have seldom demonstrated lasting success" (2002, p. 60).

What is known for certain is that there are some approaches that have been identified as being effective in at least mitigating the impact of poverty on juvenile crime (Hornel et al., 2009, p. 3). For instance, Hornel and his associates add that, "There is growing evidence that developmental prevention programs can open up opportunities for children and young people and reduce their involvement in crime, especially if they live in disadvantaged communities" (2009, p. 4). A family-focused program for youthful offenders that have a proven track record of success is the Oregon Social Learning Center's Parent Management Training (Hornel et al., 2009). This initiative's primary strength is its focus on early interventions, with the goal of preventing involvement with the criminal justice system before it takes place (Hornet et al., 2009). According to Hornel et al., "This program has been used with aggressive preschoolers and families whose children have, by early adolescence, come to the attention of juvenile justice officials as antisocial and delinquent. As tertiary prevention, it aims to prevent future trouble by these youth" (2009, p. 5). Likewise, the need for a multidisciplinary, family-focused approach to youthful offenders from impoverished backgrounds was highlighted by Bogenschneider and Gross (2004) who cite a paucity of this approach by many practitioners due to a lack of awareness or resources, or a combination of these constraints. According to Bogenschneider and Gross, "Despite growing evidence that family influences on youth development are first and foremost, many in the youth field have been guilty of neglecting the family context" (2004, p. 20). The majority of the programs that have proven successful to date have all emphasized the family component and have included parental training as part of their interventions (Bogenschneider & Gross, 2004).

Finally, a seminal study by Shaw and McKay (1942) employed one square mile sections of Chicago to investigate the relationship between poverty and juvenile crime, and other researchers have since used this method for other geographic units, including wards, police precincts, and census tracts (Ouimet, 2000). In most research cases, the size of the aggregation unit depends on the availability of data (Ouimet, 2000).

In sum, it is clear that youth crime remains a national problem, but some interventions have been developed in recent years that have proven successful in mitigating the effects of an impoverished background on current and future involvement with the criminal justice system. These successful programs can provide a set of best practices for municipalities searching for cost-effective and viable solutions to juvenile crime.

Methods

The proposed study will follow the methods used by Ouimet (2000) to compare the poverty and ethnic homogeneity with the incidence of juvenile crime. As noted in the introduction, the goal of the proposed study is to determine whether youth who are subjected to a lifetime of welfare, including handouts from the government and free social programs, are more likely to commit crimes than their mainstream peers who do not receive such governmental assistance. This analysis, though, is complicated by the availability of relevant data and the differences that exist in crime-reporting processes across the country and between countries.

Sampling

The characteristics of the population to be studied include youths aged 12 to 17 years who had been involved in a criminal activity within the past year in the City of Montreal.

Sampling Unit

The sampling unit to be used in the proposed study is the census block.

Sampling Procedures

The sampling procedures for the proposed study will follow those used in the Ouimet (2000) study wherein the city's population was divided into 84 neighborhoods with an average number of residents of 20,808, ranging from 8,120 to 38,760.

Data Analysis

The proposed study will use SPSS Version 13.0 (Student Version) to analyze the aggregated data, including descriptive statistics for the demographic breakdown of the census tracts, ethnic homogeneity, the juvenile offender rate and the juvenile crime rate.

Expected Results

Based on the preliminary review of the literature as well as recent and current trends in juvenile delinquency levels, the expected results that will be achieved by the study proposed herein include the following:

1. Recent and current trends in youth crime will show an increase in certain types of crimes in Montreal, but not others.

2. There will be a direct relationship shown between youth crime and being subjected to a background that is characteristic of a social welfare state (i.e., recipient of food stamps, reduced or free lunch programs, WIC, etc.).

3. The relationship between youth crime and its various antecedents will be mitigated by various factors, including the level of parental involvement, the type of peer pressure that is experienced, and the type of learning environment that is present in the community's schools.

Discussion/Conclusion

The main contribution of the study proposed herein will be to provide a snapshot of the existing relationship between the variables that characterize a social welfare state and juvenile delinquency. It should be noted, though, that the proposed study is limited in some significant ways because investigating the relationship between participation in a social welfare system and juvenile crime rates is fairly intuitive and straightforward. It just makes common sense that youths who are at disadvantage because of their socioeconomic background will not fare as well as their more affluent counterparts in any society. In fact, studies have demonstrated this relationship time and again. What remains less understood, though, and where the proposed study stands to contribute the most, is the effect social welfare programs have on mitigating or exacerbating this relationship. For example, do young people who come from homes that receive food stamps but have active parental involvement experience less juvenile crime than those that do not? There are also likely other factors that mediate the adverse impact of a welfare state background on involvement with the juvenile justice system that will emerge as a result of the review of the relevant secondary data.