Socioeconomic Status, Parenting Style, and Juvenile Recidivism - Research Paper Example

Socioeconomic Status, Parenting Style, and Juvenile Recidivism December 9, Summary Juvenile offending and repeated juvenile offending are significant social and public health concerns because a proportion of these offenders (ranging from 25% to 60%) suffer from mental/emotional/psychological problems that may cause delinquency, as well as recidivism (Ryan, Williams, & Courtney, 2013; Taylor & Fritsch, 2015). This research answers the following research questions: Does parenting and socioeconomic status affect recidivism rates among juveniles? What are the prevalence, causes, and kinds of crimes of recidivating youth? What are the treatment programs, including court decisions, for recidivating youth and how do they affect juvenile recidivism? Some studies showed that socioeconomic status interacted with parenting when influencing risks for juvenile delinquency. In addition, individual psychopathology could interact with poor family conditions when influencing recidivism. Moreover, poor parenting can increase the rate of juvenile recidivism, probably due to lack of positive parenting practices, including engagement and support. As for the prevalence of recidivism, it can range from 23% to almost 70%, depending on offenses and other factors. The causes and correlates for recidivism among juvenile delinquents are connected to mental health issues, parenting, gender, and poverty predicted juvenile recidivism. These studies further suggest that violent offenders are at risk of reoffending at more violent crimes, although the treatment they received during their processing or incarceration may reduce recidivism. Treatment programs vary in terms of goals and provision of different long-term or short-term services. Long-term treatments that address individual and sub-group needs and have family or social aspects are more effective than short-term treatment. In addition, harsher sentencing with imprisonment increased recidivism. Scholars recommended long-term rehabilitation programs that fit individual and subgroup needs. Contents Summary 1 Socioeconomic Status, Parenting Style, and Juvenile Recidivism 4 Theories of Juvenile Delinquency 4 Socioeconomic Classes, Parenting, and Juvenile Delinquency 5 Recidivism among Juvenile Delinquents 7 Prevalence of Recidivism 7 Causes of Recidivism 8 Kinds of Crimes during Recidivism 9 Treatment Programs 10 Treatment Programs and Effect on Recidivism 10 Juvenile Courts: Punishment and Deterrence 10 Conclusion 11 References 12 Socioeconomic Status, Parenting Style, and Juvenile Recidivism Juvenile offending and repeated juvenile offending are serious social and public health concerns because a proportion of these offenders (ranging from 25% to 60%) suffer from mental/emotional/psychological problems that may cause delinquency, as well as recidivism (Ryan, Williams, & Courtney, 2013; Taylor & Fritsch, 2015). Studies noted that recidivism (i.e. repetition of criminal actions) is high among juvenile delinquents because of deeply-rooted social systems and situational factors that disable them from finding legitimate pathways for individual changes (Joseph, 1995; McDaniel, 2015; Mulder et al., 2010). Though the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) asserted that there is no national juvenile recidivism rate because of variations in how state justice systems define, measure, and report it (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014), some studies showed that 25% to 60% of those with prior arrests would reoffend before reaching 18 years old (McDaniel, 2015, p. 5; Mennis et al., 2011). Reoffending is prevalent among youth offenders, which underscores the importance of studying its causes and evaluating the effectiveness of treatment programs and the role of courts in affective recidivism. This research answers the following research questions: Does parenting and socioeconomic status affect recidivism rates among juveniles? What are the prevalence, causes, and kinds of crimes of recidivating youth? What are the treatment programs, including court decisions, for recidivating youth and how do they affect juvenile recidivism? Socioeconomic Status, Parenting Style, and Juvenile Recidivism Theories of Juvenile Delinquency Structural strain theory, originally from Merton (1938), believes that delinquency is a product of individual frustration with social and economic conditions (Joseph, 1995, pp. 475-476). Merton (1938) stresses that, even if the American society promotes culturally- and socially-determined goals, it does not offer equal opportunities for attaining them for the lower class (as cited in Joseph, 1995, p. 476). As a result, some of the lower class use criminal methods to attain the same socioeconomic goals (Joseph, 1995, p. 476). Cohen (1955) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) expanded Merton’s strain theory by saying that people who are alienated from these legitimate means for success establish criminal subcultures for support and recognition (as cited in Joseph, 1995, p. 476). Children are at risk of being juvenile delinquents if they belong to the lower class, intend to attain high socioeconomic aspirations, and find it hard to reach these goals using legitimate means. Another set of theories, apart from the structural strain model, are the social control theories, which assert that the tendency to become delinquent is natural, but people learn to conform to what is right due to social controls that society imposes on individuals (Joseph, 1995, p. 476). Juvenile delinquency happens when social controls are missing or weak (Joseph, 1995, p. 476). One of the most tested social control theories comes from Hirschi, the social bonding theory, which he developed in 1969. Hirschi believed that social bonds stop people from deviating (Joseph, 1995, p. 476). Social bonds are composed of attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief, and, when they are weaker, delinquent behavior can develop (Joseph, 1995, p. 476). Hirschi recommended that stronger attachments to parents, schools, and conforming peers are important deterrent factors to juvenile delinquency (Joseph, 1995, p. 476). Aside from social control theories, the differential association theory asserts that crime happens due to learning delinquent norms and behaviors (Joseph, 1995, p. 477). Sutherland (1939) asserted that delinquency is learned through social association (as cited in Joseph, 1995, p. 477). Learning includes learning crime techniques, including the motives, drivers, and justifications of crimes (Joseph, 1995, p. 477). Youths who have delinquent friends and who live in communities with high criminal rates tend to be delinquent too. Joseph (1995) mentioned that several studies found a correlation between the number of delinquent friends and individual delinquency (p. 477). The differential association theory asserts the impact of social factors to individual criminal behavior. Socioeconomic Classes, Parenting, and Juvenile Delinquency Some studies showed that socioeconomic status interacted with parenting when influencing risks for juvenile delinquency. Barrett and Katsiyannis (2015) used archival data from South Carolinas juvenile justice agency to explore race differences in the predictors of recidivism for around 100,000 youth who were referred due to criminal records. Their research used the independent variables of adverse parenting, mental health, educational disabilities, and characteristics of first offenses. Findings showed that these independent variables affected more than 25% of the difference in recidivism for both young black and white participants. The same study noted that the following all predicted juvenile recidivism for both black and white youth: male gender, eligibility for free or reduced school lunch, getting a diagnosis for mental disorder, recipient of Child Protective Services, and school identification for emotional or behavioral disorders or learning disabilities. Despite similarities, Barrett and Katsiyannis (2015) learned some differences, wherein mental health and features of the first offense were stronger predictors of recidivism for white youth than blacks, while the stronger predictors for blacks were gender, free or reduced lunch eligibility, and school identification of emotional or behavioral disorders. This study shows how mental/emotional health issues, parenting, poverty, and gender could be seen as potential causative factors for recidivism. Mulder et al. (2010) confirmed the findings of Barrett and Katsiyannis (2015) regarding the interrelationships among mental health, characteristics of first offenses, family problems, and recidivism, but added social network and substance abuse variables. Mulder et al. (2010) studied the optimal classification of risk factors and evaluated the predictive value of their effects, in connection to the severity of recidivism for serious juvenile offenders. They obtained recidivism data for 728 juvenile offenders. Findings showed that, among the factors of sexual problems, antisocial actions during treatment, family issues, psychological pathology, offense features, level of conscience and empathy, intellectual and social abilities, social network, and substance abuse, antisocial behavior during treatment, family problems and psychopathology were related to the seriousness of recidivism. Mulder et al. (2010) showed how individual psychopathology could interact with poor family conditions when influencing recidivism. Another study emphasized the role of parental factors in juvenile recidivism. Williams and Smalls (2015) analyzed the effect of parenting practices on juvenile recidivism. They interviewed 91 parents of juvenile delinquents who recidivated and who were first time offenders. Findings showed that parents who had low parental monitoring and involvement had children who were more predisposed to juvenile delinquency, and that lower use of positive parenting and higher rate of permissive supervision, poor parental monitoring practices, and inconsistent discipline practices were connected with higher recidivism. The study showed how poor parenting can increase the rate of juvenile recidivism, probably due to lack of positive parenting practices, including engagement and support. Recidivism among Juvenile Delinquents Prevalence of Recidivism The Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report, funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, stated that the U.S. has not determined a national juvenile recidivism rate (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 111). The report noted that states differed in measuring, collecting data of, and reporting juvenile recidivism, thus, comparing juvenile recidivism rates across states may result to inaccurate findings (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014, p. 111). Studies then reported recidivism per state or according to the specific samples they used. Mennis et al. (2011) gathered recidivism data from the Program Development and Evaluation System (ProDES) database, from the Crime and Justice Research Institute at Temple University in Philadelphia. They defined recidivating cases as those who experienced arrest and charges, six months after finishing the court-ordered program. These charges range from felony offenses to probation violations. Findings showed that the recidivism rate for 11,016 cases was 23.4 percent (Mennis et al., 2011, p. 178). Ryan et al. (2013) compared youth demographics and risk assessment outcomes for three groups of young offenders. Delinquency pertained to “youth with no official history of neglect” (Ryan et al., 2013, p. 458). Crossover youth had “at least one substantiated allegation of neglect prior to the initial juvenile arrest, but the child welfare case is closed at the time of initial arrest” (Ryan et al., 2013, p. 458). Dually involved youth had “an open and ongoing case with child welfare and a substantiated allegation of neglect at the time of initial arrest” (Ryan et al., 2013, p. 458). Findings showed that dually involved youth were at greatest risk of recidivism: Within 18 months from the date of initial arrest, approximately 61 % experience a subsequent arrest. In comparison, 51 % of crossover youth and 49 % of delinquent youth recidivated within the same time period. A majority (67 %) of the subsequent offenses occurred prior to the youth turning 18 years of age. (Ryan et al., 2013, p. 460). This study showed how having contact with the juvenile justice system can have recidivism effects. All these studies demonstrated a wide range of recidivism prevalence rate, depending on various personal, interpersonal, and other social factors. Causes of Recidivism The causes and correlates for recidivism among juvenile delinquents are connected to poverty and housing problems. Mennis et al. (2011) noted that those who recidivated remained in the poverty line and had problems finding and keeping homes. They did not find a connection between race and recidivism. Williams and Smalls (2015) learned that poor parenting and poverty can cause recidivism. These studies stress that being poor and having unstable housing could cause recidivism among the youth, since they were returning to the same conditions that caused their first offense. Other studies suggested that mental health issues, parenting, gender, and poverty predicted juvenile recidivism. Mulder et al. (2010) observed from their study that antisocial behavior during treatment, family problems, and psychopathology were related to the seriousness of recidivism. Barrett and Katsiyannis (2015) showed that these all predicted juvenile recidivism for both black and white youth: male gender, eligibility for free or reduced school lunch, getting a diagnosis for mental disorder, recipient of Child Protective Services, and school identification for emotional or behavioral disorders or learning disabilities. Nevertheless, Barrett and Katsiyannis (2015) learned that, while mental health and features of the first offense were stronger recidivism predictors for White youth than Blacks, the stronger predictors for Blacks were gender, free or reduced lunch eligibility, and school identification of emotional or behavioral disorders. Ryan et al. (2013) studied if neglect was associated with moderate and high risk juvenile recidivism in Washington. Neglect refers to the “failure by the caregiver to provide needed, age-appropriate care although financially able to do so or offered financial or other means to do so” (Ryan et al., 2013, p. 455). Their sampling was diverse and included 19,833 juvenile offenders. Findings showed that adolescents with cases of neglect were more likely to reoffend than those with no history of neglect. These studies underscore that individual psychopathology, poverty, and parenting can predict recidivism. Kinds of Crimes during Recidivism Different studies showed dissimilar kinds of offenses before and after recidivism. Mennis et al. (2011) learned that, when juveniles were delinquent, drug offenses, personal offenses, homicides, and weapon offenses were part of their crimes, while those who recidivated included personal offenses and drug offenses (p. 185). From this sampling, those who did not have violent offenses did not reoffend with more violent offenses, but simply repeated past crimes. In Mulder et al.’s (2010) study that focused on serious juvenile offenders, 79.9% or 582 juveniles re-offended after leaving the institution. When misdemeanors, drug possession and vandalism were removed, 510, or 70%, reoffended (Mulder et al., 2010, p. 32). Around 63% reoffended with violent offenses, 38% with sexual offenses, while 10% conducted very serious charges of manslaughter to murder (Mulder et al., 2010, p. 32). This study is different because it focused on serious juvenile offenders, which showed that majority of them offended and minority conducted very violent crimes upon recidivating. These studies suggest that violent offenders are at risk of reoffending at more violent crimes, although the treatment they received during their processing or incarceration may reduce recidivism (McDaniel, 2015). Treatment Programs Treatment Programs and Effect on Recidivism Treatment programs vary in terms of goals and provision of different long-term or short-term services. McDaniel (2015) studied if the Possible Selves (PS) curriculum was effective in reducing recidivism. Hock, Schumaker, and Deshler (2003) developed PS which has seven lessons that teach the youth in improving self-determination, motivation, and goal setting (McDaniel, 2015, p. 7). McDaniel (2015) recruited 17 youth, aged 13 to 18 years old. They stayed at a long-term facility beforehand with a 35% recidivism rate. Findings showed that recidivism after PC was 21%, a drop of 14% in recidivism. McDaniel (2015) stressed that this showed a “29%–55% decrease from the national recidivism average” (p. 12). She concluded that short-term juvenile justice centers are not enough to provide the needed skills and emotional and psychological factors needed to prevent reoffending among transient youth offenders. Juvenile Courts: Punishment and Deterrence Harsher sentencing or decisions can increase juvenile recidivism. Correctional confinement, in particular, can result to recidivism because of abuses under this system. The 2011 report, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, showed that imprisoning the youth did not address youth crime. It learned that substantial reliance on correctional confinement increases risks of maltreatment for the youth, which boosts recidivism (Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities, n.d., p. 2). The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics published the 2013 national survey regarding sexual victimization of confined youth (Maltreatment of Youth, n.d., p. 23). Their sampling included 9,000 youth who were jailed in state-operated or state-funded juvenile corrections facilities. Findings showed that 9.5 percent reported being “victimized sexually by staff or other youth in their facilities during the prior year” (Maltreatment of Youth, n.d., p. 23). With such abuses, it was not surprising to find lasting effects on recidivism. Several studies showed that courts which gave harsher dispositions led to higher juvenile recidivism. Herz, Ryan, and Bilchik (2010) studied the characteristics of a crossover population that could result to harsher court dispositions and higher recidivism rates. They determined crossover youth as those who had “(1) contact with child protective services and (2) an official report of delinquency or self-reported involvement with delinquency” (Herz et al., 2010, p. 307). Their sampling included 581 crossover offending youths in Los Angeles County. Findings showed “mixed support for race and gender effects on processing outcomes and consistent support for legal factors such as pre-adjudication detention, prior offenses, and offense seriousness” (Herz et al., 2010, p. 316). They learned that “African American and male offenders generally receive harsher outcomes than Caucasian and female offenders,” but findings differed because of variations “on processing stage, geographical location, and type of offender” (Herz et al., 2010, p. 316). Being detained before adjudication, prior history of offending, and the seriousness of the crime also predicted harsher sentencing (Herz et al., 2010, p. 316). Findings also showed that harsher sentencing increased recidivism among the youth. Mulder et al. (2010) stressed the importance of the court’s ability to render decisions based on subgroups, instead of treating youth offenders as a homogenous population. These studies showed that harsh sentencing and lack of proper treatment per individual and subgroups can result to recidivism among youth offenders. Conclusion Based on these findings, poverty, poor parenting, mental/emotional problems, and having peers or being in neighborhoods with high criminality can increase recidivism. If offenders are going back to the same environment that affected their first offense, they would be most likely to reoffend because of the same problems. Scholars recommended family and social solutions that can address the environmental conditions of juvenile offenses (Barrett & Katsiyannis, 2015; Maltreatment of Youth, n.d.). They also want juvenile courts to be more lenient and offer treatment programs that address specific individual and subgroup needs. They stressed that imprisonment increases recidivism, due to experiences of maltreatment and increasing access to criminal elements and their social networks and behaviors. They recommended long-term rehabilitation programs that fit individual and subgroup needs. Thus, recidivism is a large concern, especially among serious youth offenders, which cannot be resolved by confinement alone, but which requires long-term attention and investment from the government, families, and local communities. References Barrett, D. E., & Katsiyannis, A. (2015). Juvenile delinquency recidivism: Are black and white youth vulnerable to the same risk factors? Behavioral Disorders, 40(3), 184-195. Herz, D.C., Ryan, J.P., & Bilchik, S. (2010). Challenges facing crossover youth: An examination of juvenile-justice decision making and recidivism. Family Court Review, 48(2), 305-321. Joseph, J. (1995). Juvenile delinquency among African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 25(4), 475-491. Maltreatment of Youth in U.S. Juvenile Corrections Facilities - The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2015, from http://www.aecf.org/resources/maltreatment-of-youth-in-us-juvenile-corrections-facilities/?gclid=CJinsYWuwcgCFUmUfgod9dAFzw McDaniel, S. (2015). A self-determination intervention for youth placed in a short-term juvenile detention facility. Journal of Correctional Education, 66(3), 5-15. Mennis, J., Harris, P.W., Obradovic, Z., Izenman, A.J., Grunwald, H.E., & Lockwood, B. (2011). The effect of neighborhood characteristics and spatial spillover on urban juvenile delinquency and recidivism. Professional Geographer, 63(2), 174-192. Mulder, E., Brand, E., Bullens, R., & Van Marle, H. (2010). A classification of risk factors in serious juvenile offenders and the relation between patterns of risk factors and recidivism. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 20(1), 23-38. doi:10.1002/cbm.754 Ryan, J., Williams, A., & Courtney, M. (2013). Adolescent neglect, juvenile delinquency and the risk of recidivism. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 42(3), 454-465. Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (eds.). (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report. National Center for Juvenile Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf Taylor, R., & Fritsch, E. (2015). Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and practices (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Williams, R. G., & Smalls, E. W. (2015). Exploring a relationship between parental supervision and recidivism among juvenile offenders at a juvenile detention facility. International Social Science Review, 90(2), 1-22. Read More