Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This literature review explores the evidence base for effective programs for young offenders, focusing on the reduction of risk factors and the increase of protective factors. The persistence of antisocial behavior in youth, the importance of addressing early problem behaviors, and the impact of various risk factors on re-offending. It also examines the most effective intervention strategies for young offenders, including behavioral programs, social competence programs, and family involvement.
Typology: Study notes
1 / 64
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
Ph 08 8226 8570 Fax 08 8226 8577
gcyp@saugov.sa.gov.au
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
The Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People promotes and protects the rights of children and young people under the age of 18 years under the guardianship, or in the custody of the Minister for Families and Communities. The position of Guardian was established in an amendment to the Children’s Protection Act 1993 proclaimed on 1 February
Young people in custody for remand or detention, by nature of their captivity, are highly vulnerable to the philosophy, policy and practice of youth justice as expressed in their immediate social and physical environment. In South Australia there are two youth training centres, at Cavan and Magill in Adelaide. I have previously reported on the inadequacy of the physical infrastructure of the Magill Youth Training Centre. Both centres are now to be replaced in 2010 with a combined improved facility.
The Youth Justice Directorate in Families SA, Department for Families and Communities, is undergoing significant reform including reiterating their primary role in rehabilitation. Programmes provided to young people who have offended are critical to reducing the likelihood of re-offending. To my knowledge there had been no independent review of programmes available in secure custody in South Australia and I had heard mixed views on the quality of programmes on offer.
In July 2007 I commissioned the Centre for Applied Psychological Research in the School of Psychology, University of South Australia to conduct this review. The researchers’ report was delivered in January 2008. The primary researchers were Associate Professor Andrew Day and Dr Sharon Casey. Ms Linda Davey was involved with the collection and analysis of data from young people. I thank them for a thorough and highly professional job and for their commitment to the broader purpose of the review. The report that follows is their report to me and I endorse the conclusions and recommendations.
I also thank all of the participants in the review and the Families SA Youth Justice Directorate, particularly the managers and staff at the training centres, for their cooperation and contribution. The Director Ms Julie Gunn, and her team have approached this with openness and awareness. The young people who participated demonstrated sincerity and insight that was highly valuable in framing the recommendations.
The recommendations have been accepted by Families SA. I look forward to their implementation and the consequent focused approach to delivering high quality programmes in youth justice.
Pam Simmons Guardian
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
This section of the review contains a detailed account of the published literature relevant to the delivery of effective programmes in youth training centres. This is important for several reasons: first it has been established that some programmes offered to offenders, even when delivered with the best of intentions, can work in opposite ways to those intended. In other words, some programmes increase, rather than decrease, the risk of a young person re- offending. The best examples of this comes from programmes like ‘Scared Straight’ (where young offenders are taken into adult prisons in an attempt to deter them from further offending), and boot camps (highly structured, physically challenging, residential programmes often run on paramilitary lines). Whilst significant efforts and resources have been allocated to the development and delivery of these types of programmes, evaluations have consistently shown that they do not produce the types of outcomes that they were intended to produce. In short, then, it is not always wise to trust our intuitions or personal beliefs about ’what works’ best for juvenile justice clients. Rather there is a need to evaluate different programmes against standard criteria, and base decisions about which programmes to offer on the basis of what can be shown to be the most effective. Indeed, this is the idea that underpins the notion of evidence based practice, and most health and justice organisations around the world would now subscribe to this approach to service delivery. That is not to say that programmes that have not been evaluated do not work, rather that we do not know whether they work. There is clearly an important role for development and pilot programmes, but these programmes should not form the basis for service delivery. By offering programmes that can be demonstrated to be effective, service providers become accountable to external agencies, young people and the community, and all stakeholders can have confidence in the quality of the services being offered.
In this review, the evidence base underpinning effective programmes for young offenders is described. Evidence can come not only from programme evaluations, but also from theories about the causes of juvenile crime. Indeed researchers have shown that programmes that are based on a coherent theory are around six times more effective than programmes that are not. As such the first part of the review is dedicated to a review of different theories of crime. The focus here is on developmental theories of crime (that is, understanding how criminal behaviour changes as people grow older) as these are considered to be the most appropriate types of theory to guide programming decisions in youth justice. A number of different developmental theories are described, although there are many similarities between each of the theories. Each theory seeks to explain the way in which biological, individual, familial, social, and community and cultural factors interact with life events to create a situation where offending may occur. Such theories have led to the identification of both risk and protective factors for offending and how these may change at key transitional points (for example, starting school; moving from primary to high school; leaving school). This work is important as it suggests, theoretically, that if programmes and services can either reduce the number of (or intensity of) risk factors, or increase the number of protective factors, then they are likely to be effective in reducing the probability of a young person offending. In other words the theories offers important suggestions about what programmes should aim to change.
There is now a reasonable body of evaluation research documenting the outcomes of a range of different types of programmes with young offenders. At the same time there are still many gaps in the literature – some of the research is conducted with older age groups (for example, young offenders are classified as from ages 15-21 years in some countries), and there is very
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
This literature review has been written to provide an up to date account of the current status of evidence relating to programmes that are offered to youth justice clients that are likely to reduce the risk of further offending. In any service that purports to be ‘evidence-based’, it is important that decisions around the organisation, structure, and delivery of programmes can be made in the light of what is currently known about programme effectiveness. Evidence can take two forms: theories and models about how to understand the reasons why young people offend, and hence their likely need for intervention; and evaluations of programmes that have been used with juvenile justice clients. This review starts with an overview of current theoretical models of juvenile offending, before examining the evidence for the delivery of certain types of programme. It is suggested that all staff across the Youth Justice Directorate should have some level of familiarity with this literature if they are to design, develop, and support the delivery of effective evidence-based programmes for their clients.
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
In simplistic terms, the role of criminological theory is to inform practice, although the reality is that the interface between the two is not always as straightforward as one might hope. What is a theory of crime? And by what process does that theory get translated into practice? The answer to the first question is relatively easy, at least from an academic perspective: A theory is a set of abstract concepts developed regarding a group of facts or events in order to explain them. Thus, a theory of crime consists of a set of assumptions (for example, about human nature, social structure, the principles of causation), a description of the phenomena to be explained (that is, facts which the theory must fit), and an explanation or prediction of the phenomenon. In order to meet the criterion of being scientific, a theory must be verifiable (that is, based on empirical observation), compatible (that is, is consistent with other well-established information), have predictive power (that is, can generate new ideas through research), parsimonious (that is, account for the phenomenon in a simple/ economic way), and useful (that is, assists our existence in the everyday world). The second question, how a theory is translated into practice, is, perhaps, more difficult to answer. While interventions to reduce offending should be based on knowledge about (1) the causes of crime (that is, theory), and (2) which programmes have been shown to be effective in changing offending behaviour (see Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Gendreau, 2000), it is not always the case that either conditions inform practice. Consider, for example, the ‘theories’ that Latessa, Cullen and Gendreau (2002, p.44) found were either implicit in programmes observed by them or identified by agency staff as the crime causing factors their programmes were targeting.
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
One of the most stable empirical findings to emerge from decades of criminological research is the relationship between age and crime. Criminal behaviour is relatively uncommon in children under ten years of age, despite many children displaying what have been described as ‘precursor behaviours’ during this developmental period (Thornberry, 1997). The onset of actual delinquent and criminal behaviour occurs in late childhood and early adolescence (around the ages of 10 to 14), with the prevalence of criminal involvement peaking during the middle to late adolescent period (that is, 16 to 17 years of age), followed by a rapid decline and subsequent tapering off for most by the early twenties (Brame & Piquero, 2003; Farrington, 1995a; Moffitt, 1993). An important observation here is that minor delinquency during adolescence is statistically normative (Ayers, Williams, Hawkins, Peterson, Catalano & Abbott, 1999), and only a small proportion of young people continue their criminal careers well into adulthood.
An alternative approach to explaining crime is that offered by developmental and life-courses (DLC) theories of offending (for example, Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Farrington, 2005a; Moffitt, 1993, 1997; Sampson & Laub, 1997, 2005; Thornberry, 1997). Developmental theories are dynamic rather than static, and are effectively concerned with three main issues: the development of offending and antisocial behaviour: risk and protective factors at different ages: and the effects of life events on the course of development. More importantly, from a rehabilitative perspective at least, DLC approaches document and explain within-individual variations in offending throughout life; an approach that is more relevant to causes, prevention, and treatment than the between-individual variations articulated in many of the static theories (for example, the demonstration that unemployed people commit more crimes than employed people). The utility of the DLC approach was recently highlighted by Farrington (2007, p.125) who noted that:
DLC theories usually assume that within-individual variations over age in measured offending reflect within-individual variations with age in an underlying theoretical construct such as antisocial potential or criminal propensity. They suggest that the frequency of offending at any age depends not only on the strength of the underlying construct but also on environmental factors such as opportunities and on cognitive (decision-making) processes. Hence, desistance should be influenced by all of these factors.
From a DLC perspective, the focus is on life experiences that mould the individual and send him or her along a particular trajectory or pathway. The various theories generally agree that human development can be understood in terms of four interrelated and fused dimensions (Tobach & Greenberg, 1984). The first is the principle of relative plasticity, which stipulates that the potential for change exists across the lifespan. Second, DLC theorists support the view that the bases for change lie in the relationships that occur within the multiple levels of organisation that constitute human life. Despite variations in how these levels have been conceptualised (for example, Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Ford & Lerner, 1992; Sameroff, 1983), there is a general consensus they include the biological, individual/psychological, social relational (that is, families, peer groups, social networks) and socio-cultural (for example, governments, schools, churches) levels. The third principle is the understanding that no level of human organisation functions in isolation, but rather, each level functions as a consequence of its fusion or inter-relation with other levels. This interdependence means that change at any level will impact upon continuity or discontinuity at another level. Finally, given the dynamic nature of the interaction between these levels of human organisation,
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
individual development is embedded in the historical period of study. Notwithstanding this temporality and individuality, differences within and across all levels are seen as having core and substantive significance with respect to the general understanding of human development.
What the developmental/dynamic perspective illustrates is that criminal behaviour is too heterogeneous to be explained by a common set of factors. A DLC approach assumes that different factors may have different effects on the individual offender at different ages. Moreover, such an approach argues that crime data actually contradicts an age-invariant position that maintains that (1) all antisocial behaviour peaks in late adolescence; (2) there are no substantive individual, cohort, historical, or cultural differences in this relationship; and (3) all antisocial behaviour declines sharply and continuously throughout life (Sampson & Laub, 1995). Thus in attempting to understand the continuity and stability of offending behaviour across the life-span, DLC theorists explore transactions between individual characteristics (for example, cognitive abilities, temperament) and age-graded developmental contexts such as social factors (for example, family and peer relations, school, employment), that can mediate both pro- and antisocial pathways.
Thornberry (1997) has described what he sees as the major advantages to adopting a DLC approach to crime. First, he points out that non-developmental approaches fail to identify and offer explanations for many important aspects of crime, including prevalence; age of onset; duration of offending career; escalation and de-escalation in terms of frequency and seriousness of criminal involvement; and, finally, desistance from crime. Second, while non- developmental approaches examine different causal structures for particular types of offenders (for example, violent versus non-violent), there is a failure to identify types of offenders based on developmental considerations (for example, life-course-persistent versus adolescent-limited offending). DLC approaches offer a way to explain the criminological conundrum that whereas most antisocial children are not destined to become antisocial adults, antisocial adults are most often antisocial children. Third, non-developmental paradigms do not sufficiently examine the precursor behaviour of the young (for example, conduct disorder and antisocial behaviour) or the outcomes of such behaviour. Finally, non- developmental approaches neglect to relate developmental changes, including trajectories and transitions, of the life course as it relates to delinquent behaviour.
The DLC approaches described below can be placed within Loeber and LeBlanc’s (1990) conceptual framework for the development of juvenile offending (see Table 1 below). Where they differ most is their explanations of desistance. Farrington (2005a), for example, has argued that desistance is dependent upon a decrease in antisocial potential caused by life events (for example, marriage, stable employment), while Catalano and Hawkins (1996) see desistance as a function of changes in opportunities, rewards, costs and bonding that are influenced by life events. Sampson and Laub (2005) have argued that it depends on increased social controls and structured routine activities emerge when an individual marries, obtains steady employment, or joins the military, and Moffit (1997) proposes that desistance is a function of adolescent limited offenders achieving adult goals (for example, material goods) and life events, whereas life-course persistent offenders fail to desist, at least in part, because they select antisocial partners and jobs.
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
In contrast, life-course persistent offenders manifest antisocial behaviours at an early age (Henry, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1996; Moffitt, 1993, 1997; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). This small group of offenders, approximately 5%, is characterised by persistence in problem behaviour from childhood through adulthood, with different manifestations of that problem behaviour during different stages of development. This life-course pattern of offending is said to be linked to pre- and peri-natal conditions and factors associated with adverse child rearing conditions during early childhood. According to Moffitt, two types of neuropsychological deficits - verbal intelligence (that is, reading ability, receptive listening, problem-solving skill, memory, speech articulation, and writing) and executive function (manifested as inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity) - give rise to an array of antisocial behaviours. Children with neuropsychological deficits are restless, fidgety, destructive, and noncompliant, using violent outbursts rather than conversation. The persistence of antisocial behaviour over time is attributed to these early problem behaviours tending to limit the child’s opportunities for learning pro-social behaviour during formative developmental stages and, as a result, problem behaviours become increasingly entrenched. Moreover, because these behaviours persist into adulthood, they may continue to increase the probability of adult antisocial behaviour in a ‘proximal contemporary fashion’ (Moffitt, Lynam, & Silva, 1994).
2.1.2 Sampson and Laub’s Age-Graded Theory of Informal Social Control and Cumulative Disadvantage
One of the most dominant developmental theories is Sampson and Laub’s (1993, 1997, 2003, 2005) age-graded theory of informal social control and cumulative disadvantage. Based on findings from the analysis of archival data originally collected by Glueck and Glueck (1950) and a matched comparison group, the theory postulates that informal social controls (for example, involvement in family, work, school) mediate structural context and explain criminal involvement, even when an underlying level of criminal propensity exists. Crime is said to be more likely when social bonds to society are weakened or broken. More specifically, informal social controls, which stem from the social relations between individuals and institutions at each stage of the life course, are characterised as a form of social investment or social capital (see Coleman, 1988). Social capital ‘includes the knowledge and sense of obligations, expectations, trustworthiness, information channels, norms, and sanctions that these relations engender (Hagan, 1998, p.503). In essence, bonds to society create social capital and interdependent systems of obligations that make it too costly to commit crime (Sampson & Laub, 1993). The individual garners variable amounts of social capital from informal social control networks, which, in turn, explains the continuity in antisocial behaviours across various life stages. Those individuals who are low in social capital (and who have past criminal involvement) ‘mortgage’ future life changes. This process is the cumulative disadvantage referred to in the theory. Pro-social adult social bonds (or turning points), can serve to ‘right’ previously deviant pathways (for example, juvenile delinquency, unemployment, substance abuse) and thereby place the individual on a trajectory towards more successful outcomes. According to Sampson and Laub, criminal careers are characterised by change and dynamism: even the most active offender desists over the life course (for example, a 60 year old criminal is not as active and violent as they may have been at 17; see Sampson & Laub, 2003).
Empirical analysis (for example, Sampson & Laub, 1993) has provided support for the notion of continuity in offending over the life course. For example, in the matched comparison group used in the reanalysis of the Glueck and Glueck (1950) data, there was
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
strong evidence for homotypic continuity from childhood to adulthood among delinquents. For example, arrests in early and middle adulthood were greater for the delinquent sub- sample than for the non-delinquents, with 76% of delinquents arrested between ages 17 and 25 and only 20% of non-delinquents arrested over the same age period. These percentages remain similar when arrests for ages 32 to 45 are compared (55% and 16% for delinquents and non-delinquents respectively). Heterotypic continuity was also evident among the Glueck and Glueck delinquent sample. For example, among those who served in the military, 60% of the delinquents were charged with an offence during their term of service compared with 20% of non-delinquents. The delinquents were also found to be more likely, among other things, to have a dishonourable discharge, less likely to have finished high school, and more likely to have low job stability. This continuity has been explained in terms of both childhood propensity and cumulative disadvantage, with Sampson and Laub describing continuity as ‘cumulative, developmental model whereby delinquent behaviour has a systematic attenuating effect on the social and institutional bonds linking adults to society (for example, labor force attachment, marital cohesion) …’ (1993, p. 138).
Despite this continuity, Sampson and Laub’s research (for example, 1993, 1997, 2003, 2005) has also shown that change in criminal behaviour occurs due to variation in the strength of adult social bonds stemming from life events, such as cohesive marriage, stable employment, and serving in the military, which is independent of criminal propensity. In their view, it is the quality of the relationship or ‘the social investment or social capital in the institutional relationship, whether it involves family, work, or community setting, that dictates the salience of informal social control at the individual level’ (Sampson & Laub,1993, pl14). In considering the impact of incarceration and its indirect influence on future crime, they propose that it facilitates crime via subsequent job instability (Sampson & Laub, 1993, 1997; Laub & Sampson, 1995).
Figure 1: Sampson & Laub’s age-graded theory of informal social controls
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE
Difficult Temperament Persistent Tantrums
Peer Delinquent Attachment Sibling Delinquent Attachment
SCHOOL Weak Attachment
SOCIAL CONTROL
DELINQUENT INFLUENCE
JUVENILE OUTCOMES ADULT DEVELOPMENT
Delinquency Crime and Deviance
Crime and Deviance
Length of Incarceration
Crime and Deviance
SOCIAL BONDS Weak labour force attachment Weak marital attachment
SOCIAL BONDS Weak labour force attachment Weak marital attachment
TRANSITION TO ADULTHOOD (17-25)
TRANSITION TO MIDDLE ADULT (32-45)
YOUNG ADULT- HOOD (25-32)
Low Family SES Family Site Family Disruption Residential Mobility Parent’s Deviance Household Crowding Foreign-Born Mother’s Employment
STRUCTURAL BACKGROUND
FAMILY Lack of Supervision Threatening, erratic or harsh discipline Parental Rejection
CHILDHOOD (0-10)
ADOLESCENCE (10-17)
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
varies within individuals according to short-term energising factors (for example, being bored, angry, drunk, or frustrated, or being encouraged by male peers). Criminal opportunities and the availability of victims depend on routine activities, for example, encountering an opportunity or victim may cause a short-term increase in AP; a short-term increase in AP may also motivate a person to seek out criminal opportunities and victims. However, the likelihood that a crime is committed in a particular context (for a given level of AP) is dependent upon (a) cognitive processes, including an assessment of the subjective benefits (for example, the goods to be obtained) and costs (for example, being caught by the police, parental disapproval) and (b) the individual’s stored behavioural repertoire or scripts (based on past experience). As a result of the learning process, changes may be made to long-term AP and future cognitive decision-making processes. This is more likely when the consequences are either reinforcing (for example, gaining material goods or peer approval) or punishing (for example, legal sanctions or parental disapproval). Furthermore if the consequences involve labelling or stigmatizing the offender, this may be more difficult to legally achieve one’s aim and, as a consequence, may serve to increase AP.
Antisocial Models
LT Antisocial potential: between individual differences Impulsiveness
Attachment, socialisation
ST Antisocial potential: within individual variations Opportunities, victims
Life events
Crime, antisocial behaviour
Cognitive processes: decisions, costs, benefits, probabilities, scripts
Low income, Unemployment, school failure
Criminal parents, delinquent peers, delinquent schools, high crime neighbourhood
Poor child rearing, disrupted families, low anxiety
LT Energising, directing, Capabilities
ST Energizing functions, bored, angry, drunk, frustrated, male peers
Routine activities
Consequences: reinforcement, punishment, Note labelling, learning LT= Long Term ST= Short Term
Figure 2: Farrington’s integrated cognitive antisocial potential theory (ICAP)
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
2.1.4 Catalano and Hawkins Social Development Model^2
Catalano and Hawkin’s (1996) Social Development Model is based on research that has integrated the role of risk and protective factors for behaviour such as delinquency and substance use, but may also be applied to the onset of other antisocial or risk behaviours. The authors have argued that antisocial behaviours such as delinquency and drug use are initiated in childhood or early adolescence, and because early onset predicts the seriousness and persistence of such problem behaviours a theory that seeks to explain the onset, maintenance, and desistence from such behaviours should focus on causal processes in childhood development. The model (see Figure 3) posits that an individual learns pro- or antisocial behaviour through the socialising agents of family, school, peers, and community. Four main factors are seen as necessary for socialisation to occur: there must be perceived opportunities for involvement in activities and interactions with others, followed by the level of involvement and interaction engaged in and experienced by the individual. Successful involvement will be influenced by the skills the individual possesses, and finally the outcome of the interaction will provide reinforcement for the involvement (see Ayers et al., 1999; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Catalano & Kosterman, 1996).
Critical in the development of pro- or antisocial behaviour is this process of socialisation, through which individuals form bonds with agents of socialisation such as parents, peers, school, and the wider community (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). A social bond forms when the socialisation processes are consistent; that is, when reinforcement (reward) is consistent with that received for previous, similar involvements with the social unit. Each social unit has a set of norms, beliefs, and values that are common among the majority of its members. The bond an individual forms with a particular socialisation agent determines attachments to other people within that group, belief in the values of the unit, and the level of commitment or investment the individual has toward adhering to or supporting the norms and values of the unit (Catalano & Kosterman, 1996). Thus social bonds produce informal controls that influence future behaviours. In order to preserve a bond the individual must conform to the norms and values of that unit; any behaviour that does not conform to group norms and values jeopardises this bond, while conformity is rewarded with its preservation (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). The strength of the attachment to the social unit is determined by the level of reinforcement the individual perceives as forthcoming in response to their involvement with the group. Rewards are determined by the skills and ability the person possesses that enable them to engage with the socialising unit (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Catalano & Kosterman, 1996).
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
and point to those most likely to contribute to interlinked chains of causation (see, for example, Anderson et al, 2001; Farrington, 2004, 2007; Loeber et al, 2003; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994; Rutter et al, 1998). Risk factors can relate to individual children and young people, to their families, to their schooling and to the communities in which they live (see Table 2). It is also clear that different combinations of risk factors contribute to different cumulative effects and that the overall risks of antisocial behaviour can increase exponentially depending on the number of risk factors to which children are exposed (Rutter, 1979).
In Australia, the developmental approach informed the Pathways to Prevention report (Homel et al., 1999), which sought to develop a policy framework whereby early intervention and the targeting of risk factors in key developmental stages, might have an impact upon delinquency and other social problems (Day, Howells, & Rickwood, 2004). Risk has been articulated as a continuum that moves through remote risk, high risk, and imminent risk, ending with the group of young people who are ‘at-risk’, who are actively engaging in dangerous behaviours, and experiencing extreme vulnerability (DETYA, 2001). According to Withers and Russell (1998), those who are at imminent and high risk are more likely to experience multiple future events, which decreases their chances of developing and sustaining satisfying, fulfilling, and responsible lives. Moreover, Howard and Johnson (2000) have argued that ‘at-risk’ adolescents are much more likely to develop antisocial behaviours, to abuse alcohol and drugs, to experience unwanted teen pregnancy, to drop out of school, and to be both the perpetrators and the victims of personal violence.
Another consequence of adopting a developmental approach to explaining delinquency has been the theoretical attention paid to influences that might serve as a ‘buffer’ between risk factors and the onset of delinquency. These influences, known as protective factors, are
Table 2 : Risk factors for delinquency and other antisocial behaviour
Source: adapted from Homel et al. (1999)
Level Risk Factors Child Poor problem solving; Beliefs about aggression; Attributions; Poor social skills; Low self-esteem; Lack of empathy; Alienation; Hyperactivity/disruptive behaviour; Impulsivity; Prematurity; Low birth weight; Disability; Prenatal brain damage; Birth injury; Low intelligence; Difficult temperament; Chronic illness; Insecure attachment. Familial Psychiatric disorder, especially depression; Substance abuse; Criminality; Antisocial models; Family violence and disharmony; Marital discord; Disorganised negative interaction/social isolation; Parenting style; Poor supervision and monitoring of the child; Discipline style (harsh or inconsistent); Rejection of the child; Abuse; Lack of warmth and affection; Low involvement in child’s activities; Neglect; Teenage mothers; Single parents; Large family size; Father absence; Long-term parental unemployment. School School failure; Normative beliefs about aggression; Deviant peer group; Bullying; Peer rejection; Poor attachment to school; Inadequate behaviour management. Life events Divorce and family break-up; War or natural disasters; Death of a family member. Community and social factors
Socio-economic disadvantage; Population density and housing conditions; Urban area; Neighbourhood violence and crime; Cultural norms concerning violence as acceptable response to frustration; Media portrayal of violence; Lack of support services.
Review of Programmes in Youth Training Centres—Part 1: Literature Review
thought to mediate or moderate outcomes following exposure to risk factors, often resulting in a reduced incidence of problem behaviour (Pollard, Hawkins & Arthur, 1999). In fact, a model of cumulative protection has been proposed by Yoshikawa (1994), which argues that the effects of early family support and education extend beyond the known short-term impact on risk factors (for example, parenting quality, child cognitive ability, parental education status, family size, family income), and could explain why chronic juvenile delinquency can be amenable to change. A list of protective factors in provided in Table 3. And while knowledge about protective factors is less extensive and well-developed than the literature concerning risk (Lösel & Bender, 2003), it is nonetheless apparent that protective factors may work by (1) preventing risk factors from occurring in a child’s life, (2) by interacting with a risk factor to attenuate its effects, or (3) by breaking the mediating chain by which risk leads to negative behaviour.
Table 3: Protective factors associated with delinquency and other antisocial behaviour
Level Protective Factors
Child Social competence; Social Skills; Above average intelligence; Attachment to family; Empathy; Problem solving skills; Optimism; School achievement; Easy temperament; Internal locus of control; Moral beliefs; Values; Self- relative cognitions; Good coping style.
Familial Supportive caring parents; Family harmony; More than two years between siblings; Responsibility for chores or required helpfulness; Secure and stable family; Supportive relationship with other adult; Small family size; Strong family norms and morality.
School Positive school climate; Pro-social peer group; Responsibility and required helpfulness; Sense of belonging/bonding; Opportunities for some success at school and recognition of achievement.
Life events Meeting significant person; Moving to a new area; Opportunities at critical turning points or major life transitions..
Community and social factors
Access to support services; Community networking; Attachment to the community; Participation in church or other community group; Community/ cultural norms against violence; A strong cultural identity and ethnic pride.
There is still much to be learned about the salience of risk and protective factors at different stages in children’s development and the direct or indirect mechanisms by which they influence behaviour. Developmental sequencing also needs to be better understood, although it would seem that some factors, such as poor parenting are significant from the start of children’s lives, whereas others, like association with negative peers, assume greater importance nearer adolescence.
