Risk Factors and Predictors
Many of the risk factors and predictors (and possibly causes) of child delinquency tend to be somewhat different from those of offending by older juveniles. Risk factors for offending at a young age are more likely to be biological, individual, and family factors.
The causal status of known risk factors remains to be clarified, and no single risk factor can explain child delinquency. Rather, the greater the number of risk factors (e.g., poor parental supervision coupled with poor academic performance) or the greater the number of risk factor domains (e.g., risk in the family and the school), the greater the likelihood of early-onset offending (Loeber and Farrington, 1998b; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002).
Early Risk Factors
During the preschool years, the most important risk factors stem from the individual and family. Particular predictors, such as aggressiveness and a child’s level of impulsivity or sensation seeking, result from numerous influences—from genetics to the child’s environment—over a period of years. Aggression appears to be the best predictor of delinquency up to age 12. For example, physical aggression rated by kindergarten teachers is the best predictor of later self-reported violent delinquency (Haapasalo and Tremblay, 1994; Tremblay et al., 1994). On the other hand, prosocial behavior rated by kindergarten teachers is a protective factor against delinquency.
Six longitudinal studies conducted in five countries (Canada, England, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United States) on three continents confirmed that childhood antisocial behavior tends to be the best predictor of early-onset delinquency for boys. For example, an Oregon study found that antisocial behavior (such as aggression), as rated by parents, teachers, peers, and the children themselves, was the best predictor of age at first arrest, compared with other factors such as family disadvantage, parental monitoring, and parental discipline (Patterson, Crosby, and Vuchinich, 1992).
|
Homicide
Recent instances of children committing homicides have come to national attention and have attracted intense media scrutiny. Despite the nationwide outrage in response to some of these cases, the number of juveniles age 12 or younger who are involved in murder is relatively small. Between 1980 and 1997, about 2 percent (or 600 cases) of murders involved such child offenders, and the annual number of these murders was relatively stable, averaging about 30 per year. According to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports (Snyder, 2001):
|
Research findings consistently have shown that the onset of many conduct problems usually predates the onset of serious delinquency by several years (Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1998) (see table 1). Loeber (1988) postulated that juveniles who eventually engage in both property offenses and violence show the following behaviors:
- Onset of conduct problems in the preschool years.
- Aggressive and covert problem behaviors, such as lying and shoplifting.
- Hyperactive/impulsive behavior at a young age.
In addition to early antisocial behavior, family characteristics are important predictors of early-onset offending. The number of family risk factors to which a child is exposed and the child’s length of exposure to these stressors also are important (Williams et al., 1990). Some family characteristics that may contribute to early-onset child delinquency include the following:
- Antisocial parents.
- Substance-abusing parents.
- Parental psychopathology
(e.g., Lahey et al., 1988).
- Poor parenting practices, such as lack of monitoring (Patterson, Crosby, and Vuchinich, 1992) and/or a lack of positive reinforcement (Bor et al., 1997).
- The prevalence of physical abuse.
- A history of family violence.
- Large family size.
Many of the family risk factors interact with other social systems, such as peers and the community environment. Nevertheless, a recent study found that the strongest predictors of early-onset violence included large family size, poor parenting skills, and antisocial parents (Derzon and Lipsey, 2000).
Peers
Although much more research is needed, the Study Group believes that an accelerated path toward child delinquency and subsequent more serious offending may be the result of a combination of the following factors:
- Antisocial tendencies of children with persistent early disruptive behaviors.
- Associations with peers who already show deviant behavior.
- Negative consequences of peer rejection.
As children get older, attend school, and become integrated into their community, the array of risk factors for child delinquency expands (see table 2). Many studies show a relation between deviant peer associations and juvenile offending (Elliott and Menard, 1996). A major issue is whether “birds of a feather flock together” or “bad company corrupts.” Most hypotheses suggest that deviant peers can lead some youth with no previous history of delinquent behavior to initiate delinquent acts and may influence already delinquent youth to increase their delinquency. Youth who associate with deviant peers are likely to be arrested earlier than youth who do not associate with such peers (Coie et al., 1995). In addition, studies emphasize that a delinquent sibling can greatly encourage a child to become delinquent, especially when the siblings are close in age and have a close relationship (Reiss and Farrington, 1991; Rowe and Gulley, 1992).
A more recent issue is peer rejection as a risk factor for antisocial behavior. In the Oregon Youth Study, investigators found, after controlling for earlier antisocial behavior, that peer rejection in the fourth grade predicted antisocial behavior 2 years later (Patterson and Bank, 1989). Another study that followed children from first through fourth grade found that aggressive behavior and rejection by peers in the first grade predicted later self-reported delinquency. This indicates that first-grade rejection may be a useful marker for the early starter pathway to antisocial behavior (Miller-Johnson et al., 1997).
Peer rejection may also influence child
and adolescent delinquency by inducing
the rejected child to associate with
deviant peer groups and gangs ( Patterson, Capaldi, and Bank, 1991). Gang
membership provides a ready source of
co-offenders for juvenile delinquency
and reflects the greatest degree of
deviant peer influence on offending.
Also, youth tend to join gangs at younger
ages than in the past, which leads to an
increased number of youthful offenders
(Howell, 1998). The importance of having accomplices cannot be overstressed
in child delinquency. For example, a
recent study found that less than 5 percent of offenders who committed their
first offense at age 12 or younger acted
alone (McCord and Conway, 2002). Gang
membership has a strong relationship
to violent delinquency, even when
associations with delinquent peers, family
poverty, poor parental supervision, low
commitment to school, negative life
events, and prior involvement in violence are controlled for (Battin et al.,
2000; Battin-Pearson et al., 1998).
|
How Early Can We Tell?
A critical question from a scientific and policy standpoint concerning child delinquency is, “How early can we tell?” It is difficult, however, to obtain a clear answer to this question. For example, many children engage in problem behaviors of a relatively minor nature, but only for a short period. Few tools are available to distinguish those youth who will continue with behaviors that may lead them to become child delinquents. Although the foundations for both prosocial and disruptive behaviors are laid in the first 5 years of life (Keenan, 2001), it is important to point out that the majority of preschoolers with behavior problems do not go on to become child delinquents. The Study Group has identified several important warning signs of later problems:
|
School and Community
Risk factors for child delinquency within the school and community have not been as well documented as individual, family, and peer risk factors (see table 2). The Study Group hypothesized that children who developed strong bonds to school (high commitment) would conform to the norms and values that schools promote, thereby reducing their probability of antisocial behavior.
Studies addressing school influences on antisocial behavior have consistently shown that poor academic performance is related to child behavior problems and to the prevalence, onset, and seriousness of delinquency (Brewer et al., 1995; Maguin and Loeber, 1996). Weak bonds to school (low commitment), low educational aspirations, and poor motivation place children at risk for offending (Hawkins et al., 1987; Hawkins et al., 1998).
School organization and process also may play a role as risk factors. Schools with fewer teachers and higher student enrollment had higher levels of teacher victimization, and poor rule enforcement within schools was associated with higher levels of student victimization (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1985). Although research on the relationship between school processes and offending is sparse, evidence suggests that many school characteristics, including the following, may be linked to antisocial behavior in children ( Herrenkohl et al., 2001):
- Low levels of teacher satisfaction.
- Little cooperation among teachers.
- Poor student-teacher relations.
- The prevalence of norms and values that support antisocial behavior.
- Poorly defined rules and expectations for conduct.
- Inadequate rule enforcement.
Several community factors, such as a high level of poverty in the neighborhood, are important in the development of child antisocial behavior (Catalano and Hawkins, 1996). In addition, disorganized neighborhoods with weak social controls (i.e., attempts by adults to control the behavior of youth) allow delinquent activity to go unmonitored and even unnoticed (Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997). At the extreme end of the spectrum, some neighborhoods may even provide opportunities for antisocial behavior. For example, youth living in high-crime neighborhoods may be at high risk for offending because they are exposed to more norms favorable to crime (Developmental Research and Programs, 1996).
Race and Gender
The intersection of race, gender, and early childhood offending is a largely unexplored terrain. Too often, policymakers, law enforcement agents, and social services agencies rely on stereotypes and assumptions concerning race and gender when dealing with juveniles.
Youth of color—particularly African American males—are overrepresented in arrest rates (especially arrests for serious or violent offenses) in relation to their proportion in the population (Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, and Hawkins, 2001). Conversely, in relation to their proportion in the population, females are underrepresented in arrests for serious or violent offenses but overrepresented in arrests for status offenses and child welfare cases. However, rates of court referrals are rising faster for females than for males. When self-report data are considered, the race and gender gaps apparent in official records are less pronounced.
The Study Group recommends that race and gender comparisons be routinely conducted in research on child delinquency. For example, in the Pittsburgh Youth Study, researchers found no race differences in offending once adequate controls were included for “underclass” status of neighborhoods (Peeples and Loeber, 1994). The Study Group also reanalyzed the 1958 Philadelphia birth cohort data to investigate race and gender associations with child delinquency (Kempf-Leonard, Chesney-Lind, and Hawkins, 2001). The analyses showed that, regardless of race and gender, serious and chronic delinquency were more prevalent among early-onset offenders. More of this type of information is needed to identify and understand race and gender differences in developmental pathways leading to child delinquency.
|
Table 2: Approximate Developmental Ordering of Risk Factors Associated With Disruptive and Delinquent Behavior |
|
| Risk Factors Emerging During Pregnancy and From Infancy Onward | |
| Child | Pregnancy and delivery complications Neurological insult Exposure to neurotoxins after birth Difficult temperament Hyperactivity/impulsivity/attention problems Low intelligence Male gender |
| Family | Maternal smoking/alcohol consumption/drug
use during pregnancy Teenage mother High turnover of caretakers Poorly educated parent Maternal depression Parental substance abuse/antisocial or criminal behavior Poor parent-child communication Poverty/low socioeconomic status Serious marital discord Large family size |
| Risk Factors Emerging From the Toddler Years Onward | |
| Child | Aggressive/disruptive behavior Persistent lying Risk taking and sensation seeking Lack of guilt, lack of empathy |
| Family | Harsh and/or erratic discipline
practices Maltreatment or neglect |
| Community | Television violence |
| Risk Factors Emerging From Midchildhood Onward | |
| Child | Stealing and general delinquency Early onset of other disruptive behaviors Early onset of substance use and sexual activity Depressed mood Withdrawn behavior Positive attitude toward problem behavior Victimization and exposure to violence |
| Family | Poor parental supervision |
| School | Poor academic achievement Repeating grade(s) Truancy Negative attitude toward school Poorly organized and functioning schools |
| Peer | Peer rejection Association with deviant peers/siblings |
| Community | Residence in a disadvantaged neighborhood
Residence in a disorganized neighborhood Availability of weapons |
| Risk Factors Emerging From Midadolescence Onward | |
| Child | Weapon carrying Drug dealing Unemployment |
| School | School dropout |
| Peer | Gang membership |
|
Source: Adapted from Loeber and Farrington, 1998a.
|
|
| Previous | Contents | Next |
 |
|
| Child Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention | |