Risk/Protective Factors Domains and How They Influence Delinquency.

Risk/Protective Factors Domains and How They Influence Delinquency.

Introduction.

Historically, studies on delinquency have focused on later adolescent stages. However, presently, the direction has changed given the fact that studies have now concentrated on chronic juvenile offenders because of their increasing commission of a disproportionately higher number of crimes. As such, there is a great need to analyze the existing data and address the key issues that, though, might not have been explored in depth before but pose as critical factors for consideration in the quest to lower the rate of delinquency, particularly among the adolescents. There is a need for finding evidence concerning young children’s engagement in a myriad of anti-social behaviors, which most commonly foreshadows early delinquency.

Therefore, given the need for in-depth analysis with regard to the juvenile current rate of crime, this paper explores to identify several critical risk factors that, when integrated, may result in the onset of early offending. In order to accomplish this goal, the article reviews historical works of literature and legal and theoretical contexts that link to the subject. Later, a review of programs or policies is explored regarding juvenile delinquency.  An analytical review of creative analysis and policy implications based on the literature gathered are brought to life. Finally, recommendations and concluding evidence are issued to guide on the limitation and avenues for further research on the matter.

Review of the Literature.

Both protective and risk factors need to be keenly and carefully examined when considering the likelihood of the youth to engage in criminal behaviors. To provide a distinction, protective factors represent those characteristics or elements of a child, a family, or a wider environment the decreases the chances of adversity leading to negative behaviors and outcome that would include delinquency and later escalate to adult offending (Wongtongkam et al., 2013). On the other hand, risk factors are indicators of the likelihood of juveniles becoming involved to embrace problem behaviors. Thus, protective factors are distinct conceptually from risk factors, for they are conditions or elements that may serve to lower the influence of risk factors resulting in violent behaviors and delinquency (Glowacz, & Born, 2015). Therefore, protective may be regarded as buffers in conditions that reduce the negative effect of adversity on child outcomes.

The concept and idea of protective factors possess a diverse theoretical background that includes social control theory and social learning theory. Subsequent studies have expanded on the emphasis of protective factors, characteristically framed as “buffers” against risk factors. The social learning and control theories relate to the influence of protective factors on the reason why youth do not participate in acts of delinquency. Social learning theory contends that the youths can learn via pro-social modeling family members, teachers, or peers in order to engage in positive behaviors rather than negative ones (Wike, & Putzu, 2014). However, social control theory asserts that the bonds that the adolescents develop; in an attachment form to the commitment to social relationship, to school, pro-social activities involvement, and from the adherence pro-social beliefs assist them from delinquency (DiClemente, Hansen & Ponton, 2013).

According to DiClemente, Hansen, and Ponton (2013), protective factors can take the form of family-based factors, such as effective parenting, which raises the probability of children acquiring social competence and stronger adolescent bonds. Some studies conclude that if a child has a positive and strong attachment to the parent, involved in positive and productive activities, is devoted to education, and possesses conventional beliefs, the child is much less likely to engage in delinquency (O’Brien et al.,2013). Divorce has also been a critical point of analysis by various researchers trying to establish the association of risk and protective factors that exist in children in relation to delinquency. Research points about those boys whose parents divorced are more likely to escalate problems associated with coercive, anti-social, and non-compliant behaviors compared to those whose parents stayed married. However, many researchers agree that establishing the exact effect of divorce on children’s likelihood of ending in delinquency, proves challenging because of the many other co-occurring risks. Such risks include loss of parents, decrease in family income, pre-divorce child behavior as an adverse life event, and perhaps a parent’s subsequent re-marriage. Most conclude that when all these underlying factors are kept under consideration, the impact of divorce itself proves to be substantially minimized.

Historical studies have shown that child malpractices, home discord, and insufficient child-rearing practices are associated with early-onset delinquency (McGee, 2015). Most of these studies provide that the strongest predictors of the early onset crimes and bad behaviors comprise of parental anti-social history and family size. As part of the early-onset violence, contributors are associated with early temperamental difficulties in the child attached to parental inadequacies that interfere with proactive parenting.  A long history of research demonstrates that criminality and aggressive behavior among children indicate to be more prevalent in some families than others (Curcio, Mak & George, 2013). Providing the example of the Cambridge study in delinquent development that examined 411 families, the result showed that offending was highly concentrated in a small group of families. It provides that about 5% of the families accounted for approximately half of the juvenile convictions (Wongtongkam et al., 2014); thus, an illustration of the legal aspect of child delinquency.

Though many single parents are in a position of raising their children perfectly well, studies reveal that children from single-mother households are at higher risk for poor outcomes of behavior in children (Van der Put, Creemers, & Hoeve, 2014). Despite a common belief that that on average single mothers pose to have lesser economic resources, other factors creep more robustly to explain this relationship, especially when compared to partnered women. One of the facts would be based on researches asserting that single mothers report more mental health problems. However, the underlining factor here is that all of these factors, including the belief that associate fewer resources to monitor children in a single parented family, contribute to increased levels of juvenile behavior problems.

Fewer pieces of evidence have been linked to associate peer pressure or influences on juvenile delinquency (McGee, 2015). McGee concludes that peer influences on child delinquency, typically, appears developmentally later compared to influences from individuals and family. For example, many children joining schools would already show signs of destructive and aggressive behaviors. Studies have proved out two main mechanisms that are linked to peer influences and factors that comprise of peer rejection and association with deviant behaviors. However, research has developed a connection between family size and risks of delinquency (Curcio, Mak, & George, 2013). According to Curcio, Mak, and George (2013), the more children born in the family, the more risks of delinquency. Findings from Cambridge Studies according to Wongtongkam et al. (2014), with regard to the number of housed children in a family, particularly relating to boys, contend that in comparison with boys with few siblings, those with four or more siblings by the age of 10, confirmed to be twice as much more likely offend. This study was done regardless of the parents’ socio-economic status. The survey, consequently asserts these associations to be as a result of diminished and inadequate supervision that exits in large families.

Critical Analysis/Policy Implications.

History provides that there has been a lack of sufficient interventions to guide policymakers in their efforts to curb and prevent juvenile delinquency. These inadequacies of correcting the anti-social behaviors in adolescents have overtime proved to be conspicuous. However, focusing on adolescents’ early years serves as essential in understanding the socialization failures that contribute to children’s delinquency that escalates to eventual criminal behavior in adulthood. Having categorized the protective factors into various domains of individual, peer, family, school, and community critical analysis and policy implications will best be assessed on these bases as well.

At an individual level, the best time to assist those children with these difficulties would require to be targeted during their sensitive period of early childhood. Later intervention would have nearly much effect. Focusing on pre-school years would take advantage of much of the development impulses in control of the children; thus, a timely reaction (DiClemente, Hansen & Ponton, 2013). At a family level, integration of various programs as family-based interventions would serve to control the high likelihood of children turning into poor behaviors as a result of the family or contributed by the family. For example, organizations of visits to unmarried women living in households with low social, economic conditions during pregnancies and early child-rearing periods for advice on parenting and such would subsequently result in a positive effect on young children’s behavior.

This effort would set a background for young children to start embracing norms far before they mingle with their peers, who might also contribute to their influence. However, exposing them to early family care would set them firm against forces from their peers. It is at this level that family-based interventions that relate to issues such as divorce, family conflicts, and violence are substantially dealt with. Even though most family-based interventions or policies impactions may not directly aim in reducing aggression in juveniles, they prove functional and worthwhile. This is for the fact that they address family issues that are concerned with parental psychopathology and domestic violence, which would contribute to a juvenile’s aggression problems. Further family-based ways, including parental management training, should be introduced to assist lower instances of abusive behaviors and poor family management practices, which would otherwise contribute to anti-social behaviors in juveniles.

For those anti-social behaviors as a result of peer influence need to be encountered with interventions or policies that aim at reducing contact with peers who prove to be deviant and likely to predispose other juveniles into anti-social behaviors. This policy implication would serve to promote the development of pro-social skills such as conflict resolution skills. It would practically incorporate parents’ training in combination with children with parents’ training aim or goal being to help protect young children and adolescents from subsequent engagements in criminal activities.

In schools, programs should be aligned to focus on reducing children’s aggressive behaviors, particularly shown in classrooms.  This might take the form of carrying out evaluations from good behavior games that need to be conducted by teachers to elicit positive and proactive behavior management in children straight from the elementary school children all through to college adolescents. This would follow, development of a social competency-based curriculum that would incorporate the objective of promoting values and norms against anti-social, violent, and aggressive behaviors. Extra approaches or policies would include the establishment of violence prevention and conflict resolution curriculums, programs that disadvantage for bullying, multi-component classroom programs, mentoring programs, and after school recreational programs. At a community level, such as at a city-level, the development of multi-component instruction programs would serve substantially effective.

Conclusion.

Throughout the study, evidence linking to aggressive and anti-social behaviors in juveniles such as physical aggression and anger have been identified to begin at a quite younger age to peak when further influenced with peers. This has been proven from various studies that have shown that children engage in rougher anti-social behavior at a later age. However, they may carry the delinquency influence from as low as age three as a factor of parenting.  It has been proved out too, that juvenile delinquency typically stems from a combination of elements or characteristics that vary from one child or adolescent to another. It has also been realized that intervention methods or policies that relate to individual children, peers, family, school, and community factors, provide reasonably effective methods approaches to preventing juvenile delinquency and its escalation.

Though some of the intervention focuses on parents, they indirectly provide mechanisms in which parents would contribute to decrease the risks of persistent destructive behavior in children. Considerable promise towards establishing an appropriate policy in lowering the likelihood of children delinquency has been shown via classroom/school programs and peer relation programs. From the entire study, there still exist gaps in the knowledge gathered particularly, relating to the effect of divorce on children’s delinquency, given sets of difficulties involved in conducting its control experiment. Future studies that would attempt to address this particular gap, among other existing, would offer an exceptional opportunity to lower the overall levels of crime, especially those that originate from young children and adolescents.

Reference

Wongtongkam, N., Ward, P. R., Day, A., & Winefield, A. H. (2014). The influence of protective and risk factors in individual, peer, and school domains on Thai adolescents’ alcohol and illicit drug use: A survey. Addictive Behaviors, 39(10), 1447-1451.

Glowacz, F., & Born, M. (2015). 18 away from delinquency and crime: resilience and protective factors. In The Development of Criminal and Anti-social Behavior (pp. 283-294). Springer, Cham.

Van der Put, C. E., Creemers, H. E., & Hoeve, M. (2014). Differences between juvenile offenders with and without substance use problems in the prevalence and impact of risk and protective factors for criminal recidivism. Drug and alcohol dependence, 134, 267-274.

Wike, T. L., & Putzu, C. L. (2014). Risk and Protective Factors for Involvement in Juvenile Justice. Juvenile Justice Sourcebook, 101.

McGee, Z. (2015). Risk, protective factors, and symptomatology among urban adolescents: Findings of a research study on youth violence and victimization. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54(6), 429-444.

Assink, M., van der Put, C. E., Hoeve, M., de Vries, S. L., Stams, G. J. J., & Oort, F. J. (2015). Risk factors for persistent delinquent behavior among juveniles: A meta-analytic review. Clinical psychology review, 42, 47-61.

DiClemente, R. J., Hansen, W. B., & Ponton, L. E. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of adolescent health risk behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

O’Brien, K., Daffern, M., Chu, C. M., & Thomas, S. D. (2013). Youth gang affiliation, violence, and criminal activities: A review of motivational, risk, and protective factors. Aggression and violent behavior, 18(4), 417-425.

Curcio, A. L., Mak, A. S., & George, A. M. (2013). Do adolescent delinquency and problem drinking share psychosocial risk factors? A literature review. Addictive Behaviors, 38(4), 2003-2013.