Early Adolescent Delinquency Crisis Assessing the Role of Childhood Problems, Family Environment,...

http://yvj.sagepub.com/Justice

Youth Violence and Juvenile

http://yvj.sagepub.com/content/4/4/291The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1541204006292656 2006 4: 291Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

Christopher J. SullivanEnvironment, and Peer Pressure

Early Adolescent Delinquency : Assessing the Role of Childhood Problems, Family

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

can be found at:Youth Violence and Juvenile JusticeAdditional services and information for

http://yvj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://yvj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://yvj.sagepub.com/content/4/4/291.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Aug 25, 2006Version of Record >>

at University of Bucharest on November 5, 2012yvj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

291

EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCYAssessing the Role of Childhood Problems,Family Environment, and Peer Pressure

Christopher J. SullivanUniversity of South Florida

Research has demonstrated a relationship between various types of emotional and behav-ioral problems and delinquency. Still, some aspects of this relationship are not as clear,particularly as pertains to emotional and behavioral problems and delinquent behavioracross a broader range of time in the context of other key risk and protective factors. Athree-pronged analytic approach examined the effects and function of key covariates ondelinquent behavior in early adolescence. Childhood emotional and behavioral problemshad a consistent, albeit modest, effect on delinquent behavior in early adolescence. Peerinfluence was found to be the strongest predictor of delinquent behavior, but family envi-ronment demonstrated a protective effect nonetheless. Implications for future research,theoretical elaboration, and policy initiatives are discussed.

Keywords: delinquency; early adolescence; childhood emotional and behavioralproblems; risk factors; protective factors

A good deal of recent research has demonstrated links among various types of emo-tional and behavioral problems, substance abuse, and delinquent behavior (Dembo &Schmeidler, 2003; Huizinga, Loeber, Thornberry, & Cothern, 2000; Loeber, 1990; Loeber& Farrington, 1998; Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Van Kammen, 1998;Stouthamer-Loeber & Loeber, 2002; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002;Wasserman, Ko, & McReynolds, 2004), and more attention is being given to addressing theneeds of at-risk and justice-involved youth holistically across multiple domains as a result.Still, these findings have not been fully integrated into other criminological literature. Lifecourse theories of delinquent behavior and intervention models, for instance, place consid-erable weight on the role of social influences such as the family. This study examines therole of childhood emotional and behavioral problems in predicting delinquency in the con-text of family and peer influences. A study that utilizes propositions from the criminologi-cal literature along with emotional health measures, that uses longitudinal data, and that hasa sample of youth outside of institutional settings is important in providing further evidenceto answer questions about these youth, their families, and their communities.

Authors Note: The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this work madeby John Cochran, Jean M. McGloin, the editors, and anonymous reviewers.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 4 No. 4, October 2006 291-313DOI: 10.1177/1541204006292656 2006 Sage Publications


In 1998, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sug-gested that more research directed toward delinquent youth should focus on developmentalissues in risk and protection. This proposition requires that efforts are made to follow youthfrom childhood through their adolescent development. According to Farrington (1994), rel-ative to other methods, the best information on risk factors and the development of delin-quency has been garnered from prospective, longitudinal studies. This method best allowsthe investigator to follow a pattern of events as it unfolds during a youths early life and laterdevelopment. Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington (1988) suggest that knowing sequences ofevents seems to be extremely important for understanding the factors leading to the devel-opment of offending (p. 71; for a contrary view, see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1987).

Huizinga and colleagues (2000) highlight the importance of understanding the overlapof problem behaviors in general populations of youth and more frequently studied sub-groups, such as detained youth or those who utilize mental health or drug treatment services.They state,

Understanding the extent of overlap of these problem behaviors requires studies basedon representative samples drawn from complete populations of youth, where the exam-ination of overlap is not limited to particular subgroups defined by official delinquency,school issues, or mental health status. (p. 1)

Farrington (1994) suggests that delinquency prevention should be well grounded in empir-ically identified risk and protective factors. These markers, when properly identified earlyin childhood, can be considered as signs of potential delinquent behavior and can be usedto deliver services to youth who are in need of intervention to reduce the likelihood that theywill offend later. In its examination of emotional and behavioral and other risk and protec-tive factors for delinquency, this study provides information useful for prevention strategies.

Varying constellations of risk and protection ultimately demand better integratedexplanations of the development of delinquent behavior and appropriate matching of youthto treatment. Because it appears that youth who are persistently delinquent (and later crim-inal) often start offending in late childhood and early adolescence (Patterson, DeBaryshe,& Ramsey, 1989) and that the earlier that a youth starts offending, the longer he or she willcontinue to do so (LeBlanc & Loeber, 1998; Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990; Patterson & Yoerger,1993), it is essential to study delinquent behavior prior to middle and late adolescence anddevelop an understanding of factors that may be addressed to prevent early onset.

Literature Review

Key Theoretical Perspectives

Although this study is not an explicit test of any theory, the risk and protective factorsand the measures used to capture them described below are loosely indicative of tenets fromimportant recent theoretical integration in the criminological literature: Farringtons inte-grated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory and Catalano and Hawkins social devel-opment model (SDM). Unsurprisingly, both theories are grounded in empirically identifiedrisk and protective factors (Catalano et al., 2005; Farrington, 2005), which is consistent withthe priorities of the current study.

Farrington (1992, 1996, 2005) proposes a theory that accounts for an individualspotential for delinquent behavior and analogous activities (e.g., promiscuous sex). This

292 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice


theory integrates components of other explanations of offending, including control and learn-ing perspectives (Farrington, 2005). Some of his suggested contributors to antisocial poten-tial are represented in the current study. Specifically, Farrington (1992) includes measuressuch as anger, disobedience, self-esteem, impulsivity, and selfishness in his explanation ofantisocial and delinquent behavior. For instance, Farrington (2005) indicates that impulsive-ness contributes to antisocial potential, and this is a central component of the emotional andbehavioral problem measure utilized here. ICAP indicates the importance of antisocialmodels, poor child rearing, and a lack of attachment in the development of long-termantisocial potential. Each of these constructs is measured in some capacity in the currentwork. For example, this studys measure of family environment addresses aspects of parent-child attachment and positive child rearing. Farrington (2005) suggests that positive attach-ment and socialization reduce long-term antisocial potential. Also related to ICAP, antisocialmodels are partially assessed through the peer influence variable.

Like Farringtons ICAP, the SDM is an integrated, general theory that seeks to explaina wide range of problem behaviors, including both delinquency and substance use (Catalanoet al., 2005; Catalano & Hawkins, 1996). This theory recognizes the context that framessocial development and the salience of different institutions at particular stages in the lifecourse. The SDM integrates control, social learning, and differential association theories ofdelinquency and suggests that there are separate paths to antisocial and prosocial behavior.In particular, antisocial behavior may develop in three instances: when sufficient bonds arenot developed to positive caretakers, when one with strong bonds perceives that there is ahigh benefit and low risk accompanying delinquent behavior, and when one bonds to anti-social family or peers, thereby creating a model for deviance. Although the current workcannot fully examine the mechanisms of SDM, partial confirmation or disconfirmation ofthe first and third propositions can be derived from these analyses.

SDM also allows for exogenous individual differences that temper the processes con-tributing to antisocial behavior (Catalano et al., 2005). Several of the individual constitutionalfactors in SDM, including difficult temperament, negative mood, early-onset depression,aggressive behavior, and hyperactivity, are manifest in the early emotional and behavioralproblem measure utilized here. The tenets of SDM suggest that these factors will be mediatedby social processes, however. This can be roughly assessed in the current analysis.

Childhood Emotional and Behavioral Problems and Adolescent Delinquency

Theoretical perspectives and extant empirical evidence suggest that early emotional andbehavioral problems will influence delinquent behavior at later developmental stages. Variousdevelopmental studies have found early emotional and behavioral health difficulties to be pre-dictive of later delinquency and/or drug use (Dishion, Capaldi, & Yoerger, 1999; Ellickson,Saner, & McGuigan, 1997; Farrington, 1992; Huizinga et al., 2000; Loeber, 1990; Loeberet al., 1998; McCord, Widom, & Crowell, 2003; ODonnell, Hawkins, & Abbott, 1995;Robins, 1978; Stouthamer-Loeber & Loeber, 2002; Tremblay et al., 1992; Wasserman et al.,2003). Predictors in this domain include conduct disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity dis-order (ADHD), major depressive disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder (McCord et al.,2003). Moffitts (1993) and Farringtons (1992, 1996, 2005) work suggests that early behav-ioral problems will persist from childhood to later developmental stages and delinquency willensue. According to Wasserman and colleagues (2003), antisocial behavior and emotional dif-ficulties in childhood often are markers of later delinquent behavior. Stouthamer-Loeber andLoeber (2002) found that, frequently, eventual persistent offenders exhibited symptoms of dis-ruptive behavior disorder well in advance of their contact with juvenile court. Also, Loeber

Sullivan / EARLY ADOLESCENT DELINQUENCY 293


and colleagues (1998) found that early externalizing problems (e.g., ADHD) were related tolater delinquency. In her seminal work, Robins (1978) indicated that the presence of childhoodbehavioral problems was a robust predictor of later antisocial behavior. Dishion and col-leagues (1999) similarly found that early behavioral problems were a strong predictor of theonset of substance use.

Perhaps the clearest antecedent to the current work related to this proposition was con-ducted by Loeber (1990). He suggested a number of different childhood psychological andbehavioral domains believed to affect later delinquency. Loeber indicates that hyperactivityand impulsivity, communication problems, negative cognitions, disobedience, negativemood, and verbal conduct problems are associated with delinquency at later developmentalstages. Many of these domains are tapped by the emotional and behavioral problem measureutilized in this study. Here, it is expected that youth displaying childhood emotional andbehavioral problems will be more likely to engage in delinquency in early adolescence.

Family Influence and Delinquent BehaviorThe situational context and attributes of a youths family also play a role in delin-

quent behavior (Cantelon, 1994; Dishion et al., 1999; Loeber, 1982; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Patterson & Yoerger, 1993; Shader, 2001; Yoshikawa, 1994). Loeber (1982)suggests that antisocial behavior results from an interruption in appropriate child rearing.Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) performed a meta-analysis of studies focusing onthe role of families in juvenile delinquency. Their review found that lack of parental super-vision, parent-child involvement, and parental rejection are strong predictors of juveniledelinquency. In a review of risk factors and prevention strategies, Yoshikawa (1994) statedthat there are well-established findings indicating that hostile parenting and lack of super-vision have direct effects and that family structure variables (e.g., number of parents in thefamily) have indirect effects on later delinquent behavior. These findings have been echoedin other studies of at-risk youth as well (Ayers et al., 1999; Farrington, 1994).

Poor parental discipline and supervision may also be a factor in the development ofantisocial behavior in adolescence (Cantelon, 1994; Dishion et al., 1999; Loeber, Wylie-Weiher, & Smith, 1993; Mayer, 2001). Inconsistent parenting and permissiveness havebeen identified as risk factors for drug use during early adolescence as well (Block, Block,& Keyes, 1988; Dishion et al., 1999). In a study that integrated three longitudinal data sets,Smith, Wylie-Weiher, and Van Kammen (1993) found that youth who reported weakattachment to their parents were significantly more likely to report drug use. Levels of druguse were also higher when parents reported low attachment to their children.

In a sample of inner-city youth, Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, and Huesmann (1996)found that youth who were violent offenders came from families with less discipline andcohesion than did those who did not offend at all or committed nonviolent offenses. In alongitudinal study, Henry, Tolan, and Gorman-Smith (2001) found that youth from strug-gling families, which were typified by a lack of cohesion and weak parenting skills, hadhigher levels of delinquency. Brook, Brook, Arencibia-Mireles, Richter, and Whiteman(2001) found that lack of parental identification, lack of affection from the mother, andharsh discipline from the father were significant predictors of marijuana use in adolescence.

Conversely, positive family environments may foster resilience to early difficulties andproblem behaviors in youth. The family is one place where protective factors are cultivated(Born, Chevalier, & Humblet, 1997; Carr & Vandiver, 2001; Henry et al., 2001; Howard &Johnson, 2000; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998; McCord et al., 2003; Oxford, Harachi,



Catalano, & Abbott, 2000; Richman & Fraser, 2001; Smith, Lizotte, Thornberry, & Krohn,1995; Stoiber & Good, 1998). For instance, Oxford and colleagues (2000) conducted a lon-gitudinal study of 905 youth and found that, even after controlling for the effects of peer asso-ciation, youth from prosocial families (rules, monitoring, and attachment) had a lowerlikelihood of early onset of substance use. Born et al. (1997) and Bender and Losel (1997)found that youth with higher levels of social support (e.g., someone to help with homeworkor talk to) were more apt to be resilient despite the presence of risk factors. Smith and col-leagues (1995) found greater resilience among youth with quality parental supervision, rela-tive to their peers who were not well supervised. Family influence is measured positively inthe current study, and, by extension, a negative relationship with delinquency is expected.

Peer Influence and Delinquent BehaviorCertain classes of risk factors are likely to take on different levels of salience at certain

stages of a youths development (Ayers et al., 1999). Following childhood, peer groupsbecome very important in contributing to the behavior of youth. As youth age, they will nat-urally spend more time outside the home with people other than their immediate family. Oneconsistent finding in studies of delinquency is the relationship between peer influence anddelinquent behavior (Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Matsueda & Heimer, 1987; Shader, 2001;Warr & Stafford, 1991). In a study utilizing data from the National Youth Survey (NYS),bonding to delinquent peers was found to be a proximate cause of drug use (Elliott, Huizinga,& Ageton, 1982). Indeed, Warr (2002) has called peer influence the principal proximatecause of delinquency (p. 136).

Matsueda and Heimer (1987) found support for a differential association explanationfor delinquent peers in their analysis of data from the Richmond Youth Study. Later, how-ever, using data from the NYS, Matsueda and Anderson (1998) found delinquency to be afactor of both selection and influence of peers (i.e., the variables had a nonrecursive rela-tionship), which is supportive of the interactional theory (Thornberry, 1987). Also usingNYS data, Warr and Stafford (1991) found that peer attitudes toward deviance affect ayouths own attitudes and, in turn, behavior. Furthermore, they found a strong, direct effectfor peer behavior on individual delinquency. They concluded that although peer attitudesmatter, their behavior is more important in predicting delinquency.

Dishion and colleagues (1999) found that association with deviant peers was highlypredictive of the onset of substance use (alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana). Williams andAyers (1999) also indicate that peer associations were important predictors of substance use.Henry and colleagues (2001) found that interaction with violent peers increased the likeli-hood of a youth behaving in a violent manner. The authors also found that peer associationspartially mediated the effects of family risk factors on delinquent behavior. Attachment tonegative or delinquent peer groups led to an increased likelihood of later delinquent behav-ior (ODonnell et al., 1995).

Understanding an individuals interaction with his or her peers can provide a betterunderstanding of his or her drug use as well (Kandel & Davies, 1991). For instance, peer influ-ence may mediate earlier personality characteristics in causing drug use in adolescence (Blocket al., 1988; Dishion et al., 1999). Oxford and colleagues (2000) found that deviant peer asso-ciations had a strong, positive relationship with delinquency. This research suggests that indi-viduals select peer groups based on shared predispositions to certain behavior and attitudes, butthese peers have an important influence on later behavior as well. In this work, it is expectedthat peer pressure will demonstrate a positive relationship with delinquency and drug use.



Current Study

The extant research and theoretical propositions reviewed earlier demonstrate a rela-tionship between emotional and behavioral problems and delinquency. This relationshiphas been supported using a number of different research methods in diverse settings. Still,some aspects of this relationship are not as clear, particularly the relationship betweenemotional and behavioral problems and delinquent behavior across a broader range of timein the context of other risk and protective factors important in predicting delinquency.

This study uses a longitudinal framework to assess the role of childhood emotional andbehavioral problems relative to the effects of family environment and peer influences. To thatend, this study assesses whether these childhood difficulties predict delinquency in early ado-lescence and whether family and peers have important roles at that stage. In doing so, it looksfurther both at the relative effects of these risk or protective factors and the manner in whichthey function in delinquent outcomes. Typically, studies have not examined these influencestogether, and when they do, they tend to use cross-sectional approaches that exclude childhoodinfluences (Loeber & LeBlanc, 1990). Expanded examination of that developmental period isessential for theoretical elaboration, particularly in life course criminology. The main objec-tive of this article is to explore emotional and behavioral problems and delinquency in a broadpopulation in the context of other potentially important risk and protective factors acrosschildhood and early adolescence. This study brings together the suggestions on furtherresearch made by the OJJDP (1998) and Huizinga et al. (2000) to examine the pattern of rela-tionships in these risk and protective factors and what they might mean for intervention.

This work derives hypotheses from extant empirical findings on risk and protective fac-tors along with the two key theoretical perspectives discussed earlier (ICAP and SDM). Thesehypotheses involve (a) a set of direct effects on early adolescent behavior and (b) a set of indi-rect effects where early emotional and behavioral problems are mediated by the family envi-ronment and peer relationships. In terms of direct effects, first, consistent with ICAP andpartially consistent with SDM, childhood emotional and behavioral problems were expectedto have a positive effect on delinquent behavior in early adolescence. Second, again consistentwith these theories and extant findings, it was expected that positive home environment wouldhave a negative relationship with delinquent behavior. Third, negative peer influences wereexpected to demonstrate a positive relationship with delinquent behavior. With respect to indi-rect relationships, the SDM in particular posits fully mediated paths for early emotional andbehavioral problems, which are analogous to their individual constitutional factors, to delin-quency. Essentially, these factors should be mediated by interactions with and/or encourage-ment from antisocial or prosocial others, either in familial or peer relationships. Here, it wasexpected that a positive home environment would mitigate early emotional and behavioralproblems and negative peer relationships would be a mediator in the opposite direction. Inessence, this sets up a rough relative assessment of the two theoretical perspectives. The ICAPsuggests a direct effect for emotional and behavioral problems on subsequent delinquency,and the SDM indicates that these factors would be mediated by social processes.

Method

Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1979 (NLSY 79) Child &Young Adult were utilized to assess the hypotheses presented above. Data were collectedprospectively using two sources of information (mother and youth interviews) during



several waves. Four separate instruments were included in the NLSY 79: Two were targetedto child interviewees, one to mothers, and another to young adults. Distinct child and youngadult interviews allowed for the inclusion of age-appropriate questions addressing issuessuch as delinquency and employment (Center for Human Resource Research, 2002).

Sample

The sample for this study is made up of children of the women included in the origi-nal NLSY 79 study, which was a study of a nationally representative panel sample of 12,686men and women ages 14 to 21 first interviewed in 1979 (Center for Human ResourceResearch, 2002). At the start of the NLSY 79 child study (1986), members of the originalcohort were between the ages of 21 and 28 (n = 5,418), which provided a pool of womenwith children. As these women aged into their childbearing years, the pool of available childinterview respondents increased. The sample for this study comprised youth between theages of 4 and 6 at the first two measurement periods (1986 and 1988). This group was thenfollowed to the 1992 and 1994 measurement windows. Based on these selection criteria, atotal of 1,389 youth had complete data on the variables used in the current work.

Data Collection

This study utilizes data from two separate instruments: (a) child self-administeredsupplement and (b) supplemental mother interview (Center for Human ResourceResearch, 2002). Each instrument taps a number of domains relevant to the social andemotional development of these children and sociodemographics and measures of problembehavior. Importantly, these instruments were designed to be developmentally appropriatefor the time period in which the youth or his or her mother was completing them.

Beginning in 1988, a self-report instrument was administered to youth between theages of 10 and 14. This was a confidential questionnaire that included age-appropriate itemsfor youth at this stage of development. It asked questions regarding substance use, delin-quency, and peer associations that were too sensitive to pursue in the other child interview-ing formats (Center for Human Resource Research, 1998a). At each wave prior to the childreaching age 15, the mother of the respondent completed an instrument designed to supple-ment the information collected from her child or as a proxy interview for very young children(Center for Human Resource Research, 1998b). Mothers were asked to provide informationabout the childs health and education and to respond to a variety of standardized assessmentinstruments, for example, the Behavioral Problem Index (BPI) and measures of motor skillsand social development.

Measures

The key dependent and independent study measures for delinquent behavior andemotional and behavioral problems were self-reported property, personal, drug, and statusoffenses and the maternally assessed BPI, respectively. Family influences were measuredin the mother supplement, whereas peer influences were tapped in the late childhood self-reports. The NLSY 79 Child & Young Adult adapted many items and validated scalesdrawn from previous longitudinal studies of youth and families such as the National YouthStudy and the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (Center for Human ResourceResearch, 2002). Full item descriptions of the measures are displayed in the appendix.



The primary outcome measure for this study was self-reported delinquent behaviorin early adolescence. This outcome was tapped with a battery of items in the child self-report surveys. For example, youth were asked whether they engaged in particular prop-erty (e.g., stole from a store), personal (hurt someone bad enough to require a doctor),or status offenses (skipped a day of school) in the prior year. The child self-report instru-ment also contained questions regarding substance use (e.g., marijuana, alcohol). The vari-able used here is an additive delinquency score based on yes or no responses to severaloffenses ( = .67).

The key independent variable in these analyses centered on a youths emotional andbehavioral problems as measured between the ages of 4 and 6 in the mother supplement.These measures do not represent diagnostic categories but rather address a broad range ofpotential symptoms of emotional and/or behavioral difficulties. The BPI was originallydeveloped by Peterson and Zill (1986) and comprises a wide array of items related to ayouths mood, behavior, and attitudes (Center for Human Resource Research, 2002). Theoverall index covers six empirically developed subscales: (a) antisocial (e.g., He/She bul-lies or is cruel or mean to others), (b) anxiety/depression (He/She has sudden changes inmood or feeling), (c) dependent (He/She clings to adults), (d) headstrong (He/Sheargues too much), (e) hyperactivity (He/She is easily confused, seems to be in a fog),and (f) conflicts (He/She is not liked by other children). The variable used here consistsof the summary, standardized BPI measure ( = .80). Certainly, although parental assess-ments may reflect certain biases and expectations unrelated to actual behavior, evidence hassuggested that parental reports of emotional and behavioral problems in childhood may bequite valid. Glascoe and Dworkin (1995), for instance, reviewed a number of studies thatrelied on parental reports of developmental problems and found that, overall, clinical accu-racy was enhanced when this information was utilized by health care professionals.

Important family-related items were drawn from the mother supplementary inter-view as well. Mothers were asked to respond to a number of items from the HomeObservation for Measurement of the Environment, Short-Form (HOME-SF), which con-tained questions on parental discipline, supervision, relationship to the child, and activitypatterns with children (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979, 1984). The HOME-SF is a measure ofthe nature and quality of a youths home environment (Center for Human ResourceResearch, 2002). Several subscales are represented in the overall HOME-SF score, includ-ing (a) stimulation through toys, games, materials; (b) pride, affection, and warmth; (c)stimulation of academic behavior; (d) modeling and encouragement of social maturity; and(e) physical punishment. The various items were recoded to dichotomies (by NLSY 79staff) before calculation of the summary score, which is used here. The HOME-SF hasdemonstrated validity and reliability in previous studies (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979).

A set of five questions in the child self-report examined whether youth were pres-sured by their peers to behave in a delinquent manner. Examples of late childhood peerinfluence measures include feel pressure from your friends to skip school and feel pres-sure from your friends to try marijuana or other drugs. An additive peer pressure scorewas derived from yes or no responses to these questions ( = .80).

Three sociodemographic controls were included in these analyses to adjust for fac-tors often associated with variability in delinquency. Dummy variables for Hispanic andBlack youth account for race influences in contrast to the White category. A gender vari-able is also included as a control in multivariate analysis. Lastly, because these youth mayhave been interviewed at slightly different time periods, a control for age at the early ado-lescence measurement window is included (range = 9-12 years).



Analytic Strategy

The main analytic method employed here was censored regression with maximum like-lihood estimation using LISREL 8.71 (Jreskog & Srbom, 1996). This regression approachwas used because the distribution of the early adolescent delinquency score was heavily influ-enced by zero values (55%), representing no delinquent behavior during the time window (fora discussion of the use of censored regression with crime measures, see Osgood, Finken, &McMorris, 2002). As a result, use of ordinary least squares regression was inappropriate andcould result in biased parameter estimates (Breen, 1996; Jreskog, 2004).

Two complementary strategies were utilized to further investigate the relationshipsamong childhood emotional and behavioral problems, family environment, and peer pres-sure in their effects on early adolescent delinquency. The first was formal inference-basedrecursive modeling (FIRM), which looks for predictive splits in independent variables rel-ative to a given outcome (Hawkins, 2001). A dichotomous early adolescent delinquencyvariable was used as an outcome, and childhood emotional and behavioral problems, fam-ily environment, and peer pressure were used as predictors to examine their single andinteractive effects on delinquent behavior. This approach is sometimes referred to as tree-modeling and has been utilized in forms slightly different from FIRM in the past (e.g.,Breiman, Friedman, Olshen, & Stone, 1984).

A second complementary approach examined the key relationships outlined here ina two-step path analysis. Here, the early adolescent covariates (family and peer influence)were specified as mediators (Baron & Kenny, 1986) to provide a cursory assessment oftheir potential relationships with both childhood problems and early adolescent delin-quency and, by extension, sought to assess some tenets of recent theoretical integration.This provided a better sense of how the covariates in the regression models functionedtogether in their relationship with delinquent behavior. Again, maximum likelihood esti-mation with LISREL 8.71 was used for the path analysis.

Results

Table 1 presents the descriptives statistics and bivariate correlations for measuresincluded in the multivariate analyses. Overall, males make up about half of the sample(48%), and Black and Hispanic youth compose 56% together. The mean age of youth atthe second measurement period is 11 (SD = 0.92). In the bivariate and multivariate analy-ses, the BPI and HOME-SF are normalized. The corresponding mean raw scores (notshown) are 10.07 (SD = 5.7) and 19.34 (SD = 4.2), respectively. For the BPI, this suggeststhat, on average, mothers responded affirmatively to 10 of the 28 emotional and/or behav-ioral problem items. The HOME-SF raw score ranged from 0 to 27, so the mean of 19 sug-gests that youth in this sample lived in fairly positive home environments.

The mean scores for the peer pressure and delinquency measures demonstrate theoverall low prevalence of these problems in this general population. Both demonstrate that,on average, youth reported experiencing less than one type of peer pressure (M = 0.32, SD =0.91) and engaging in less than one delinquent behavior (M = 0.87, SD = 1.33). Again, amodeling approach was selected with this reality in mind. Row 8 in the correlation matrixdemonstrates that, with the exception of the Hispanic dummy variable, each of the itemsselected for multivariate analysis demonstrates a significant correlation with delinquentbehavior in this sample.



Table 2 shows three censored regressions of early adolescent delinquency on impor-tant sociodemographic controls and childhood emotional and behavioral problems.1 InStep 2, early adolescent home environment was added to the model, and in Step 3, peerinfluence was included.

Looking first at the control variables, gender and age are statistically significant andconsistent across the three specifications. Coefficients for the gender variable suggest thatbeing male is associated with an increased score on early adolescent delinquency.2 Not sur-prisingly, as one moves across years from age 9 to 12, there is an attendant increase in


TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Key Study Variables

Emotional andBehavioral HOME-SF Peer

Male (1) Black (2) Hispanic (3) Age (4) Problems (5) Score (6) Pressure (7) Delinquency (8)

(1) 1.00(2) .03 1.00(3) .01 .38* 1.00(4) .01 .02 .04 1.00(5) .07* .01 .01 .00 1.00(6) .06* .27* .05* .06* .17* 1.00(7) .05 .05 .02 .10* .06* .09* 1.00(8) .12* .05* .01 .15* .11* .18* .38* 1.00M 0.48 0.36 0.20 11.03 106.96 198.73 0.32 0.87SD 0.50 0.48 0.40 0.92 14.04 36.72 0.91 1.33

NOTE: N = 1,389. HOME-SF = Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment, Short-Form.*p < .05.

TABLE 2Censored Regression of Early Adolescent Delinquency on Key Covariates

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Covariates Coefficient SE Coefficient SE Coefficient SE

RaceBlack 0.478 0.165* 0.225 0.171 0.144 0.159Hispanic 0.218 0.197 0.058 0.198 0.012 0.184White (reference)

GenderMale 0.689 0.147* 0.644 0.146* 0.557 0.135*

Age at early adolescent 0.444 0.082* 0.417 0.081* 0.323 0.076*measurement

Childhoodemotional and 0.017 0.005* 0.013 0.005* 0.010 0.005*behavioral problems

Early adolescenthome 0.010 0.002* 0.008 0.002*environment

Early adolescentpeer pressure 0.757 0.069*Intercept 7.537 1.079* 4.697 1.218* 3.701 1.131*Pseudo R2 .064 .086 .218

NOTE: N = 1,389.*p < .05.


delinquent behavior as well. For race, Black was a significant predictor of early adolescentdelinquency in the initial model only. There, being part of that racial subgroup was asso-ciated with a 0.478 unit increase in the delinquency score relative to White youth. Neitherdummy variable for race was statistically significant in the final two models.

Childhood emotional and behavioral problems, as measured by the BPI, were a con-sistent, significant predictor of early adolescent delinquency, net of statistical controls forkey sociodemographics, family environment, and peer influence. In the full model, forinstance, an increase of one reported problem on the BPI predicts a 0.010 unit change inthe early adolescent delinquency score.

An increase in the positive home environment measure was associated with adecrease in the delinquency score (0.010, p < .05). Importantly, this effect remains at Stage3, suggesting that the family has a protective effect on delinquency, net of other key covari-ates, most notably peer influence. That said, relative to other covariates, peer pressure inearly adolescence exerts a substantial impact on delinquent behavior. This is evident in thepredicted 0.757 increase in the delinquency score for each additional positive response onthe peer pressure composite. It is also evident from the results of the FIRM analysis (notshown)where the only significant split in the dichotomous early adolescent delinquencyoutcome was determined by the presence or absence of peer pressure. This indicates thatonce a split was made between those who experienced peer pressures and those who didnot, little could be added to determine delinquent behavior in the FIRM approach.

Figure 1 presents a path model of delinquent behavior in early adolescence as a func-tion of emotional and behavioral problems, family environment, and peer pressure fordelinquent behavior. The model was specified to account for (a) paths from each of thethree covariates to delinquent behavior and (b) effects for childhood emotional and behav-ioral problems on family environment and peer pressures in early adolescence, whichallows for indirect relationships between the BPI and delinquency.

The Model 2 is significant, which suggests less than good fit. As a fit index, however,the 2 has been found to be overly sensitive to sample size in some cases (Hu & Bentler,1999). As a result, other measures of fit across three subcategories are presented to holisti-cally assess the fit of this model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The root mean square error of approx-imation (0.07) and standardized root mean square residual (0.03) suggest good fit whenexamined in concert. Similarly, values of the adjusted goodness of fit index (0.97), normedfit index (0.97), and comparative fit index (0.98) denote adequate fit. Together, these fiveindices assess absolute, parsimonious, and incremental model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

The standardized path coefficients displayed in Figure 1 are all statistically significantand are a reasonable facsimile of the results for censored regression presented in Table 2.The standardized coefficients allow for a clearer assessment of relative strength of the pre-dictors, however. For instance, the peer influence path ( = .37) clearly has the strongestrelationship with delinquency. Also of import is the effect of the emotional and behavioralproblem variable, which maintains a significant, modest effect ( = .06) even after account-ing for potential paths through family and peer covariates. The fact that the child emotionaland behavioral problem measure has significant relationships with family ( = .18) andpeer influences ( = .06) in early adolescence suggests partially mediated relationships.

Figure 2 illustrates the component relationships active in the previous path model.First, Figure 2a shows the standardized effect of childhood emotional and behavioral prob-lems on early adolescent delinquency ( = .10). Figure 2b adds a mediator path to familyinfluence from emotional and behavioral problems. The direct effect of emotional andbehavioral problem on delinquency remains significant but is slightly reduced ( = .07) in



accounting for the path through the family environment variable. Similarly, Figure 2c showsthe mediation effect of peer pressure. Again, emotional and behavioral problems is a statis-tically significant predictor ( = .08) of delinquency in early adolescence and is only par-tially mediated by peer pressure, which is indicated by a small indirect effect (.02). Overall,emotional and behavioral problems at ages 4 to 6 predict delinquent behavior several yearslater, even after accounting for the mediating effects of other important covariates.

Discussion

Each of the key variables outlined earlier had a significant effect on delinquentbehavior in early adolescence. By extension, the findings precipitate some discussionregarding current knowledge and potential delinquency prevention programs. Each findingis presented in turn before the results of the path analysis are incorporated into the discus-sion relative to those points. Following that, specific theoretical implications relevant toFarringtons (2005) ICAP and Catalano and Hawkins (1996) SDM are briefly presented.

First, childhood emotional and behavioral problems had a significant effect on delin-quency in early adolescence, even after controlling for more proximate influences. Thissuggests that, in general, childhood problems cannot be ignored if a youth is expected todevelop in a prosocial way.3 The fact that the BPI is administered several years prior to theoutcome and still holds sway suggests the importance of early parental recognition of theseproblems and active pursuit of remedies. At the same time, the rather modest effect indi-cates that the overall childhood BPI measure is not as strong as might be expected if bothgeneral emotional and behavioral problems and delinquency reflect a persistent, underly-ing orientation to imprudent behavior that manifests itself in different ways at differentdevelopmental stages (e.g., Farrington, 1992; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).


.14*

.37*.06*

.06*

.18*

Emotional and Behavioral Problems

ChildhoodPeer Influence

Early Adolescence

Delinquency Early Adolescence

Family Environment Early Adolescence

Figure 1. Path Model With Standardized Coefficients for Delinquency and KeyCovariates

NOTE: 2 = 8.31, 1 df, p < .01, root mean square error of approximation = 0.07.


Second, the protective effect of the family in early adolescence indicates that thehome environment remains salient in attenuating delinquent behavior at this stage. Thisresult supports the belief of treatment researchers regarding the importance of the familyin treatment efforts aimed at multiproblem youth. Assessing youth for early emotional andbehavioral problems, coupled with family-centered approaches to delinquency prevention,is supported by these findings. The findings presented here suggest that both individualsand their social environments conspire to foster deviant behavior in youth. It is essentialthat the families of high-risk youth understand the problems that their children face and the



Childhood

DelinquencyEarly Adolescence

Peer Influence Early Adolescence

.06*

.08*

.38*

C


Childhood

DelinquencyEarly Adolescence

Family Environment Early Adolescence

.18*

.07*

.17*

B


ChildhoodDelinquencyEarly

Adolescence.10*

A

Figure 2. A: Emotional and Behavioral Problems and Delinquency; B: Emotionaland Behavioral Problems, Family Environment, and Delinquency; C:Emotional and Behavioral Problems, Peer Influence, and Delinquency

*p < .05.


potential results. High-risk families should not simply be singled out (and potentially stig-matized) but rather must be educated to recognize and respond to the emergence of prob-lem behavior in their children. These families should be informed that many youth exhibitthese behaviors at early developmental stages and that there are viable solutions shouldthey choose to engage them.

Youth with these problems often come from families with a number of deficits (e.g.,financial, disciplinary) that must be addressed. It is difficult, if not impossible, for socialservice agencies to intervene in the lives of at-risk and delinquent youth without coopera-tion and involvement from families. This can be witnessed in the shift to comprehensivemulti-systemic therapy (Henggeler, 1997) and functional family therapy (Sexton &Alexander, 2000), approaches that are now recognized as best practice models for treatingmultiproblem youth. Problem behavior cannot be fully addressed without dealing with therelationship between the individual and their immediate social environment. A family-based approach is essential to any success that researchers and practitioners hope to havein addressing the difficulties of multiproblem youth.

Third, although the previous two points are important, peer influence is the most pow-erful correlate of delinquent behavior in the model specified here. This is reflective ofWarrs (2002) summary of peers as a central influence on offending and suggests thatalthough early identification and family-centered treatment are essential, ensuring thatyouth do not choose deviant friends or are not unduly influenced by their peers becomes achallenge in early adolescence. The positive influence of the family must extend outside thehome to ensure that parents are aware of the potential role of their childs friends in delin-quent behavior. Also, family-centered modalities for delinquency prevention must includeapproaches for instilling sustainable mechanisms directed at coping with and diffusing peerpressure. Fostering this type of resilience is the basic premise behind drug educationprograms such as D.A.R.E., which have produced less-than-hoped-for results (Dukes,Ullman, & Stein, 1996; Rosenbaum & Hanson, 1998; for contrasting findings in an analo-gous program, see Esbensen, Osgood, Taylor, Peterson, and Freng, 2001) but may workbetter as part of a package of intervention directed more specifically toward at-risk youth.

Results of the path analysis suggest that variables in this model do a reasonable jobof predicting delinquency in early adolescence. In addition to supporting the overall con-clusions of the regression analysis, they suggest some functional features of the relation-ships between these variables and delinquency. For instance, childhood emotional andbehavioral problems have a relationship with later family and peer influences on delin-quency. This lends some support to theories that emphasize interactions between a youthsearly behavior and familial influence on delinquency (e.g., Thornberry, 1987) and the con-struction of peer pressure effects that suggests that they are mutually reinforced by youthwith similar profiles as opposed to dissemination from delinquent youth to nondelinquentyouth (e.g., Glueck & Glueck, 1950). These findings also support some research suggest-ing that parental efficacy maintains a significant effect on delinquency, despite individualand peer influences (Perrone, Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004). At the same time, thisruns contrary to the notion advanced by some that parental behavior toward children playslittle role in the development of later difficulties (e.g., Harris, 1998). Again, this suggestsa need to consider solutions across multiple domains rather than focusing simply on theindividual, family, peer group, or community.

Assessing difficulties in childhood is important, but once a youth reaches adoles-cence, his or her peers must be accounted for as well. The observed strength of the peerinfluence variable suggests that youth who are coming into the juvenile justice system and



treatment settings in early adolescence should be asked as much about their friends behav-ior as their own behavior and family strengths or difficulties. In the strictest empirical sense,maybe more time should be devoted to peer relationships as opposed to individual or fam-ily risks and strengths. Unfortunately, at that point a good deal of problematic behavior mayhave already occurred, and, as a result, it sensible to try to set youth on a prosocial courseas soon as possible (Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Knowledge of peer influences is clearlyimportant in adolescence but cannot help in prospective prevention. It is essential to under-stand childhood emotional and behavioral problems and the family environment in devel-oping strategies for addressing the needs of at-risk youth. At a certain point, influencesoutside of the home must be checked and accounted for as well.

The main focus of this work was on empirically identified risk and protective factorsfor early-onset delinquency. Important theoretical propositions have emerged from similarstudies in recent years. The integration of existing theoretical perspectives and empiricallyidentified risk factors has contributed to the general frameworks laid out by Farrington(1992, 1996, 2005) and Catalano and Hawkins (1996; see also Catalano et al., 2005). Someof the propositions of the ICAP theory and SDM were examined in a glancing mannerhere. With respect to Farringtons (2005) theory, this work suggests that positive child rear-ing, attachment, and appropriate socialization are important to development of antisocialpotential, at least as it ultimately appears in the form of delinquent behavior. Impulsivitywas a part of the BPI, which, consistent with one tenet of the ICAP theory, had a positiverelationship with delinquency. Second, the negative relationship between home environ-ment and delinquency indicates that the family holds an important influence on the devel-opment of antisocial potential, even when accounting for other key influences. Third,although it is difficult to determine whether deviant peers acted as a situational or social-izing influence (which is a distinction made in Farringtons model), the importance ofdeviant peers was reaffirmed here.

SDM propositions were manifest in the emotional and behavioral problem, familyenvironment, and peer influence measures utilized here as well. With one exception,propositions of the SDM were generally supported. Positive family environments con-tributed to a lower likelihood of delinquent behavior, and peer influences suggested a pos-itive relationship between deviant peers and delinquency. Again, although the mechanismscould not be fully specified and tested, the basic tenets and influences suggested by theSDM were supported. Still, the SDM suggests that exogenous individual influences andstructural characteristics (e.g., race, gender) are fully mediated by social developmentprocesses. These analyses identified only partial mediation of the BPI measure, which con-tradicts one of the propositions of SDM (see also Catalano et al., 2005). This suggestssome necessary elaboration of SDM with respect to the proposed indirect relationshipsbetween individual constitutional factors and delinquency and lends some credence to thedirect path specified in Farringtons (1992, 1996, 2005) work.

Limitations

Despite some advantages in the data and analytic approach used here, this study hassome attendant limitations that must be acknowledged and addressed in future work. First,future research should break down the general measure of emotional and behavioral prob-lems to examine different subtypes of difficulties (e.g., internalizing vs. externalizingproblems). This will aid in better understanding the effects of these problems on delin-quency and their interaction with other risk and protective factors. Delinquent outcomes



require some disaggregation as well. Second, although gender and race were included ascontrols for assessing general effects of emotional and behavioral problems, families, andpeers, future research must continue to look closely at the effects of a youths risk and pro-tective factor profile in the contexts of race (e.g., Williams & Ayers, 1999) and gender(e.g., Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). These differences have clear implications forcompetent intervention with different subgroups of at-risk youth.

Third, although Huizinga and colleagues (2000) make an important point regardingthe need for study of general population youth, this comes with the difficulty of interpret-ing substantive significance against statistical significance. This study utilized a fairlylarge sample, and as a result some small relationships may have reached statistical signif-icance despite the need for caution in interpreting their substantive significance. On bal-ance, however, to the extent that this work is confirmatory of some existing theoreticalperspectives and empirical findings, it would appear that these factors are of some sub-stantive import. Nevertheless, further replication across samples is essential in findingresults that can be distilled into actionable policy and program ideas.

Fourth, further work must be done to ensure the proper specification of modelsinvolving childhood emotional and behavioral problems and later delinquency. This studyinvestigated a rather simple model, and future analyses should certainly incorporate otherpotential influences, both within and across developmental stages, on delinquent behavior.For instance, although childhood emotional and behavioral problems are treated as anexogenous variable in this analysis, there are clearly some family and biological influencespreceding difficulties at age 4 to 6 that should be incorporated in further iterations of thisline of research. Also, this study specified family and peer relationships as potential medi-ators of early emotional and behavioral problems and found that they did not, in fact, fullyaccount for the relationship between emotional and behavioral problems and delinquency.Further research should specify these influences as potential moderators in an attempt todiscern how the primary variable (emotional and behavioral problems) acts at different lev-els of the intermediary variable (family, peer influences) in predicting delinquent behavior(Baron & Kenny, 1986). For instance, relative to peers, some theoretical perspectives andattendant empirical investigations pose clear mechanisms by which these influences affectdelinquent behavior (e.g., Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Warr & Stafford, 1991). The mea-sures used here did not fully allow for that level of explication. More work must identifyand test these mechanisms in both theoretical and applied contexts.

Conclusions

This study presents some interesting findings in spite of these limitations. The long-range predictive value of assessing emotional and behavioral problems in children is affirmed,although the magnitude of the effect is fairly small. Still, positive family environments maymitigate the likelihood of later delinquency and present a desirable avenue for intervention asa result. At the same time, it is essential to recognize that peer influences on delinquent behav-ior are quite striking and should be kept in mind in comprehensively addressing the issues ofat-risk youth. Indeed, once a youth is at the stage where his or her behavior can get him or herin legal trouble, peer influences are quite important. Overall, this work demonstrates theimportance of considering a number of domains of risk and protection in potentially predict-ing, explaining, and preventing delinquent behavior in early adolescence and, by extension,reducing the likelihood of sustained patterns of offending over the life course. This notion isclearly at work in the research on longitudinal risk factors for delinquency and the theories



emerging from those findings (e.g., Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Farrington, 1992). More workmust be done in assessing those emerging, integrated theoretical perspectives.

Certainly, as has been pointed out in Moffitt (1997) and Laub and Sampson (2003),there is some noise at work in trying to study multiproblem youth in the general popula-tion and posit risk and protective factors related to delinquency. Indeed, this may be man-ifest in the rather modest observed effect for emotional and behavioral problems. Findingsfrom these studies can be useful if viewed in their proper context, however. Identificationand intervention will, of course, never be perfect, but a general goal should be to fosterhealthy agents of socialization while attempting to identify at-risk youth and develop mul-tifaceted approaches to help set them on a more positive course.

This work contributes to an understanding of the etiology of juvenile delinquency inindicating a long-term influence of early emotional and behavioral problems on delinquencyin a general population sample. It also exposed some other key influences on delinquencythat must be addressed in prevention and treatment programs and supports Warrs (2002)position that discussion of parents versus peers in theoretical arguments and empiricalassessments is oversimplified. It also provided a cursory examination of two emerging theo-retical perspectives. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of work remains both in identify-ing and further explicating the relationship between these problems and developingresponses that are palatable to multiple stakeholders. Yet a solid research base and set of bestpractice interventions are emerging to help separate the promising from the pedestrian interms of theory, policy, and programming to promote positive youth development.

APPENDIXItems in Additive Scores and Standardized Measures

Delinquency (EA)Ever smoked cigarettesEver drank alcoholmore than a sipEver used marijuanaHurt someone bad enough for doctorStole from a storeIntentionally damaged school propertySkipped a full day of schoolStayed out all night w/out parental permission

Emotional and Behavioral Problems, Behavioral Problem Index (C)He/She has sudden changes in mood or feeling.He/She cheats or tells lies.He/She argues too much.He/She is disobedient at school.He/She has difficulty concentrating, cannot pay attention for long.He/She is easily confused, seems to be in a fog.He/She bullies or is cruel or mean to others.He/She is disobedient at home.He/She has trouble getting along with other children.He/She is impulsive, or acts without thinking.He/She is not liked by other children.He/She is restless or overly active, cannot sit still.He/She is withdrawn, does not get involved with others.He/She breaks things on purpose or deliberately destroys his/her own or anothers things.



APPENDIX (continued)He/She has trouble getting along with teachers.He/She clings to adults.He/She cries too much.He/She demands a lot of attention.He/She is too dependent on others.He/She feels or complains that no one loves him/her.He/She is rather high strung, tense and nervous.He/She is too fearful or anxious.He/She feels worthless or inferior.He/She does not seem to feel sorry after he/she misbehaves.He/She is stubborn, sullen, or irritable.He/She has a very strong temper and loses it easily.He/She is unhappy, sad, or depressed.He/She has a lot of difficulty getting his/her mind off certain thoughts (obsessions).

Family Influence, HOME-SF (EA)About how many books does your child have?About how often is your child expected to make his or her own bed?About how often is your child expected to clean his/her own room?About how often is your child expected to pick up after himself/herself?About how often is your child expected to help keep shared living areas clean and straight?About how often is your child expected to do routine chores (e.g., wash dishes)?About how often is your child expected to help manage his/her own time (e.g., get up on time)?Is there a musical instrument that your child can use here at the home?Does your family get a daily newspaper?About how often does your child read for enjoyment?Does your family encourage your child to start and keep doing hobbies?Does your child get any special lessons or belong to any organized activities (e.g., sports, drama)?How often has any family member taken or arranged to take your child to any time of museum

within the past year?How often has a family member taken or arranged to take your child to any type of musical or the

atrical performance within the past year?How often does your whole family get together with relatives or friends?About how often does your child spend time with his/her father, stepfather, or father-figure?About how often does your child spend time with his/her father, stepfather, or father-figure in

outdoor activities?How often does your child eat a meal with both mother and father?When your family watches TV together, do your or your childs father (or stepfather, father figure)

discuss TV programs with him/her?How many times have you had to spank your child in the past week?How many times in the past week, if any, have you had to spank your child?How many times in the past week have you grounded your child?How many times in the past week have you taken away TV or some other privilege?How many times in the past week have you taken away his or her allowance?How many times in the past week have you taken away TV or some other privilege?

Peer Influence (EA)Feel pressure to try cigarettesFeel pressure to try mar/drugsFeel pressure to drink alcoholFeel pressure to skip schoolFeel pressure to commit crime

NOTE: HOME-SF = Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment, Short-Form.



NOTES

1. The models were also run with a natural log transformed version of the delinquency scoreto better ensure that the assumptions of censored-normal regression were met (Osgood, Finken, &McMorris, 2002). Substantive conclusions based on parameter estimates from these models wereidentical to those presented.

2. The censored regression model, in fact, estimates an underlying, noncensored latent vari-able (y*; Breen, 1996). The interpretation of individual coefficient estimates is made with that under-lying variable in mind.

3. Certainly, an argument can be made that, to the extent that maternal appraisals manifest ina youths beliefs about himself or herself and resultant behavior, these early assessments may actu-ally be a causal factor in delinquent behavior (e.g., Matsueda, 1992). This perspective, although notthe focus of the current work, certainly warrants attention in discussion of the relative merits ofchildhood assessment (both parent and teacher) and intervention, particularly in the context of poten-tial false positives that inevitably emerge with such approaches.

REFERENCES

Ayers, C. D., Williams, J. H., Hawkins, J. D., Peterson, P. L., Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (1999).Assessing correlates of onset, escalation, de-escalation, and desistance of delinquent behaviors.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 15, 277-306.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bender, D., & Losel, F. (1997). Protective and risk effects of peer relationship and social support onantisocial behaviour in adolescents from multi-problem milieus. Journal of Adolescence, 20,661-678.

Block, J., Block, J. H., & Keyes, S. (1988). Longitudinally foretelling drug usage in adolescence:Early childhood personality and environmental precursors. Child Development, 59, 336-355.

Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988). Longitudinal research and criminal careers:Further clarifications. Criminology, 26, 57-74.

Born, M., Chevalier, V., & Humblet, I. (1997). Resilience, desistance and delinquent career of ado-lescent offenders. Journal of Adolescence, 20, 679-694.

Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1979). Home environment and locus of control. Journal ofClinical Child Psychology, 3, 107-111.

Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The relation of infants home environments to achieve-ment test performance in first grade: A follow-up study. Child Development, 55, 803-809.

Breen, R. (1996). Regression models: Censored, sample-selected, and truncated data. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984). Classification and regressiontrees. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Brook, J. S., Brook, D. W., Arencibia-Mireles, O., Richter, L., & Whiteman, M. (2001). Risk factors foradolescent marijuana use across cultures and across time. The Journal of Genetic Psychology,162, 357-374.

Cantelon, S. L. (1994). Family strengthening for high-risk youth. Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Carr, M. B., & Vandiver, T. A. (2001). Risk and protective factors among youth offenders. Adolescence,36, 409-426.



Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocialbehavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-197).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Catalano, R. F., Park, J., Harachi, T. W., Haggerty, K. P., Abbott, R. D., & Hawkins, J. D. (2005).Mediating the effects of poverty, gender, individual characteristics, and external constraints onantisocial behavior: A test of the social development model and implications for develop-mental life course theory. In D. P. Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental & life-coursetheories of offending (pp. 93-123). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Center for Human Resource Research. (1998a). NLSY79 child self-administered supplement.Columbus, OH: Author.

Center for Human Resource Research. (1998b). NLSY79 mother supplement. Columbus, OH: Author.Center for Human Resource Research. (2002). NLSY79 child & young adult data users guide.

Columbus, OH: Author.Dembo, R., & Schmeidler, J. (2003). A classification of high-risk youths. Crime & Delinquency, 49,

201-230.Dishion, T. J., Capaldi, D. M., & Yoerger, K. (1999). Late childhood antecedents to progressions in

male adolescent substance use: An ecological analysis of risk and protection. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 14, 175-205.

Dukes, R. L., Ullman, J. B., & Stein, J. A. (1996). Three-year follow-up of drug abuse resistance edu-cation (D.A.R.E.). Evaluation Review, 20, 49-66.

Ellickson, P. L., Saner, H., & McGuigan, K. A. (1997). Profiles of violent youth: Substance use andother concurrent problems. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 985-991.

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1982). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Boulder,CO: Behavioral Research Institute.

Esbensen, F. A., Osgood, D. W., Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., & Freng, A. (2001). How great is G.R.E.A.T.?Results from a longitudinal quasi-experimental design. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 87-115.

Farrington, D. P. (1992). Explaining the beginning, progress, and ending of antisocial behavior frombirth to adulthood. In J. McCord (Ed.), Facts, frameworks, and forecasts: Advances in crimi-nological theory (pp. 253-286). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Farrington, D. P. (1994). Early developmental prevention of juvenile delinquency. Criminal Behaviourand Mental Health, 4, 209-227.

Farrington, D. P. (1996). The explanation and prevention of youthful offending. In J. D. Hawkins(Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 68-148). Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Farrington, D. P. (2005). The integrated cognitive antisocial potential (ICAP) theory. In D. P.Farrington (Ed.), Integrated developmental & life-course theories of offending (pp. 73-92).New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Glascoe, F. P., & Dworkin, P. H. (1995). The role of parents in detection of developmental and behav-ioral problems. Pediatrics, 95, 829-836.

Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund.Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L. R. (1996). The relation of family function-

ing to violence among inner-city minority youths. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 115-129.Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1987). The methodological adequacy of longitudinal research on

crime. Criminology, 25, 581-614.Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free

Press.



Hawkins, D. M. (2001). FIRM: Formal inference-based recursive modeling. In M. du Toit & S. duToit (Eds.), Interactive LISREL: Users guide (pp. 413-436). Chicago: Scientific SoftwareInternational.

Henggeler, S. W. (1997). Treating serious anti-social behavior in youth: The MST approach.Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Henry, D. B., Tolan, P. H., & Gorman-Smith, D. (2001). Longitudinal family and peer group effectson violence and nonviolent delinquency. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 172-186.

Howard, S., & Johnson, B. (2000). Resilient and non-resilient behaviour in adolescents. Canberra:Australian Institute of Criminology.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Huizinga, D., Loeber, R., Thornberry, T. P., & Cothern, L. (2000). Co-occurrence of delinquency andother problem behaviors. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Jreskog, K. G. (2004). Multivariate censored regression. Retrieved May 30, 2005, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel

Jreskog, K. G., & Srbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8.0: Users reference guide. Chicago: ScientificSoftware International.

Kandel, D., & Davies, M. (1991). Friendship networks, intimacy, and illicit drug use in young adult-hood: A comparison of two competing theories. Criminology, 29, 441-467.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

LeBlanc, M., & Loeber, R. (1998). Developmental criminology updated. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crimeand justice (Vol. 23, pp. 115-198). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review. ChildDevelopment, 53, 1431-1446.

Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency.Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 1-41.

Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Never too early, never too late: Risk factors and successfulinterventions for serious and violent juvenile offenders. Studies on Crime and CrimePrevention, 7, 7-30.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van Kammen, W. B. (1998). Antisocial behav-ior and mental health problems: Explanatory factors in childhood and adolescence. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Loeber, R., & LeBlanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. In M. Tonry & N. Morris(Eds.), Crime and justice (Vol. 12, pp. 375-473). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenileconduct problems and delinquency. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: Anannual review of research (Vol. 7, pp. 29-149). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loeber, R., Wylie-Weiher, A., & Smith, C. (1993). The relationship between family interaction anddelinquency and substance use. In D. Huizinga, R. Loeber, & T. P. Thornberry (Eds. ), Urbandelinquency and substance abuse: Technical report (pp. 91-97). Washington, DC: Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable and unfa-vorable environments: Lessons from research on successful children. American Psychologist,53, 205-220.

Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a sym-bolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577-1611.



Matsueda, R. L., & Anderson, K. (1998). The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior.Criminology, 36, 269-308.

Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family structure, and delinquency: A test of differen-tial association and social control theories. American Sociological Review, 52, 826-840.

Mayer, G. R. (2001). Antisocial behavior: Its causes and prevention within our schools. Educationand Treatment of Children, 24, 414-429.

McCord, J., Widom, C. S., & Crowell, N. A. (Eds.). (2003). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescent-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: a develop-mental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

Moffitt, T. E. (1997). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent offending: A complementarypair of developmental theories. In T. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime anddelinquency (pp. 11-54). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour:Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin Longitudinal Study. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

ODonnell, J., Hawkins, J. D., & Abbott, R. D. (1995). Predicting serious delinquency and substanceuse among aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 529-537.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1998). Mental health disorders and sub-stance abuse problems among juveniles. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

Osgood, D. W., Finken, L. W., & McMorris, B. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crimeand deviance II: Tobit regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of QuantitativeCriminology, 18, 319-347.

Oxford, M. L., Harachi, T. W., Catalano, R. F., & Abbott, R. D. (2000). Preadolescent predictors ofsubstance initiation: A test of both the direct and mediated effect of family social control fac-tors on deviant peer association and substance initiation. American Journal of Drug andAlcohol Abuse, 27, 599-616.

Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antiso-cial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (1993). Developmental models for delinquent behavior. InS. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 140-172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Perrone, D., Sullivan, C. J., Pratt, T. C., & Margaryan, S. (2004). Parental efficacy, self-control, anddelinquency: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally representative sample of youth.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 298-312.

Peterson, J. L., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior prob-lems in children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 295-307.

Richman, J. M., & Fraser, M. W. (2001). Resilience in childhood: The role of risk and protection. InJ. M. Richman & M. W. Fraser (Eds.), The context of youth violence: Resilience, risk, and pro-tection (pp. 1-12). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy childhood predictors of adult antisocial behaviour: Replications fromlongitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 8, 611-622.

Rosenbaum, D. P., & Hanson, G. S. (1998). Assessing the effects of school-based drug education: Asix-year multilevel analysis of Project D.A.R.E. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,35, 381-412.

Sexton, A., & Alexander, J. F. (2000). Functional family therapy. Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Shader, M. (2001). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.



Smith, C., Lizotte, A. J., Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (1995). Resilient youth: Identifying factorsthat prevent high-risk youth from engaging in delinquency and drug use. In J. Hagan (Ed.),Delinquency and disrepute in the life-course (pp. 217-247). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Smith, C., Wylie-Weiher, A., & Van Kammen, W. B. (1993). Family attachment and delinquency. InD. Huizinga, R. Loeber, & T. P. Thornberry (Eds.), Urban delinquency and substance abuse:Technical report (pp. 81-88). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Stoiber, K. C., & Good, B. (1998). Risk and resilience factors linked to problem behavior amongurban, culturally diverse adolescents. School Psychology Review, 27, 380-397.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Loeber, R. (2002). Lost opportunities for intervention: Undetected markersfor the development of serious juvenile delinquency. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,12, 69-82.

Teplin, L., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiatricdisorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133-1143.

Thornberry, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology, 25, 863-891.Tremblay, R. E., Masse, B., Perron, D., LeBlanc, M., Schwartzman, A. E., & Ledingham, J. E. (1992).

Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent behavior, and delinquent per-sonality: Longitudinal analyses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72.

Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers: What they think or what theydo? Criminology, 29, 851-866.

Wasserman, G. A., Keenan, K., Tremblay, R. E., Cole, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Loeber, R., et al.(2003). Risk and protective factors of child delinquency. Washington, DC: Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wasserman, G. A., Ko, S. J., & McReynolds, L. S. (2004). Assessing the mental health status ofyouth in juvenile justice settings. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Williams, J. H., & Ayers, C. D. (1999). Racial differences in risk factors for delinquency and sub-stance use among adolescents. Social Work Research, 23, 241-257.

Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and edu-cation on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.

Christopher J. Sullivan is an assistant professor in the University of South FloridasDepartment of Criminology. He completed his doctorate at Rutgers University in 2005.His research interests include the etiology of juvenile delinquency and data collectionand analytic methods. His recent work has appeared in Criminology and BehavioralSciences & the Law.



/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org) /PDFXTrapped /Unknown

/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

Date post:	25-Nov-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	cristina-miutu
View:	41 times
Download:	2 times

Early Adolescent Delinquency Crisis Assessing the Role of Childhood Problems, Family Environment,...

Documents