Socioeconomic Status and Juvenile Delinquency

Introduction 

Notably, juvenile delinquency is not a new phenomenon, as there is an abundant research on the topic. Socioeconomic status has been noted as one of the major causes of juvenile delinquency. Many scholars have associated low socio-economic status in family setups with increased cases of juvenile delinquency. The family economic status is bound to change over time, due to several factors. For instance, factors such as loss of jobs, illnesses, and divorces are some of the key factors which can affect the economic stability of a family. According to statistic, (Smeeding, & Rainwater, 2003) in America, child poverty rates are currently at 20%, nevertheless, more than half the total population of the youth lives in poverty for at least one year before they finally get to 18 years. This raises the question of whether juvenile delinquencies are high during the period in which their parents and guardians socioeconomic status is low or when it is high. This paper seeks to find out if the family socioeconomic status has any impact on the rate of juvenile delinquency among the adolescents. 

Definition of term 

Juvenile Delinquency 

This is a term which is used to refer to the habitual participation criminal activities by minors, that is, those who are below the given statutory age of adult (Bjerk, 2007). 

Socioeconomic status 

This refers to the social standing of a person or a group which is measured using a combination of education level, income and their occupation (Bjerk, 2007). 

Literature Review 

Association between Socioeconomic Status and Juvenile Delinquency 

There is a large body of empirical literature which suggests that youths from families with low socioeconomic status were more likely to engage in delinquent behaviours which often landed them in juvenile. Several theoretical accounts propose a possible explanation for this direct association. For instance, the strain theory by Merton suggests that poverty among the youth may motivate them to engage in delinquent behaviours to achieve the social and economic goals. This is due to the fact that they may lack any legitimate method to achieve these goals. With regards to the rational choice theory, suggests that a youth may make a decision to engage in a criminal behaviours as they might have much to gain as compared to what they are losing. This can be in terms of future prospects and the quality of life. 

As noted by Bjerk, (2007), poverty accounts for a high rate of delinquency among the youths a fact that is not only supported by statistics but also by various history of juvenile delinquents. A point worth noting is that both boys and girls are not to be at a risk of developing delinquent behaviours in families which have low incomes. However, Ellis, & McDonald, (2001), note that the prevalence is more on single based families as compared to the traditional families. This is due to the fact that all the family responsibility falls to the single parent and they may not have time to build a positive relationship which can help the child not to fall victim to influence. Bjerk, (2007), states that children are more likely to engage in illegal behaviours in cases whereby their parents are stressed and know little about their activities. This can be due to the fact that the parents have little time with such children and may fail to reinforce prosocial behaviours consistently. Proponents of control theory stated that when there is positive relationship between child and mother, a strong social bond is created which in turn helps to prevent delinquent behaviours. Thus in cases where the parents are overwhelmed and lack time with their children, this bond is weakened. As a result, such children engage in delinquent behaviours without the knowledge of their parents. 

A longitudinal study carried out by Smeeding, & Rainwater, (2003), revealed that youth exhibited more externalizing behaviours in periods which their families experienced low socio-economic status. Similarly, many cases of delinquency behaviours by the youth have occurred in a period which their families were experiencing low socioeconomic status. However, changes in the socioeconomic status translated to a decline in the rate of delinquent behaviours. Consistent with this perspective, is a study carried out by Kierkus, & Baer, (2003), which proved that relocating families with delinquent behaviours to more affluent neighbourhoods resulted to a significant decline in such behaviours. 

Theoretical Perspective 

Social Disorganization Theory 

Basically, this theory states that there is a relation between socioeconomic status and the delinquency (Trentacosta et al., 2009). The proponents of this theory stated that the geographical location that people live in influences the likelihood of engaging in delinquent behaviours for the youth. They see crime as being a basic function of the neighbourhood. They highlighted that is characterized by people with low socioeconomic status, are more prone to youths engaging in criminal activities. This is because; such regions often experience high rates of people moving in and out due to the fact that the living conditions herein are not suitable. In most cases, areas which were economically deprived harbored many immigrants and this resulted in the areas having people from different ethnic and racial composition. Consequently, this made the conventional institution responsible for social controls to be weak and unable to regulate the behaviours of the youth in that region. 

In this case, the high population of individuals from different racial and ethnic backgrounds makes it difficult to establish informal social structures in these societies (Kierkus, & Baer, 2003). As such, the youth are more likely to engage in the criminal behaviours as the socio-economic status hardly prevents them from engaging in these behaviours. Some of the youth engage in these activities to fend for their families. Thus, by large socioeconomic status plays a critical role in propagating delinquent behaviours. 

Conflicting theory 

Although there are many theories which support the fact that delinquent behaviours are likely to change as the family socioeconomic status change, there are other which conflict this ideology. For instance, social selection account theory state that the relations between delinquency and socioeconomic status are partly spurious (Trentacosta et al., 2009). It suggests that some parental characteristics or a genetic propensity for delinquent behaviours may contribute to the delinquency behaviours in the children as well as the low socio-economic status they may be in. In light of this, the changes in the socioeconomic status can hardly alter such as pre-existing risk factor. 

Methodology 

The primary purpose of this paper is to understand how socioeconomic status affects the juvenile delinquency.

Participants 

The data collected to attain the objective of the paper was from a research carried by Pittsburgh Youth Study. Notably, this study was carried from 1987, when a group of 1004 boys was enrolled in Pittsburgh primary schools in the first grade (Loeber et al., 2008). Of these, 849 students and their guardians agreed to take part in this study. A screening was conducted and 256 students were selected for a longitudinal study, as they had scored over 30% in the antisocial behavior scale. Another 247 were selected randomly from the remaining group to be part of the follow-up study. These students were from low socioeconomic families and participated in 10 annual waves.

Measures 

Family Socioeconomic status 

Basically, the family socioeconomic status was measured by considering the household income, occupation, level of education, and the welfare being of the overall family (Loeber et al., 2008). The socioeconomic status was taken as only a formative latent behavior, meaning that it is only a sum of its indicators. The Hollingsed index was used to measure the occupational level of individuals. It ranged from 0 to 9 with the former indicating no employment and the later indication executive professions. On the other hand, educational level was measured using a scale which ranged from 1 to 7. Those who scored one were individuals low levels of education up to the sixth grade. Those who scored seven were those who had attained advanced degrees.

Delinquency 

There were three sources which were used to measure delinquency, that is, primary caretakers, self-report, and convictions. A Self-Reported Antisocial Behaviour Scale, (SRA) was used for youth to report their delinquent behaviours during the first three waves (Loeber et al., 2008). Thereafter, the SRA was replaced by a Youth Self Report (YSR as well as a Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (SRD). In addition to this, the primary caretakers used the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) to report the delinquent behaviours of the boys. The conviction records, however, were obtained from the juvenile court records.

According to research, there have been strong links attached to socioeconomic status and the severity of offenses. As such, the above sources were combined to come up with a delinquency construct at each wave throughout the research. That is, there was serious delinquency, moderate as well as minor delinquencies. The serious delinquencies involved acts of burglary, forced robbery, auto theft, homicide, rape and aggravated assault. Moderate delinquency involved acts of simple assault and gang fighting. Minor delinquencies involved non-violent offenses or stealing something that was less than $5. Notably, at least half the number of the participants had committed some minor delinquency (49.9%), a third had committed either moderate or serious delinquency at 34% or 31.6% respectively at the course of the study (Loeber et al., 2008).

Results 

From the research, socioeconomic status adversely affected all the aforementioned types of delinquencies. As early hypothesized, youths who hailed from families with low socioeconomic status were more likely to offend as compared to those who were from families with a high socio-economic status (Loeber et al., 2008). The research showed that youths from families with low socio-economic status were two times likely to commit some minor delinquencies. In addition to this, they were 2 ½ more likely to commit moderate delinquencies, but three times more likely to engage in serious delinquencies. In high-risk neighborhoods, youths who were of low socio-economic status were ten times more likely to commit serious delinquency. They were also five and a half more times likely to engage in moderate behaviours and four times more likely to engage in minor delinquency.

Subsequently, the data revealed that the youths were more likely to engage in moderate delinquencies as well as serious delinquencies in times when their parents were experiencing low socioeconomic status. This would change drastically immediately their parents rose to high socioeconomic status. Thus by large, a change in the family socioeconomic status changed the delinquent behavior in youths. Notably, during the period when the family socioeconomic status was low, the youths had at least 1 ½ likelihood of engaging in delinquent behaviours as compared to other times (Loeber et al., 2008).

Discussion 

According to the study, it is clear that youths who are experiencing low family socioeconomic status are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviours. Thus among such individuals, juvenile delinquency is prevalent. It is a common phenomenon for a shift in the economic status of a family to occur. In America, the youths are more likely to experience low socioeconomic status at one point or another in their life due to many factors. This can be due to factors such as divorce, loss of jobs or illnesses (Bjerk, 2007).

Subsequently, many theoretical perspectives have been developed all of which support the fact that socioeconomic influence the rate of juvenile delinquency. They propose that the delinquency can be propagated either through poor quality of the neighborhoods, economic deprivation as well as poor parenting (Ellis, & McDonald, 2001). This study strongly supports the idea that is developed in various theories. To begin with, it shows a relationship between the fluctuations of socioeconomic status with different types of delinquency, that is minor, moderate and serious delinquencies. In cases where the youths in families with low socioeconomic status were placed in a neighborhood with high risks of delinquency, they were more likely to engage in the delinquent behaviours.

Generally, from the above research, it was also evident that delinquent behaviours were not only affected by socioeconomic factors which are external but also from within. This is shown when an individual exhibits delinquent behaviours during the period in which their parents are socio-economic status is low. Thus, when the status of the parents changed, this resulted in either an increase or a decrease in the delinquent behaviours by the youth.

As noted from the social disorganized theory, neighborhoods which are disorganized are more likely to facilitate delinquency among the youth. This can be due to lack of social structures which can foresee that all the members of the society uphold proper behaviors. Nonetheless, these neighborhoods are characterized by economic deprivation. Thus this results in rapid movement of people in and out of the region. As a result, it becomes difficult for the society to put controls thus putting the youth at a risk of engaging in delinquent behaviors. Additionally, as pointed put in the control theory, a child-parent relationship affects the rate of delinquency. That is when there is a positive child-parent relationship, this result in the creation of a strong social bond which helps to check the deliquescent behaviours. Essentially, when parents are aware of what is happening in the lives of their children this restricts the child from engaging in criminal behaviours.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, this essay has been able to establish that socio-economic status of the family plays a significant role in determining the deliquescent behaviours in youth as hypothesized. Evidently, families with low socioeconomic status are often associated with high rates of juveniles delinquency. Economic deprivation, leads a family to stay in poor quality neighborhoods which in turn predisposes the youth to high risks of being influenced to commit deliquescent behaviours. Additionally, parents from households with low socioeconomic status are often busy trying to make ends meet and thus fail to develop positive relationships with their children. Evidently, this makes the child be at a risk of engaging in various types of delinquent behaviours. Thus by large, socioeconomic status is a critical component determining juvenile delinquency.

References

Bjerk, D. (2007). Measuring the relationship between youth criminal participation and household economic resources: Journal of Quantitative Criminology , 23 (1), 23-39. 

Ellis, L., & McDonald, J. N. (2001). Crime, delinquency, and social status: A reconsideration. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation , 32 (3), 23-52. 

Kierkus, C., & Baer, D. (2003). Does the relationship between family structure and delinquency vary according to circumstances? An investigation of interaction effects: Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice , 45 (4), 405-430. 

Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & White, H. R. (Eds.). (2008). Violence and serious theft: Development and prediction from childhood to adulthood : Taylor & Francis. 

Smeeding, T. M., & Rainwater, L. (2003). Poor kids in a rich country: America's children in comparative perspective : Russell Sage Foundation. 

Trentacosta, C. J., Hyde, L. W., Shaw, D. S., & Cheong, J. (2009). Adolescent dispositions for antisocial behavior in context: The roles of neighborhood dangerousness and parental knowledge: Journal of abnormal psychology , 118 (3), 564.