Juvenile delinquency is an ongoing social problem which poses increased public health risks. Many factors lead to juvenile delinquency. In 2014, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, homicide was one of the leading causes of death in youth aged 10 to 24, with violence being a cause of nonfatal injuries in youth (Ross and Arsenault 2018). Theorists have focused on social disorganization, differential association, and social bond. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay believed that to understand crime the focus had to be on traits in the neighborhood (Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox 2014). Social disorganization theory explains that certain neighborhoods have higher crime than others. It also explains how the traits in the neighborhood cause individuals to commit a crime. Differential association theory supports social disorganization theory by giving a better explanation as to why an individual becomes criminal — for example, interactions with others such as friends and family. Friends and family can have a significant impact on an individual’s behavior. The social bond theory adds on by discussing how bonds to society influence decisions to break the law. Social disorganization, differential association, and social bond theory have helped society by giving us a better explanation as to why juvenile delinquency happens. This helps society create programs in order to reduce juvenile delinquency.
In today’s world, we can find all types of programs to help prevent juvenile delinquency. It has been proven that early intervention is a more effective way to reduce juvenile delinquency than to intervene at older ages. Funding is available for implementing and evaluating prevention and diversion programs (Bergdahl, Twill, & Norris et al., 2015). With the information provided by these theories, researchers have identified or developed intervention strategies, and specific program models demonstrated to be effective in reducing delinquency and promoting more prosocial development. Many of these programs are cost effective returning more than five times their cost in future taxpayer savings. It costs states billions of dollars a year to arrest, prosecute, incarcerate, and treat juvenile offenders (Greenwood 2008).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For the first body paragraph, I will define the idea of social disorganization in depth. I will then move on to explain how social disorganization theorists believe that certain neighborhoods have higher crime than others. I will relate that to the social problem. I will be doing this for the differential association and social bond theory as well. I need to do more research on where exactly and what age group of juveniles is committing more crime. I also need to do more research on active programs to help prevent delinquency.
Social Disorganization Theory
The social disorganization theory posits that well-adjusted communities whose members are well acquainted and live in harmony experience lower rates of delinquency. The core principle of the theory asserts that location matters and crime rates are associated with neighborhoods social characteristics. A community’s social disorganization reflects the organizational qualities and abilities of the community to oversee the interactions of offenders and opportunity. Higher rates of delinquencies are observed as a result of communities failing to achieve shared values or solve mutual problems. Such factors create an atmosphere of poor social integration and disorganization. A state of disorganization affects how members of the community work and relate with one other creating an environment that favors instances of juvenile delinquencies. When potential juvenile offenders meet opportunities in the environment, delinquency occurs (Kayleen & Pridemore, 2011).
Social theorists believe that social setting takes center stage for acts of delinquency. Whereas acts of crime may be unique to different environments, in the 21 st century, criminal behavior is more pronounced in urban areas. In rural areas, crime rates depended on ethnic and racial differences or characteristics. Social theorists use such assumptions to define social disorganization as a characteristic of neighborhood dynamics and not necessarily the function of individuals in society. Social theorists assert that urban areas experience higher crime rates than other neighborhoods due to the rapid changes in social and economic structures. In neighborhoods characterized by low economic status, have a higher population turnover due to economic deprivation. People move in and out of the area which allows for racial heterogeneity. Such areas are described as socially disorganized as they lack a stable social institution such as families, schools, and churches to unite the people.
Various studies have concluded that juvenile delinquent behavior is reinforced by individual, social, and community conditions and the interactions between such factors. The risk factors that promote delinquency among the youth include lack of proper upbringing, lack of education, poor models, and environmental constraints. Recent studies have focused on community characteristics and have conclusively found social cohesion and informal control to be the motivators behind acts of delinquency. Specific neighborhoods have higher rates of juvenile delinquency due to an increased number of risk factors. Evidence has been found in urban areas as studies in rural settings have not been advanced as much. In the US, youth violence has been associated with gang involvement. Violent behaviors have been associated with traumatic childhood experiences before the age of 12 (Ross & Arsenault, 2018).
Relating how certain neighborhoods have higher crime rates compared to others is based on individual-level risk factors. Individual factors include age, parental upbringing, drugs, and substance abuse. To discern how such factors, affect juvenile delinquency, one needs to study their development through individuals’ interactions in the environment. Certain neighborhoods have higher rates of juvenile misconduct due to widespread drug use. Drug use is more common among youth in many environments. Drugs provide a channel for the youth to join gangs and engage in social misconduct. Age as a factor of delinquency can be explained through adolescents’ behaviors. At this age, the young are rebellious and try out different lifestyles. Without proper social structures and reinforcers, adolescents will engage in antisocial behavior either through coercion by peer pressure or adventurous behaviors. Physical aggression is also a significant risk factor for delinquency among the youth. Social factors such as family influences and structure influence the behaviors of the youth. Some cultures such as the westerners, parents are assigned the task of raising children to follow socially acceptable rules. Such children often turn out upright. However, in African-American cultures, child upbringing is much different, and children are often put under much pressure. The result often ends in rebellion and engagement in socially unacceptable behaviors. Cultural beliefs and practices may also influence delinquency among the youth. Cultural influences on social disorganization theory are mostly observed in rural and ethnic settings. The influential factors of juvenile crime in rural areas include ethnic heterogeneity, family disruptions, poverty, and population density (Moore & Sween, 2015).
Differential Association Theory
The differential association theory is the most commonly used theory of learning deviance. It focuses on how individuals learn to become criminals but do not state why they become criminals. The theory asserts that a person becomes delinquent when there are favorable conditions for violating the law over unfavorable conditions. In essence, it describes how a person comes to engage in delinquent acts. It has been considered an extension of the social disorganization theory but with a focus on the individual. The theory was developed by H. Sutherland in 1939, and the theory held that criminal behavior in an individual is learned through patterns of communication, the direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. In every society, there are varied definitions of what is considered lawful. A person may receive different contradictory definitions from different people at any given time. Sutherland called the process of receiving such contradictory definitions as differential associations.
Many social theorists affirm that the differential association theory is the best formulation of a general theory concerning criminal behavior. The theory gives an etiology of all criminal behavior as specific drives, motives, rationalizations, and behavioral attitudes. The theory posits that criminal behavior is a product of social interaction. Crime can be studied to identify the point of origin whether it was an influence of social interaction or other factors. Given the theory posits that criminal behavior is a result of social interaction through communication, the motivators for crime may be individually-based. The influencers will be people or models close to an individual. Family, friends, and relative collectively form the pool of reinforces of criminal behavior in people. Their definitions of what is lawful or unlawful affect individuals’ perceptions of wrong and right.
Social theorists provide a few critical observations on how people adopt criminal behaviors. They assert that learning of criminal behavior occurs within the confines of an intimate relationship or personal affiliations. The learning of criminal behavior involves the communication of the techniques of committing a crime, and the specifics of a motive to engage in criminal behavior. Differential associations in different individuals vary in frequency, duration, intensity, and priority. The amount of time a person is exposed to a definition of criminal activity is essential in explaining criminal acts. The drives and motivations of criminal behavior depend on the learned definitions of legal codes. A person becomes delinquent when they engage in violations of the law. The theory explains the general motivations of criminal behavior and is not limited to juvenile delinquency.
Relating differential association to juvenile delinquency entails applying the tenets of the theory to juvenile behavior. If a social interaction through communication leads to delinquency among the youth, then peer pressure is one of the most significant motivators of juvenile criminal behavior. Juveniles hold close associations with their counterparts. Given the theory is disinterested in why people become criminals, the reasons for why juveniles succumb to peer pressure are not given. Economic and family shortcomings are also influential factors that can initiate juvenile delinquency. For instance, in constrained economic times, a hungry juvenile may desire to steal so that they can eat. However, for them to steal depends on the magnitude of favorable conditions to legal codes over the unfavorable conditions. For families that have communicated criminal behavior into juveniles, they would also engage in delinquent acts as they have been exposed to acts of delinquency for a considerable amount of time.
Peers, family, and other close intimate relationships provide the basis for differential association n juvenile delinquency. This is so because criminal behavior is learned and not inherited according to the differential theory. The existence of intimate relationships between the peers allows for the learning of techniques for committing crimes. The drives, motivations, attitudes, and rationalizations of criminal behavior make sense when they are mentioned in the group. The school setting provides an ideal place for peers to practice techniques for criminal behavior and state their motives for criminal actions. School grounds become the primary setting for juvenile delinquency which if left unchecked can result in serious problems in adulthood (Hart & Mueller, 2013).
Given that adolescents spend most of their time on school grounds; they form mutual and intimate relationships with their peers. The warning signs of impending juvenile delinquencies include class absences, aggression, and tardiness. Studies show that when students exhibit such behaviors, they pose a threat to the other students and the school in general.
Social Bond Theory
The social bond theory coined by Hirschi in 1969 asserts that people’s ties to the community affect criminal behavior. The people with stronger social bonds are less inclined to engage in delinquent acts whereas those with weaker ties to the community are more likely to engage in criminal behavior (Hart & Mueller, 2013). Hirschi argued that boys had a higher tendency to engage in criminal behavior. He added that they were more likely to engage in delinquent acts when they are socially detached. Hirschi developed the notion of the social bond by conceptualizing four aspects; attachment, involvement, commitment, and beliefs. An attachment according to Hirschi, referred to the strength of one’s relationship with others. Commitment referred to one’s investment in social activities. Involvement referred to participation in regular social activities such as sporting events. Belief referred to an individual’s take on the moral validity of the social values and norms (Hart & Mueller, 2013).
Social theorists assert that juvenile delinquencies result from weak social associations. Delinquent behaviors depend on the quality of the bonds existing between juveniles and society. There may be a myriad of factors that bring about detachment from the community such as childhood experiences, neglect, aggression, and the environment. Hirschi’s model of social bond states that attachment is a significant way for conformism which can inhibit aberrant behaviors. An example of a socially detached individual is a psychopath. Their attachment to the rest of the society is weakened when they alienate themselves through interpersonal conflicts and other factors. Detachment from the society provides a breeding ground for feelings of hostility and aggressiveness towards those who are socially attached.
Committed people to society put their investments in other people and the society in general. Committed people are at a higher risk of significant losses should they engage in criminal activities. Commitments involve a great deal of time in investments in society. An example is a student who has invested a lot of time and effort in their studies or a business person who has invested capital and time in growing the business. Such individuals face a high risk of loses should they be caught engaging in criminal activity. Not only do the individuals suffer but also the community is impacted.
Involvement involves engagement in conventional or unconventional behavior. The individuals more engaged in communal activities have less time to engage in acts of delinquency. Involvement creates an atmosphere of satisfaction that prevents people from considering engaging in unlawful acts. It encourages socialization and discourages social withdrawal. Some everyday involvement activities include recreational activities and socializing events such as book clubs, sports, and church.
Social theorists assert that an individual’s perception of social rules involves acknowledgment that the rules are appropriate and legitimate. When one conceptualizes social rules as legitimate, they will be more inclined to respect and maintain societal rules. Cultural beliefs have no control over how a person accepts or rejects them; delinquency is, therefore, a result of the personal rejection of social beliefs.
Relating the theory to the social problem of juvenile delinquency involves observations of individual characteristics of the youth and the elements of the theory. The antisocial youth may be socially detached and may end up engaging in criminal acts involving conflict. Being committed to the society gives the youth purpose. The youth who lack any form of investment in the community may be easily coerced into engaging in criminal behavior. Lack of collective commitment can manifest through a lack of schooling and employment. Idleness provides an opportunity for one to consider a crime.
Similarly, involvement in social activities enhances social cohesion, and lack thereof promotes crime development opportunities among the youth. Isolation and antisocial behaviors promote less involvement in conventional behaviors of the community. Criminal behavior is birthed through weak social associations. The beliefs in a society govern perceptions of what is right and wrong. Juvenile delinquencies involve rebellious actions toward socially stipulated beliefs and norms. Crime may be higher in societies that are permissive towards criminal behaviors. All the elements mentioned playing a significant role in showcasing an individual’s bond with the community if anyone of the elements weakens an individual’s, the likelihood for crime increases.
How the Theories Collectively Explain the Causes of Juvenile Delinquency
The three theories are interconnected and suggest that crime is a social construct. Social disorganization can be a result of weak bonds between people and the community which give way for the differential association and learning of criminal behavior. The theories suggest that social structures such as school, family, and peers are influential actors that provide a foundation for the development of criminal behavior. The social disorganization theory emphasizes the lack of social cohesion in neighborhoods as the influential factor of criminal behavior. The differential theory explains how juvenile engages in criminal behaviors through learning and communication in the environment. The social bond theory can better explain the social disorganization that exists in crime-stricken backgrounds through the explanation of the elements that influence social detachment.
Policies and Programs Developed to Curb Juvenile Delinquencies
In the past, age was the determinant factor for punishment. Punishment programs included scared straights, transfers to juvenile detention centers, and boot camps (Greenwood, 2008). Juvenile courts were established to act in the best interests of a minor. Specific probation services were developed to monitor the juveniles under court jurisdiction. Since the founding of juvenile courts, juvenile justice policies and programs have been developed to protect the community and reform offenders. The young offenders are reformed through teachings that delinquent acts have undesirable consequences. The juvenile detention centers were created to act as correctional centers and not prison (Barton, 2016).
The policies and programs developed to mitigate acts of delinquency among the youth were done using existing knowledge from juvenile delinquency theories. Some of the guidelines for implementing the policies included strengthening protection and reducing risks, comprehending the effect of social development context on protection, and identifying the disruptions to developed policies. The policies developed touched on changing the culture of juvenile justice. One change in policy involved the application of the risk and resilience framework. New policies are deviating from the traditional punishment of offenders’ and focus on the deterrence of criminal behaviors.
Other programs are focused on improving the social structures surrounding juveniles to limit factors that accelerate acts of delinquency. Such programs include social and family support for juvenile delinquents. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) has in the past tried to incorporate juvenile aftercare programs through a collaborative network of community services (Barton, 2016). The most effective programs that prevent juvenile delinquencies focus on preventing youth in engaging in criminal acts in the first place. Successful school-based programs are used to prevent engagement in drug abuse and anti-social behaviors (Greenwood, 2008). Community-based programs have been developed to deter first time offenders from encounters with the justice system. In order to effectively implement policies and programs that prevent juvenile delinquencies, accost-benefit studies have to be conducted to compare the efficiency of programs that produce desirable results.
References
Barton, W. (2016). Juvenile Justice Policy and Programs. SAGE publications. Retrieved 23 April 2019, https://us.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/67664_Jenson_Chapter_9.pdf
Bergdahl, J., Twill, S., Norris, M., & Ream, M. (2015). Assessing the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: And Evaluation of a Court-Based Delinquency Prevention Program. Family Court Review, 53(4), 617-631. doi:10.1111/fcre.12177
Booth, J. A., Farrell, A., & Varano, S. P. (2008). Social Control, Serious Delinquency, and Risky Behavior: A Gendered Analysis. Crime & Delinquency, 54(3), 423-456.doi:10.1177/0011128707306121
Bruinsma, G. J. N. (1992). Differential Association Theory Reconsidered: An Extension and Its Empirical Test. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8(1), 29-49. doi: 10.1007/BF01062758
Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (2014). Criminological theory: Past to present, essential readings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Greenwoord, P. (2008). Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Future of Children, 18(2). 185-210. Retrieved from http://csulb.idm.oclc.org/login?url+https://search.ebscohost.com?login.aspx?directt+trudb+ah&AN+34905181&site+ehost-live
Hart, C. O., & Mueller, C. E. (2013). School Delinquency and Social Bond Factors: Exploring Gendered Differences among a National Sample of 10Th Graders. Psychology in Schools, 50(2). 116-133. doi:10.1002/pits.21662
Haynie, D. L. (2002). Friendship Networks and Delinquency: The Relative Nature of Peer Delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(2), 99-134.doi:10.1023/A:1015227414929
Kaylen, M. T., & Pridemore, W. A. (2011). A Reassessment of the Association Between SocialDisorganization and Youth Violence in Rural Areas. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 92(4), 978-1001. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00808.x
Moore, M. D., & Sween, M. (2015). Rural Youth Crime: A Reexamination of SocialDisorganization Theory’s Applicability to Rural Areas. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 4(1), 47-63. Retrieved from http://csulb.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=truedb=i3h&AN=102142315&site=ehost-live
Ross, L., & Arsenault, S. (2018). Problem Analysis in Community Violence Assessment: Revealing Early Childhood Trauma as a Driver of Youth and Gang Violence. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 62(9), 27262741. doi: 10.1177/0306624X17734798
