Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California

!1
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
A Case Study of Youth in the City of Oxnard, CA
XXXXX
!2
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Literature Review
Background of Study
There have been several studies conducted on juvenile delinquency in recent years.
Different factors have been studied to determine what causes youth to become involved in
delinquency, in order to create early intervention programs for those individuals in hopes of
steering them away from delinquency. There is good evidence that early interventions in
childhood (e.g., nurse home visiting, preschool intellectual enrichment programs, and parent
management training) are effective in preventing delinquency (Loeber,Farrington, and Petechuk,
2013). Fomby and Sennott (2013) hypothesized that where family structure transitions are
related to changes in residences and school enrollments, youth will be more likely to develop
negative peer networks that are associated with a higher likelihood of problem behavior. Here,
changes in the family structure can have a negative impact on the youth’s behavior. Schroeder,
Osgood, and Oghia (2010) state that family structure transitions can be detrimental to children’s
well-being and family functioning and have the potential to contribute to juvenile delinquency.
Studying family structure is an important factor in order to determine what in that factor causes
youth to become involved with delinquency.
Data has shown that a substantial proportion of children now spend time in single or
cohabiting parent households and these households tend to be less stable than marriages (Fomby
and Sennott, 2013). As a result, much of the effect of family instability on children and
adolescent behavior has been attributed to economic stress and changes in parenting behavior
(Fomby and Sennot, 2013) after a change in family structure. In addition, according to Theobald,
Farrington, and Piquero (2012), conflict between parents can also have deleterious effects on the
!3
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
children where they can experience inconsistent parenting, reduce affection and warmth, and
reduced supervision, all which have been found to be predictive of late delinquency.
Economic stress can also be an indicator why youth become delinquent. It has always
been assumed that youth who have low socioeconomic status are more vulnerable to be involved
in delinquent acts. Agnew, Matthews, Bucher, Welcher, and Keyes (2008) explain that these
youth experience frustration with their status and as a result may turn to delinquency to achieve
economic success, to make themselves feel better, to seek revenge against those who frustrate
them or to achieve status in the eyes of their peers. Economic stress can also be triggered by the
neighborhood these youth reside in. As stated by Sampson (1986), lower class areas tend to be
characterized by a much more active street life than middle life. As a result, there is higher
presence of law enforcement in these neighborhoods and what each juvenile does, is carefully
watched over by law enforcement. It is unfortunate that this occurs, but the reality is that higher
crime exists in lower income neighborhoods. Moreover, in addendum to Agnew et al (2008),
their study explains that poor individuals may have moderately higher levels of serious
delinquency but the relationship between socioeconomic status and economic problems may be
weaker than imagined because the estimated values of the goods and services lower-income
families in the United States obtained by government and other sources of aid averages more
than twice the annual income of such families (Agnew et al, 2008). Similarly, Kierkus and
Hewitt (2009) found that the relationship between family structure and delinquency was
essentially invariant to socioeconomic status.
Peers are an important factor to be considered in youth who become involved with
delinquency. Adolescent spend much time with their friends, attribute great importance to them,
!4
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
and are more strongly influenced by them during their adolescent years than at any other time in
their life course (Haynie and Osgood, 2005). Knowing the importance of peer associations to
adolescents, it is important for parents to monitor who their children are associating with. Tilton-
Weaver, Burk, Kerr, and Sattin (2013) suggest parents should first attempt to find out what their
adolescent are doing and whom they are with. That is, they should monitor, seek information,
solicit, or make rules about their friendships. When parents are aware of problematic peers, they
should limit adolescents’ involvement with these peers by prohibiting contact or communicating
disapproval of these peers (Tilton-Weaver et al, 2013). However, it doesn’t always work this
way. Parent usually gain knowledge of who their children are associating with once they have
already developed a friendship, instead of parents monitoring whom their children are going to
be with. Fergusson, Strain-Campell, and Horwood (2002) found clear and consistent trends for
increasing affiliations with deviant peers to be associated with increasing rates for crime and
substance abuse at all ages. There finding clearly suggest that affiliating with deviant peers has
adverse outcomes for young people. However, Tilton-Weaver et al, (2013) state selection of
delinquent peers is reduced when parents communicated disapproval of friends. However this
would require parents to be actively involved in their child’s live. As mentioned, when there is a
change in the family structure, parents have other priorities in mind rather than monitor who their
children are with. This can also lead to disregarding their child’s education.
Education is also another indicator that has been studied in juvenile delinquency
literature. Felson and Staff (2006), attempted to determine whether academic performance affects
delinquency or whether the two behaviors have a spurious relationship. They believed that weak
students turn to crime for enjoyment, money, status, and self-esteem because they cannot or do
!5
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
not obtain these rewards in school (Felson and Staff, 2006). Blomberg, Bates, Mann, Piquero,
and Berk (2011) look into life events that occur during young adulthood that may lead youth to
transition away from criminal behavior. If youth experience education success, it can lead them
to a decreased likelihood of delinquency. As a result, Blomberg et al (2011) believe that school
may potentially serve as one of the more positive and influential institutions for incarcerated
youth. There studies focused on youth who are incarcerated and asked if higher levels of school
attendance following release among incarcerated youth reduce their likelihood of recidivism
following their release. Although this study does ask how delinquency can be prevented, it does
demonstrate the importance of schooling. They found that return to and sustained attendance in
school following release appears to serve as an intervention for recidivism (Blomberg et al,
2011). That is why Felson and Staff (2006) examined the effects of grades, social bonds, test
scores, and effort on delinquency. However, their results suggest that the relationship between
academic performance and delinquency is spurious, not causal. Delinquency did not appear to be
a response to the negative social evaluations that adolescent receive in form of grades. However,
Hoffmann, Erickson and Spence (2013) found that better academic performance is associated
with both less delinquency and stronger attachment to school. Overall, their findings provide
important evidence that academic achievement is negatively related to involvement in delinquent
activities.
This study will examine if factors discussed above: academic performance, family
structure, peer association, and socioeconomic status, play a role in juvenile delinquency. There
has been inconsistent finding among many theorists and researchers and this study is an attempt
to bring clarity to the inconsistency in studying factors related to juvenile delinquency.
!6
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Purpose of Study
In this study, I attempt to determine if academic performance, family structure, peer
association, and socioeconomic status is related to delinquency. However, this study will be
focused on Oxnard, California as a case study. Oxnard is the most populous city in the County of
Ventura. It is composed of 74% Hispanic and 15% White. In 2011, there were 8 murders, 26
rapes, 274 robberies, and 311 assaults (City Data 2013). However, in recent months, there has
been an escalation of crime in this city. In one month, there have been at least a dozen gangrelated
violent crimes. Thus far, there have been 12 murders. An increase compared to 2011.
Many of these murders have occurred in low-income neighborhood where juvenile crime is
rising. Being a professional in this field and supervising juveniles who reside in Oxnard, I have
personal knowledge of the crime that exist in this city. Determining if academic performance,
family structure, negative peer associations, and socioeconomic status are related to delinquency
is important in order to address the issues that can possibly arise from these factors at an early
age to prevent these individuals from becoming delinquent.
Research Question
What is the role of academic performance, family structure, peer associations, and
socioeconomic status on youth’s involvement in delinquency?
Data Sources
Much of the data will be obtained from a survey that will be administered to the sample.
In addition to the survey, data from each respective school will be acquired to obtain last
semester grade point average (G.P.A) and school disciplinary reports. The sample will be
!7
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
selected from the four public high schools in Oxnard: Pacifica, Oxnard, Channel Islands, and Rio
Mesa High School. The participants will be from ages 14-18.
Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Youth with low grades are more likely to be involved in delinquency than youth
with average grades.
Hypothesis 2: Youth who come from nontraditional families are more likely to be involved in
delinquency, than youth who come from traditional families.
Hypothesis 3: Youth who associate with negative peers are more likely to be involved in
delinquency.
Hypothesis 4: Youth from low-income families are more likely to be involved in delinquency
than youth from high-income families.
Defining Variables
Dependent Variable
Delinquency
The task of operationalizing delinquency is difficult as juvenile delinquency varies from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For the purpose of this paper, a similar scale of delinquency to
Olczak, Parcell and Stott (1983) will be used. Respondents will be asked a series of questions
related to delinquency (See appendix A). The scale will consist of the extent of legal processing:
not involved in any acts considered to be delinquent, number of times committing said act but
not being caught, cited by police but did not appear in Juvenile Court and referred to Juvenile
Court.
Independent Variables
!8
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Grades
I will draw measure of grade point average (GPA) from students’ official transcripts for
the previous semester and current GPA that will be provided by the school. “Below average”
grades and “failure” will be considered low (See data analysis for recoding of GPA).
Family Structure
Family structure is distinguished between traditional and non-traditional. A traditional
family structure consists of the respondent residing with both their biological/adoptive parents.
Any other arrangement will be considered non-traditional.
Peer Associations
Sampled members will be questioned on a series of items relating to patterns of substance
abuse, status offenses, and antisocial behaviors amongst their closest friends. Arthur and Waugh
(2008) definition of status offense will be used which states; “a status offense is defined as
conduct that is unlawful only because the offender is a minor. Common status offenses include
running away, skipping school, and breaking curfew, as well as ungovernability, underage
drinking and disorderly conduct (pg 555).”
Socioeconomic status
Socioeconomic status will be determined based on self-reported income for the
household. Respondents will be asked the total household income. Using data from U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services defining poverty at $23, 550 for a household of four
will be used to distinguish between low, medium and high income. Low income: 0-$24,000;
Low/Medium income: $24,001-$48, 000; medium income $48,001-$72,000; high income:
$72,001 and above.
!9
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Data Analysis
The data obtained from the survey and GPA from the schools will be inputted to the IBM
SPSS Statistics software in order to analyze the data. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice
“research and planning team uses IBM SPSS Statistics and SPSS Modeler to analyze
delinquency at every level, from statewide overviews down to the level of individual programs
and even children (2011).” With this software, answers to the surveyed can be imputed to create
a data set.
Once the data has been imputed into the program, I will be able to utilize the data set to
conduct statistical analyzes. GPA will be recoded as follows: 3.5-4.0 “Excellent”; 2.5-3.40
“Good”; 1.5-2.49 “Satisfactory”; 1.0-1.49 “Below average”; and 0-.99 “Failure.” A contingency
table for each variable will be administered and then a measure of association using either
Lambda or Gamma will be tested (Babbie, Halley, Wagner, and Zaino, 2011). Since the
dependent variable is an ordinal variable, Kruskal Wallis test will be used to analyze academic
performance and delinquency. Since the variable’s peer association and socioeconomic status are
also ordinal, Kruskal Wallis will also be used.
Family structure is the only independent variable that is nominal, as the questions will be
recoded as defined above. Therefore, Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test will used to analyze family
structure and delinquency (See table 1 in Appendix A for Data Analysis).
Sampling Design
This research will use stratified sampling as a means to achieve the sample. The City of
Oxnard is compromised of four public high schools. The schools that will be sampled are:
!10
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Pacifica High School, Oxnard High School, Channel Islands High School, and Rio Mesa High
School. These schools were chosen, as most youth who reside in Oxnard are required to attend
either of the mentioned high schools. The sample will consist of youth from ages 14-18. It will
begin at the age of 14 because according to California Penal Code Section 26 (2013), youth
under the age of 14 are not capable of committing crimes unless certain criteria is met. For this
purpose, the sample will begin at that age. The total population surveyed will consist of 30 youth
from each school. Next, I propose to divide students from each school being surveyed into two
even groups. One group would be compromised of students who have reported behavioral
incidents at school and the second group consisting of all other students who have never been
referred for disciplinary issues. I wanted to ensure that I would have students with behavioral
disciplinary issues at school in my sample because it is probable that those youth have already
been delinquent. Therefore, this sampling method will ensure those students will be part of the
sample. In addition, by having two groups, it would allow me to compare them.
Instruments
See appendix A for survey.
Limitations
Several limitations should be noted. First, in terms of external validity issues, this is a
case study that is specific to the City of Oxnard, Ca. The demographics of the city differ from
other cities in the County of Ventura and therefore, cannot be generalized. Thus, replication of
the study would be needed to include all youth who reside in the County of Ventura to make it
generalizable. Second, only youth from traditional schools were surveyed. The four schools
noted on the study are traditional schools; however, when youth become severely credit deficient
!11
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
or experience numerous behavioral problems, they are placed in continuation schools or
independent studies that were not included in this sample. Moreover, family factors in
adolescence or other family history that might influence risk for delinquency was not taken into
consideration.
Selection is a threat to internal validity in this study. This refers to the idea that selection
in the study is not random or of an equal probability among the study subject (Eller, Gerber, and
Robinson, 2013). There may be pre-existing differences between the participants that cannot be
accounted for when being selected. In addition, it is impossible to say that the dependent
variable, delinquency measures what it is suppose to measure because there is not a set definition
of delinquency. What is defined as delinquency in this study may differ from other studies.
Likewise, the way the variable family structure is operationalized may differ because others may
not agree with how it is defined in this study.
However, this study has more internal validity than external validity. As it is a case study
specific to a city, which the demographics are vastly different than other cities in the United
States. Therefore, external validity is not strong.
Step-by-Step
1. Preliminary investigation on prior findings on the topic.
2. Talk to subject matter experts
3. Draft survey questions
4. Beta-test. Give to other Deputy Probation Officers to determine if the questions
effectively measure the variables.
5. Permission from the school and parents
!12
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
6. Informed consent
7. Intermediate analysis
8. Ensure there is a variety of youth who fall in different categories of each variable
9. Execute survey
10. Conduct data analysis and review reliability and validity of gathered data.
!13
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Reference:
Agnew, Robert, Shelley Keith Matthews, Jacob Bucher, Adria N. Welcher, and Corey Keyes.
2008. Youth & Society 40: 159-181.
Arthur, Patricia J and Regina Waugh. 2009. “Status Offenses and the Juvenile Justice ad
Delinquency Prevention Act: The Exception that Swallowed the Rule.” Journal of Social
Justice 7: 555-571.
Babbie, Earl, Fred S. Halley, William E. Wagner, III, and Jeanne Zaino. 2011. “Adventures in
Social Research.” Thousand Oaks, CA; SAGE.
Blomberg, Thomas G., William D. Bales, Karen Mann, Alex R. Piquero, and Richard A. Berk.
2011. “Incarceration, Education and Transition from Delinquency.” Journal of Criminal
Justice 39: 355-365.
Eller, Warren S., Brian J. Gerber, and Scott E. Robinson. 2013. “Public Administration Research
Methods: Tools for Evaluation and Evidence-Based Practice.” New York, NY; Routledge.
Felson, Richard B. and Jeremy Staff. 2006. “Explaining the Academic Performance-Delinquency
Relationship.” Crimonolgy 44: 299-318.
Fergusson, David M., Nicola R. Swain-Campbell, and L. John Horwood. 2002. “Devian Peer
Affiliations, Crime and Substance Use: A Fixed Effects Regression Analysis. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology 30: 419-430.
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Gains Deeper
Insight. September 2011.
Fomby, Paula and Christie A. Sennott. 2013. “Family Structure Instability and Mobility: The
Consequences for Adolescents’ Problem Behavior.” Social Science Research 42:
186-201.
!14
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Haynie, Dana L., and D.Wayne Osgood. 2005. “Reconsidering Peers and Delinquency: How do
Peers Matter?” Social Forces 84: 1109-1128.
Hoffman, John P., Lance D. Erickson, and Karen R. Spence. 2013. “Modeling the Association
Between Academic Achievement and Delinquency: An Application of Interactional
Theory.” Criminology 51:629-655.
Kierkus, Christopher A. and John D. Hewitt. 2009. “The Contextual Nature of the Family
Structure/Delinquency Relationship. “ Journal of Criminal Justice 37: 123-132.
Loeber, Rolf, David P. Farrington, and David Petechuck. 2013. “Study Group on the Transitions
between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime.” National Institute of Justice.
Olczak, Paul, Stanley R. Parcell, and Michael W. R. Stott. 1983. “Defining Juvenile
Delinquency: Specificity of the Research Sample and the Right to Treatment.” Journal of
Clinical Psychology 39: 1007-1012.
Persons liable to punishment for crime. California Penal Code 26. 2013.
Sampson, Robert J. 1986. “Effects of Socioeconomic Context on Official Reaction to Juvenile
Delinquency.” American Sociological Review 51: 876-885.
Schroeder, Ryan D., Aurea K. Osgood, and Michael J. Oghia. 2010. “Family Transitions and
Juvenile Delinquency.” Sociological Inquiry 80: 579-604.
“The Superior Court of California – County of Ventura – Juvenile Court.” The Superior Court of
California – County of Ventura – Juvenile Court. N.p., n.d. Web.
Theobald, Delphine, David P. Farrington and Alex R. Piquero. 2013. “Childhood Broken Homes
and Adult Violence: An Analysis of Moderators and Mediators.” Journal of Criminal
Justice 41: 44-52
Tilton-Weaver, Lauree C., William J. Burk, Margaret Kerr, and Hakan Stattin. 2013. “Can
Parental Monitoring and Peer Management Reduce the Selection or Influence of
Delinquent Peers? Testing the Question Using Dynamic Social Network Approach.
Developmental Psychology 49: 2057-2070.
!15
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Appendix A
A case study of youth residing in the City of Oxnard, CA is being conducted as my thesis
for the Masters in Public Policy and Administration at California Lutheran University. You have
been chosen to participate in this survey. The survey asks questions about a number of things in
your life, including your friends and family. Your answers will be confidential and anonymous.
This means your answers will stay secret. Your name will never be asked. Please do not write
your name on the survey form.
Family Structure
1. Who do you live with?
a. Both biological/adoptive parent
b. One biological/adoptive parent only
c. One biological/adoptive parent and one step parent
d. Other guardian
SES
2. What was your total household income the last tax year?
a. $0-$24,000
b. $24,001-$48,000
c. $48,001-$72,000
d. $72,001 and above
3. How many people reside in your household including yourself?
a. 1-3
b. 4-6
c. 6-8
d. 9 and above
Delinquency
!16
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
Please read before answering the following questions in this category. When answering the
questions in this group, answers should reflect since the age of 14.
Since the age of 14:
4. Have you used marijuana and:
a. No, never used
b. Yes, used 1-5 times but not caught
c. Yes, used 6-10 times but not caught
d. Yes, used more than 11 times but not caught
e. Yes, and I was cited by Police but did not appear in Juvenile Court
f. Yes, and was referred to Juvenile Court
5. Drank alcohol:
a. No, never drank
b. Yes, drank 1-5 times but not caught
c. Yes, drank 6-10 times but not caught
d. Yes, drank more than 11 times but not caught
e. Yes, and I was cited by Police but did not appear in Juvenile Court
f. Yes, and was referred to Juvenile Court
6. Used other drugs other than marijuana and alcohol
a. No, never used
b. Yes, used 1-5 times but not caught
c. Yes, used 6-10 times but not caught
d. Yes, used more than 11 times but not caught
e. Yes, and I was cited by Police but did not appear in Juvenile Court
f. Yes, and was referred to Juvenile Court
7. Damaged property that did not belong to you:
a. No, never have
b. Yes, 1-5 times but not caught
c. Yes, 6-10 times but not caught
d. Yes, more than 11 times but not caught
e. Yes, and I was cited by Police but did not appear in Juvenile Court
f. Yes, and was referred to Juvenile Court
8. Carried or possessed a firearm/weapon
a. No, never
b. Yes, 1-5 times but not caught
c. Yes, 6-10 times but not caught
d. Yes, more than 11 times but not caught
e. Yes, and I was cited by Police but did not appear in Juvenile Court
f. Yes, and was referred to Juvenile Court
9. Stole something that did not belong to you:
a. No, never
b. Yes, 1-5 times but not caught
!17
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
c. Yes, 6-10 times but not caught
d. Yes, more than 11 times but not caught
e. Yes, and I was cited by Police but did not appear in Juvenile Court
f. Yes, and was referred to Juvenile Court
10. Involved in a fight”
a. No, never
b. Yes, 1-5 times but not caught
c. Yes, 6-10 times but not caught
d. Yes, more than 11 times but not caught
e. Yes, and I was cited by Police but did not appear in Juvenile Court
f. Yes, and was referred to Juvenile Court
Peer Association
When answering the following questions, take into consideration your closest friends or those
who you associate with the most.
11. How many have dropped out of school?
a. None
b. Some
c. About half
d. Most
12. How many drink alcohol?
a. None
b. Some
c. About half
d. Most
13. How many sell drugs?
a. None
b. Some
c. About half
d. Most
14. How many use drugs?
a. None
b. Some
c. About half
d. Most
15. How many are gang affiliated or belong to a tagging crew?
a. None
b. Some
c. About half
d. Most
16. How many have been arrested?
!18
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
a. None
b. Some
c. About half
d. Most
!19
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
TABLE 1
Hypotheses Variables Level of
Measurement/
Statistical Test
Definition Metric
H1: Youth with
low grades are
more likely to
be involved in
delinquency
than youth
with average
grades.
IV: Academic
Performance
DV:
Delinquency
Ordinal
Ordinal
Test: Kruskal
Wallis
1. Grades will
be calculated
using grade
point average
(GPA) and then
recoded to
“Excellent,”
“Good,”
“Satisfactory,”
“Below
average,” and
“Failure.”
2. wherein the
minor is
alleged to have
committed an
act which act
would be
criminal if he/
she were an
adult (Superior
Court of
California:
County of
Ventura)
1. Provided by
youth’s school
records.
2. Responses
to questions
relate to
delinquency:
Questions
4-10.
!20
Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency in Ventura County, California
H2: Youth who
come from
nontraditional
families are
more likely to
be involved in
delinquency,
than youth who
come from
traditional
families.
IV: Family
Structure
DV:
Delinquency
Nominal
Ordinal
Test: Wilcoxon-
Mann Whitney
1. Traditional
vs nontraditional
2. See above
1. Response to
question 1 of
the survey
2. See above.
H3: Youth who
associate with
negative peers
are more likely
to be involved
in delinquency.
IV: Peer
Association
DV:
Delinquency
Test: Kruskal
Wallis
1. Patterns of
substance abuse,
status offenses,
and antisocial
behavior amongst
youth’s closest
friends.
2. See above
Ordinal
Ordinal
1. Responses
to questions
related to peer
associations:
Questions
11-16.
2. See above
H4: Youth
from lowincome
families are
more likely to
be involved in
delinquency
than youth
from highincome
families.
IV:
Socioeconomic
Status
DV:
Delinquency
Test: Kruskal
Wallis
1. Self-reported
income for the
household
2. See above
Ordinal
Ordinal
1. Response to
question 2 of
the survey
2. See above