Analysis Of Youth Crime Interventions Essay Research

Analysis Of Youth Crime Interventions Essay, Research Paper

Analysis of Youth Crime Interventions

This paper examines possible root causes of youth crime, and appropriate interventions to correct the problem. Articles that will be consulted include Gordon L. Spencer s (1977) work on the school s role in delinquency, David Brownfield and Kevin Thompson s (1991) work

on the role of one s peers in delinquency and Joseph H. Rankin and L. Edward Wells

(1990) work on the role of the family in delinquent behavior. Also examined for possible interventions include Ed Earnest s (1996) report on a treatment program operating in Alabama, and Mark Steward s (1997) report on a treatment program in Missouri. The Canadian Juristats are also used to help place statistical values on youth crime, and in order to determine how great a problem youth crime actually is.

Spencer s (1977) article helps shed light on one of the major contributors to youth

delinquency and crime, namely the educational system. Often researchers will note the

tendency for youthful offenders to be failures in their communities and schools, but

Spencer s research investigates to what extent the schools themselves contribute to

delinquency. Spencer notes common trends associated with youthful offenders such as that they are often school drop outs, that they are educationally retarded four to five years on average, and that they usually have an intense dislike for school. However instead of looking to the youth as the source of the problem, Spencer believes that it is the school that has the negative effects on the youth.

Perhaps the largest problem with schools is their insistence on teaching subjects in

which many youth cannot succeed, and so then repeatedly fail. Subjects which fail to

interest youth and cause low grades can lead to damaged self confidence and tend to push

the student closer toward delinquency. To the many youths, the learning process can seem

irrelevant to the real world, and schools rarely relate the work to the outside world. If the

youth becomes sufficiently frustrated they may quit school, and obviously an unemployed

school drop out has a greater chance of becoming involved in youth crime. [1]

Spencer notes other problems such as the tendency of negative relationships to form

between school officials and a delinquent youth. If frequent negative interactions between

the youth and the teacher occur, mostly taking the form of harsh discipline, the youth may

turn toward the delinquent subculture for acceptance, and to rebuild self esteem. [2]

Spencer s article is clearly a message aimed at school officials to help them realize

the importance they hold in shaping youth s behavior. Because most school teachers see

delinquency as a socioeconomic problem, they take no action, and do not look for problems

or solutions within their classroom [3], and so in a sense become part of the problem.

Spencer concluded that delinquency is caused by many factors, but the school is

often an overlooked source. The first step to eliminate the schools as a contributing factor of

delinquency is for educators to realize their influence, and then to change education to better

suit each individual student s needs. This article is somewhat radical in the sense that it is

calling for major educational reform. In order for schools to combat delinquency, teachers

would have cater the curriculum to individual student interest, and relate subject material to

its real world application. Also schools and administrators would need to monitor

student-teacher relationships to ensure that students are not suffering from frequent negative

interactions. Above all, the curricula would have to provide a reasonable opportunity for

every student to succeed in some areas. (Spencer, 1977, p 24)

In Brownfield and Thompson s (1991) article, they discuss one of the more obvious

contributing factors to youth crime and delinquency, namely the influence of peers. Their

research investigates the effects of attachment to delinquent and non delinquent peers. Also,

they narrowed their investigation toward a group of friends versus a single best friend.

Brownfield and Thompson attempt to explain youth delinquency in terms of social

learning theory and social control theory. Because the theories are somewhat in

disagreement about explanations of behavior, the researchers attempted to discover which

theory better explains peer influence in delinquent behavior. Social learning theory

emphasizes peer influence especially through modeling and social reinforcement. In

contrast, social control theory downplays peer influence and sees the delinquent as isolated

and unable or unwilling to form close personal ties. [4]

Brownfield and Thompson investigated these principles via a questionnaire to

ascertain the respondent s level of delinquency and their relationship with peers. They found

that, consistent with social learning theory, that levels of peer involvement in delinquency

are positively correlated to

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать