deviance_rayment.pdf

7/27/2019 deviance_rayment.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/devianceraymentpdf 1/9

TASA Conference 2005, University of Tasmania, 6-8 December 2005 1

TASA 2005 Conference Proceedings

Dominant Theories of the Relationship between Child

Maltreatment and Juvenile Offending: A Critique

Cassandra Rayment

School of Justice Studies, Faculty of Law

Queensland University of [email protected]

Abstract

This paper examines the current state of knowledge and theory of the child

maltreatment-juvenile offending relationship. It argues that the only currently

acceptable pathways between child maltreatment and juvenile offending are

conceptualised within an individual’s pathology, the result of social and

environmental influences on the individual’s pathology or finally, a combination of

both. Therefore, research is tailored within this positivist paradigm and largely

ignores the possibility of the relationship being conceptualised within a different

framework. Subsequently, it fails to acknowledge or explore the possibility of other aims and purposes to the relationship of child maltreatment and juvenile offending

within a wider system of governance. Ultimately, this paper argues for a critical

analysis of the current assumptions and methodologies underpinning research on the

child maltreatment-juvenile offending relationship and calls for a re-evaluation of the

direction of future research in this area.

Dominant Theories of the Relationship between Child Maltreatment and

Juvenile Offending: A Critique

For many researchers, the progression from child maltreatment to juvenile offending

is a logical one. Schwartz, Rendon and Hsieh (1994: 640) assert that “the existence of

a relationship between child abuse, juvenile offending and adult crime is so well

accepted by professionals and lay people that it is considered common knowledge”.

On an empirical basis, the existence of a relationship between child maltreatment and

juvenile offending is hard to refute within the current positivist framework. However,

consensus over the nature of the relationship is less conclusive.

This paper examines the current state of knowledge and theory of the child

maltreatment-juvenile offending relationship. It argues that the only currently

acceptable pathways between child maltreatment and juvenile offending are

conceptualised within an individual’s pathology, the result of social and

environmental influences on the individual’s pathology or finally, a combination of

both. Therefore, research is tailored within this positivist paradigm and largely





ignores the possibility of the relationship being conceptualised within a different

framework. Subsequently, it fails to acknowledge or explore the possibility of other

aims and purposes to the relationship of child maltreatment and juvenile offending

within a wider system of governance. Ultimately, this paper argues for a critical

analysis of the current assumptions and methodologies underpinning research on the

child maltreatment-juvenile offending relationship and calls for a re-evaluation of the

direction of future research in this area.

Theoretically, the link between child maltreatment and juvenile offending has been

premised on various perspectives deriving from psychological, criminological and

developmental fields of study. Theories which dominate this area include social

learning (Akers 1998), social control (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990; Hirschi 1969),

strain (Agnew 1992), coercion (Colvin 2000; Patterson 1982), life course and

pathway models (National Crime Prevention 1999; Stewart, Dennison and Waterson

2002a). Social learning, social control, strain and coercion theories all focus on child

maltreatment as having a detrimental effect on an individual through their

development. Maltreatment in this sense is seen as producing dysfunctional attitudes,

and unacceptable ways of interacting with others, and is responsible for inhibiting

their overall childhood development (although each theory has a slightly different

perspective on the mechanisms which operate between child maltreatment and

subsequent delinquency). Life course and pathway models are the most recent in

theoretical attempts to link maltreatment to delinquency. These recognise that there

are multiple pathways for those who experience maltreatment and subsequently

engage in offending behaviour. To a certain degree, the pathway model incorporates

each of the theories previously advocated as a possible pathway between the two. It

uses the concept of risk and risk factors, with child maltreatment clearly articulated as

a strong risk factor for later offending behaviour. In doing this, it also asserts that

there are certain mediating factors (or protective factors) which may prevent

maltreatment leading to negative outcomes such as offending.

Widom (1994) is among researchers who advocate this perspective. She designates

six possible pathways between child maltreatment and juvenile offending. The first

five pathways are consistent with the previous theories of social learning, social





control and strain theory previously mentioned. However, the last pathway differs in

its approach in that,

The observed relationship between early childhood victimisation and

problems behaviours in adolescence may be in part a function of juvenile

justice system practices that disproportionately label and adjudicate

maltreatment victims as juvenile offenders (Widom 1994: 143).

This pathway can operate in a number of ways. Primarily it is said to include a

policing bias towards those of lower socioeconomic status, and the “surveillance

hypothesis”, which maintains that once a family has come to the attention of a

government department, they are likely to be monitored more closely and are thereby

more likely to be reported or investigated for future incidents than a family who had

never come to the attention of the Department. However, this pathway is refuted by

Weatherburn and Lind (1997) and Stewart et al. (2002qa). Weatherburn and Lind

(1997: 3) acknowledge the surveillance hypothesis, but in negating its validity, cite

eight studies which have sought to disprove it. They state, “the most compelling

evidence against the surveillance hypothesis however, comes from studies which have

found evidence of a relationship between economic stress and neglectful or abusive

parenting without relying on official records”. Stewart et al. (2002a: 49) concur in that

“there is little evidence for these contentions, which at present are largely

speculative”.

Each of these theories has an individualistic basis which asserts that the experience of

maltreatment affects the pathology of a person, either individually, through social or

environmental influences, or through a combination of both. This focus on a person’s

internal make (wherever the source of the influence) up derives itself from positivism,

which is the most dominant research paradigm within the field. While the term

“positivism” carries with it a number of interpretations, the common underlying

thread is that “positivism promotes the scientific method as the only way to obtain

knowledge” (Neyhouse 2002: 23). However, positivism is arguably more than simply

a methodology, but a philosophy as well, which can be argued to outline ways in

which one should think about the world, and subsequently, prescribe standards of

behaviour for those interacting within the world.





Positivism, as both a methodology and a philosophy, has dominated criminological

research for decades (see Neyhouse 2002). Its influence on research concerning the

relationship between child maltreatment and juvenile offending is evident. Positivism

has at its core, several concepts implicit in its understanding of the world. These

include the reliance on scientific research, the assumption that scientific research is

neutral or value free, the assumption that anything can be reduced to scientific study,

and a belief in the ability of statistics to explain experiences (see Usher 1997). It also

has an individualistic focus, which seeks to locate the explanations or causes of

behaviour within an individual, as opposed to wider societal structures.

In terms of the previous theoretical discussion of child maltreatment and juvenile

offending, the influence of positivism is clear. Each of the theories has the previously

established individualistic basis, which attributes maltreatment as affecting the

individual’s pathology which in turn leads to delinquency. However, the influence of

positivism is at its strongest in terms of the empirical studies which have examined

the relationship between child maltreatment and juvenile delinquency.

Empirical research on the relationship between child maltreatment and juvenile

offending is prolific. Some researchers have used the previously cited theories of

maltreatment and delinquency as the basis to their studies; however most of the

research in this area has been largely atheoretical (Kakar 1996: 29). To a certain

degree, each of the theories has some level of empirical support; however no theory

has been established as universally explaining a relationship between the two.

Nevertheless, researchers have continued to explore this relationship with clearly

stated intentions on determining the elusive concept of causality.

Despite the fact that the majority of children who experience maltreatment will not

offend (Stewart et al. 2002), once a child is in the child protection system, the vast

majority of empirical evidence demonstrates that they are more likely than children

not in the child protection system, to engage in offending behaviour (Stewart et al.

2002). While the degree of association is far less conclusive, a correlation between

maltreatment and delinquency is hard to refute. Studies dated as early as 1960 cite a

causal link between child maltreatment and juvenile offending (Schwartz et al. 1994:

641). However, later research has come to modify that position. Widom (1989),





Zingraff, Leiter, Myers and Johnsen (1993) and Smith and Thornberry (1994) all

studied the relationship between child maltreatment and juvenile offending, with the

conclusion that although maltreated children appear to be at greater risk of offending

than non-maltreated children, the pathway was neither causal nor inevitable, and the

association between maltreatment and delinquency was more modest than previous

claims.

Such results have not deterred researchers from seeking to establish a causal link

between child maltreatment and juvenile offending. This goal remains, despite all

available evidence stating that the majority of children who experience maltreatment

do not engage in offending behaviour. In fact, most researchers who seek to establish

causality in the relationship do so after acknowledging it is only a small group of

children to which their research pertains (see Stewart et al. 2002).

Australian research into the child maltreatment-juvenile offending relationship is not

exempt from this desire to determine causality. The most important piece of research

in this area is that of Stewart, Dennison and Waterson (2002a). Stewart et al. (2002a:

3) examined the risk factor of child maltreatment and the effect such maltreatment has

on juvenile offending. They employed both a prospective (examining future offending

behaviour of those identified as maltreated) and a retrospective (examining the past

maltreatment history of those who have been identified as offenders) focus and

concluded that, “the prospective focus of the present study provides further evidence

of a causal relationship between maltreatment and juvenile offending” (Stewart et al.

2002b: 5-6). However their ability to expand beyond this statement is limited. While

asserting that maltreated children are more likely than non maltreated children to

offend in adolescence; physical abuse and neglect are more predicative of offending

than sexual or emotional abuse; young people whose final maltreatment incident

occurs within their adolescence are more likely to offend than those whose

maltreatment does not extend beyond childhood; and that children in out-of-home

placements are more likely to offend than those not in out-of-home placements,

possible explanations for these results are unable to be answered through their given

data set.





While the research appears to be unable to clarify the nature of any causal

relationship, the will to persevere and eventually establish this is apparent. This is

evidenced by Stewart et al. (2002a: 114) who state,

No significant relationship could be identified between the nature of

maltreatment experiences and offence behaviour. This is not to say that no

significant pathways exists between maltreatment and offending, but

rather a canonical correlation may not be the best statistical procedure to

identify pathways to offending. A trajectory analysis may be the most

appropriate method of elucidating any significant pathways; however at

the time of analysis this procedure was not available.

This study, just as many others, failed in its ability to identify the nature of a

significant relationship between maltreatment and juvenile offending. Therefore, each

study, as witnessed by Stewart et al. (2002a), advocates recommendations which if

followed, should alleviate problems and limitations encountered in the current study.To a certain extent, each study sets out to prove causality by improving the

methodology, examining a set of variables previously unstudied, using an improved

data set or through another mechanism (see Widom, 1989). However, despite these

improvements, the end result remains the same, in that there appears to be an

association between child maltreatment and juvenile offending, but how this operates

and more importantly, why this occurs, is less forthcoming.

Therefore, it appears that the only acceptable pathway between child maltreatment

and juvenile offending is conceptualised as being located within an individual’s

pathology, or as the result of social and environmental influences on the individual or

family unit or both. Those who have sought to locate the pathway between the two as

being a product of the system itself or as a result of other processes or purposes, have

largely been refuted on the basis that it is difficult to test and therefore prove such

hypotheses on an empirical basis. What is ironic about this argument is that the

current search to define causality between child maltreatment and juvenile offending

is also difficult to test and prove on an empirical basis. Countless studies have

attempted to complete this task, however each one, while shedding light on certain

aspects of the relationship, has failed in its broader aims. While establishing a

correlation between maltreatment and offending, the nature of such a relationship is

still “largely speculative”.





As a result, the basis on which a relationship is able to be conceived is exclusively

reliant on statistical methods to prove such a relationship and consequently, to outline

the extent and nature of the proven relationship. Current research and literature does

not appear to allow for the possibility of a relationship being conceptualised outside

of the realm of statistics, or more generally, outside the positivist framework

employed by the majority of researchers within this field. Overall, research such as

that of Stewart et al. (2002a) demonstrate the dominance of positivist methodologies

and philosophies evident in the area child maltreatment and juvenile offending.

Despite the inability of such research to articulate the nature of a perceived causal

relationship, researchers in the field refute those who wish to examine the relationship

outside a positivist framework, primarily on the basis that it is difficult to test or prove

empirically. The inherent contradiction to this argument is the inability of positivist

research to achieve the same aim.

Essentially there is a need to explore the relationship between child maltreatment and

juvenile offending outside the current framework. Positivism investigates factors

which affect the individual’s pathology or social and environmental factors which

also affect the individual pathology. As a result, the relationship between child

maltreatment and juvenile offending within the wider system of governance is

ignored. Rather than continuing the elusive search for causality between maltreatment

and delinquency, one might argue that it may be more beneficial to examine the

processes and objectives served in needing to establish a causal link between the two.

Ironically, exploring the relationship outside a positivist framework, may contribute to

a better understanding of a possible pathway between child maltreatment and juvenile

offending. Researchers within this area need to acknowledge that positivist research is

a valid form of inquiry; however it is not the only valid form inquiry. Research

outside this framework should not be refuted solely because of its inability to

empirically test hypotheses. Exploring child maltreatment and juvenile offending

outside the dominant positivist framework has the real potential of adding insights

into a relationship which positivist research is simply unable to provide.





Reference List

Akers, R. (1998) Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime

and Deviance. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Agnew, R. (1992) ‘Foundation for a General Strain Theory of Crime and

Delinquency’, Criminology, 5: 373-87.

Colvin, M. (2000) Crime and Coercion: AN Integrated Theory of Chronic

Criminality. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Gottfredson, M. and T. Hirschi (1990) A General Theory of Crime. California:

Stanford University Press.

Hirschi, T. (1969) Causes of Delinquency. Berkley: University of California Press.

Kakar, S. (1996) Child Abuse and Delinquency. Lanham: University Press of

America.

National Crime Prevention (1999) Pathways to Prevention: Developmental and Early

Intervention Approaches to Crime Prevention in Australia. Canberra: National

Crime Prevention Attorney General’s Department.

Neyhouse, T. (2002) Positivism in Criminological Thought: A Study in the History

and Use of Ideas. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LCC.

Patterson, G. (1982) A Social Learning Approach to Family Intervention: Coercive

Family Process. Oregon: Castalia.

Schwartz, I., J. Rendon and C. Hsieh (1994) ‘Is Child Maltreatment a Leading Cause

of Delinquency?’, Child Welfare, 73(5) 639-55.

Smith, C. and T. Thornberry (1995) ‘The Relationship Between Childhood

Maltreatment and Adolescent Involvement in Delinquency’, Criminology,

33(4): 451-81.

Stewart, A., S. Dennison and E. Waterson (2002a) Pathways from Child Maltreatment

to Juvenile Offending. Brisbane: Griffith University.

Stewart, A., S. Dennison and E. Waterson (2002b) Trends and Issues in Crime and

Criminal Justice No. 241: Pathways from Child Maltreatment to JuvenileOffending. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Usher, R. (1997) ‘Telling a Story about Research and Research as Story Telling:

Postmodern Approaches to Social Research’, pp. 27-41 in McKenzie, G., J.

Powell and R. Usher (eds.) Understanding Social Research: Perspectives on

Methodology and Practice. London: The Farmer Press.





Weatherburn, D. and B. Lind, B. (1997) Social and Economic Stress, Child Neglect

and Juvenile Delinquency. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and

Research.

Widom, C. (1989) ‘Child Abuse, Neglect, and Violent Criminal Behaviour’,

Criminology, 27(2): 251-71.

Widom, C. (1994) ‘Childhood Victimisation and Adolescent Problem Behaviours’,

pp. 127-64 in R. Ketterlinus and M. Lamb (eds.) Adolescent Problem

Behaviours: Issues and Research, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Publishers.

Zingraff, M., J. Leiter, K. Myers, and M. Johnsen, M. (1995) ‘Child Maltreatment and

Youthful Problem Behaviour’, Criminology, 31(2): 173-202.

deviance_rayment.pdf

Documents