|
Abstract
|
This study compared the family environments of adolescent sex offenders and violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquents with a normative sample of adolescents. Differences between the juvenile delinquents and the normative sample were found on six of the ten subscales of the Family Environment Scale (i.e., cohesion, expressiveness, independence, intellectual-cultural orientation, active-recreational orientation, and control). No differences were found on four variables (i.e., conflict, achievement orientation, moral-religious emphasis, and organization). No differences were found among the three categories of juvenile delinquents. Implications of the findings for clinical intervention and further research are offered.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The goal of this article by Bischof et al. was to compare family environments of adolescent sexual offenders and violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquents.
METHODOLOGY:
A quasi-experimental research design was employed for this study. Questionnaires were administered to 109 adolescent males in outpatient and residential programs. A 96.3% return rate was reported. 39 of these males were sexual offenders who were self-admitted offenders or in a treatment program. 25 were nonsexual offenders who were violent offenders, and 41 of the youth were nonsexual offenders who were nonviolent. The survey was a pencil and paper survey with a research or treatment professional present. The Family Environment Scale (FES) was administered as part of this survey. The authors stated that the FES has been normed to the general population of adolescent families, and these norms were compared to the delinquent youth. The scale was a true-false, self-report of social-environmental attributes of families. Relational dimensions of cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict were part of the scale. A personal growth dimension was also included which incorporated independence, achievement orientation, intellectual-cultural orientation, active-recreational orientation, and moral-religious emphasis. A system maintenance dimension, measured by organization and control, was a third part of the scale. Test-retest reliabilities on the subscales mentioned ranged from .68-.86. A self-report measure of delinquency and sexual offending was included. Categories of offending were nonviolent offenses against persons, general sexual offending, child molestation, offenses against public order, drug abuse, and status offenses. The respondents were asked if they had committed these acts and if they had been held by police or been convicted for them. ANOVA and post hoc Duncan tests were used to analyze the data.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
A significant difference in age (p=.002) was found; adolescent sex offenders were significantly younger than the other offenders. Significant differences were also found in family income (p=.01) with sex offender families having the lowest income, violent offenders middle, and the nonviolent offenders having the highest family incomes. No significant differences were found on level of conflict, achievement orientation, moral-religious emphasis, or amount of organization perceived in the families. All delinquents perceived lower cohesion in families, lower expressiveness, and lower independence than normal families (p<.001), but there were no significant differences between groups. Normal families were perceived as having higher levels of intellectual-cultural orientation than violent and nonviolent delinquent families (p<.001), but there was no significant difference for the sex offender families. Nonviolent delinquents perceived their families as having lower levels of active-recreational orientation than normal families (p<.05), but no differences were found in either of the other two groups. Normal families were perceived as having significantly less control than nonviolent offenders' families, but no other differences were found. Sex offenders, overall, did not differ on FES means from other juvenile delinquents.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors suggested that the clinical implications of denial of sexual tensions and paucity of sexual knowledge or education be tested. Interventions with sexual offenders' families were said to benefit from general adolescent delinquent approaches. Emotional support and bonding were important features of family interventions, according to the authors. Independence needed to be explored. The authors also advocated targeting intellectual-cultural activity and active recreational activities. Further efforts should include offenders from various levels or control treatment setting, the authors said. Family and early assessment tools and further categorization of offenders were also thought to be important.
EVALUATION:
This study assists us in beginning to understand distinctions between normal adolescents and different types of delinquents. It uses a measurement tool with solid norms to try to differentiate between groups of offenders and normal adolescents. This enhances the ability to try to distinguish offending patterns and, as the authors do, give direction for intervention. This study, however, should be regarded as preliminary and exploratory. The sample size is rather small for any large-scale generalizations of the delinquent populations. Additionally, the youth were largely self-selected and are not necessarily representative of the larger juvenile delinquent population. The retrospective self-report indications of offending are also problematic. This study should be replicated with larger samples and with a broader range of delinquents. Supporting materials on delinquency will also increase the validity of this work. Overall, this study is a step in the right direction.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Juvenile Offender
Delinquency Causes
Juvenile Violence
Sexual Assault Offender
Family Relations
Family Environment
Home Environment
Environmental Factors
Violence Causes
Sexual Assault Causes
Comparative Analysis
Juvenile Delinquency
Violent-Nonviolent Comparison
Sexual vs. Nonsexual Offender
Language: en |