Printer Friendly

The relationship between peer, social, and school factors, and delinquency among youth.

A strong positive correlation exists between the level of youth delinquent behavior and their involvement with delinquent peers.[1-8] Do delinquent youth seek out delinquent friends, or do delinquent friends negatively influence a youth's behavior? What other factors may interact with delinquent peer variables to influence delinquent behavior?

Two classic sociological theories argue both sides of the causality issue. Differential Association Theory states that peer associations provide the environment for the learning and reinforcement of beliefs and behavior.[9] Therefore, youth who associate with conforming peers are more likely to be conforming in their beliefs and actions, and youth who associate with delinquent peers are more likely to be delinquent in their beliefs and actions.[6] Social Control Theory argues that, due to a weakening of social controls, youth who already are delinquent will seek out other delinquent youth for companionship.[10]

Some authors argued for an "interactional perspective," which combines aspects of both Differential Association Theory and Social Control Theory.[6] Over time, both theories are interrelated and exert bidirectional causal influences on one another.

...delinquent peers are likely to reinforce delinquency, and as

the subject anticipates and experiences those positive peer

reactions, delinquency is

likely to increase. In turn, the more a person engages

in delinquency, the more likely he or she is to associate with

delinquent peers.[6]

A more practical approach to the study of delinquent behavior among youth examines other factors that may interact with delinquent peers to influence delinquency. While research studies examined variables such as gender,[4] age,[7] attachment,[2] group versus individual relationships,[5] family situations,[8] friendship characteristics,[1,3] and delinquency characteristics,[11] few studies examined the relationship between school and leisure activities, peer associations, and delinquent behavior. Further, since much research in this area was conducted in the United States, limited information is available concerning the Canadian context.

This article examines the relationships between self-reported delinquency and peer and school factors among junior and senior high school students in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, using both cross tabulation and multiple-regression analyses. Since the research design employed in this study was cross-sectional, it cannot directly address the causality issue. However, it does identify interesting factors that may influence a youth's delinquent behavior.

METHODS

Sample

Data analyzed in this article were obtained from a study of youth crime and violence conducted by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family.[12] One component of the study involved a student youth violence survey administered to junior and senior high school students. The sample of 962 students was drawn randomly from 14 junior high schools and six senior high schools in various parts of Calgary that corresponded to low, medium, and high-crime areas.

Of the surveyed students, 51% were male and 49% were female, and 86% indicated they were born in Canada. A relatively even proportion of students existed in grades 711, but a smaller proportion of students in grade 12 participated in the study. Students' ages ranged from 12-18. Students in the sample were equally distributed across the low, medium, and high-crime areas of the city. However, because no consistent relationship was found between delinquency and area of the city. data were not analyzed separately by area.

One limitation of school-based samples is that school drop-outs are not included. Since this group contained youth at highest risk for engaging in delinquent behavior,[13] the effect of any bias introduced by this source is an underestimation of delinquency.

Instrumentation

Using a questionnaire administered by trained members of the research team in a classroom setting, students were asked the extent to which they had engaged in delinquent behaviors in their lifetime, as well as within the past year. Questionnaire administration was conducted in 1994. To measure the extent of delinquency, students were asked to indicate whether they had engaged in certain types of property- and violence-related behaviors. While not all of these behaviors would be considered illegal, such as consensual fighting, most do represent criminal activity. Property-related behaviors were damaged someone's property on purpose, stole less than $50, stole more than $50, stole with friends, broke into a house, or stole a car or motorcycle. Violence-related behaviors were took something by force or threat, threatened to hurt someone, slapped, punched, or kicked someone, threatened someone with a weapon, fought with a group of friends, or touched someone in a sexual way against their will.

For purposes of multiple-regression analyses, these forms of delinquency were combined into a single score by summing the number of delinquent behaviors that students reported engaging in within the past year, thus yielding a single delinquency score for each respondent ranging from 0 to 12. For example, a student who engaged in three delinquent behaviors within the past year would receive a delinquency score of three. While this method did not allow for differentiation among students based on severity of delinquent behaviors, it did provide an index of the extent of involvement in delinquency.

For cross-tabulation analyses, the delinquency score was collapsed into three categories according to the following criteria: students who had not engaged in any of the delinquent behaviors within the past year were classified as nondelinquent; students who had engaged in one or two forms of delinquency were classified as exhibiting a low level of delinquency; and students who had engaged in three or more forms of delinquency were classified as exhibiting a moderate/high level of delinquency. Consistent with other studies, these results indicated that youth who committed only one or two delinquent behaviors were most likely to have engaged in less serious types of property or violent behaviors such as stealing something worth less than $50 or slapping or punching someone in anger. Thus, most students who had engaged in more serious forms of delinquency fell into the "moderate/high delinquency" group.[14]

Students also were asked questions about school and social life variables. Specifically, students were asked questions about their overall grade average, the frequency with which they skipped school, the number of times they had been suspended from school, and whether they had thought about dropping out of school. Concerning their social life, or day-to-day activities, students were asked questions about their involvement in extracurricular activities and their peer relationships. For example, students were asked how often they engaged in sports activities; commercial/entertainment activities such as going to movies, video arcades, and pool halls; and arts and cultural activities such as going to museums, plays, and libraries. They were asked how often they did activities with peers, their peers' level of delinquency, and whether their parents approved of their friends. All tests of statistical significance were conducted using the Chi-square test of association.

RESULTS

Bivariate Analyses

All independent variables measured in the study were cross-tabulated with the dependent variable, or level of delinquency. All relationships examined were statistically significant..

Table 1 presents results from the analyses between level of delinquency and gender and grade. Male students were more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency (37.7%) than were female students (23.8%). In terms of grade, ninth grade students reported the highest levels of delinquency. For example, 42.5% of ninth grade students reported a moderate/high level of delinquency, compared to 24.3% of seventh grade students and only 17.6% of 12th grade students.
Table 1

Level of Delinquency
of Student Respondents by Gender and Grade

                        Level of Delinquency

                     None           Low         Moderate/High
                    n    %        n     %        n        %
Gender(1)
 Male(n=486)       191  39.3     112   23.0      183     37.7
 Female (n = 474)  229  48.3     132   27.8      113     23.8
Grade(2)
 7 (n = 202)       103  53.5      45   22.3       49     24.3
 8 (n = 171)        74  43.3      45   26.3       52     30.4
 9 (n = 160)        56  35.0      36   22.5       68     42.5
 10 (n = 172)       62  36.0      58   33.7       52     30.2
 11 (n = 167)       74  44.3      34   20.4       59     35.3
 12 (n = 85)        45  52.9      25   29.4       15     17.6

Missing observations = 2,[chi square](2) = 21.5, p <.001
Missing observations = 5.[chi square](10) = 35.2, p <.001




Peer and social variables. Results from the analyses between peer and social variables and level of delinquency are presented in Table 2. As expected, peer delinquency was significantly related to students' level of delinquency. For example, of students reporting that their peers have a moderate/high level of delinquency, 68.9% reported a moderate/high level of delinquency for themselves. Conversely, of students who reported no peer delinquency, only 3.4% reported a moderate/high level of delinquency for themselves.
Table 2
Level of Delinquency
of Student Respondents by Peer and Social Variables

                                Level  of Delinquency

                               None         Low       Moderate/High

                              n     %      n    %        n       %
Peer delinquency(1)
 None (n = 179)              147   82.1   26  14.5       6
3.4
 Moderate (n = 587)          252   42.9  180  30.7     155
26.4
 High (n = 196)               22   11.2   39  19.9      13
68.9
Frequency of activities with peers(2)
 Never (n = 50)               27   54.0   12  24.0      11
22.0
 Occasionally (n = 393)      206   52.4   98  24.9      89
22.6
 Often (n = 519)             188   36.2  135  26.0     196
37.8
Parents' opinions of friends(3)
 Approve (n = 767)           370   48.2  202  26.3     195
25.4
 Disapprove (n=56)            11   19.6   10  17.9      35
62.5
 Don't know friends (n = 73)  19   26.0   17  23.3      37
50.7
 Don't know (n = 66)          21   31.8   16  24.2      29
43.9
Level of involvement in sports(4)
 Low (n = 386)               185   47.9  102  26.4      99
25.6
 Moderate (n = 275)          119   43.3   70  25.5      86
31.3
 High (n = 301)              117   38.9   73  24.3     111
36.9
Level of involvement in
commercial/entertainment(5)
 Low (n = 400)               224   56.0  101  25.3      75
18.8
 Moderate (n = 295)          112   38.0   87  29.5      96
32.5
 High (n = 267)               85   31.8   57  21.3      125
46.8
Level of involvment in
arts and culture(6)
 Low (n = 394)               144   36.5   96  24.4      154
39.1
 Moderate (n = 324)          147   45.4   90  27.8       87
26.9
 High (n = 244)              130   53.3   59  24.2       55
22.5

1[chi square](4) = 264.6, p <.001
2[chi square](4) = 32.7,  p <.001
3[chi square](6) = 58.6, p <.001
4[chi square](4) = 10.5, p <.05
5[chi square](4) = 69.7, p < .001
6[chi square](4) = 26.8, p < .001




Other peer factors also were statistically significant. Students who reported never or only occasionally engaging in activities with peers were more likely to report no delinquency themselves (54% and 52.4%, respectively) than a moderate/high level of delinquency (22% and 22.6%, respectively). Interestingly, students who reported engaging in activities with peers often were almost as likely to report no delinquency (36.2%) as they were to report a moderate/high level of delinquency (37.8%). Students whose parents approved of their friends were much more likely to report no delinquency (48.2%) than a moderate/high level of delinquency (25.4%). In contrast, students who reported that their parents disapproved of their friends were much more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency (62.5%) than low (17.9%) or no delinquency (19.6%).

In terms of leisure/social activities, students who reported a low level of involvement in sports were more likely to report no delinquency (47.9%) than a moderate/high level of delinquency (25.6%). However, students who reported a high level of involvement in sports were almost as likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency (36.9%) as they were no delinquency (38.9%). Students who reported a high level of involvement in sports were considerably more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency than were students who reported a low level of sports activity.

Students who reported a high level of involvement in commercial/entertainment activities were more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency (46.8%) than no delinquency (31.8%). In contrast, students who reported a low level of involvement in these types of activities were more likely to report no delinquency (56%) than they were a low (25.3%) or moderate/high level of delinquency (18.8%). Finally, students who engaged in a high level of arts and cultural activities were more likely to report no delinquency (53.3%) than a moderate/high level of delinquency (22.5%), while students who engaged in a low level of arts and cultural activities were more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency (39.1 %).

School variables. Table 3 presents results from the cross-tabulation of school variables and level of delinquency. Again, all results were statistically significant. Students reporting a 90% to 100% grade average were more likely to report no delinquency (66.7%) than a low (16.7%) or moderate/high level of delinquency (16.7%). Of students reporting failing marks (< 50%), 40% reported a moderate/high level of delinquency, 33.3% reported a low level of delinquency, and 26.7% reported no delinquency.
Table 3
Level of Delinquency
of Student Respondents by School Variables

                                 Level of Delinquency

                               None       Low         Moderate/High
                              n    %     n     %        n       %

Grades in school(1)
 90% -100% (n = 30)           20  66.7   5    16.7      5      16.7
 80% - 89% (n = 269)         138  51.3  68    25.3      63     23.4
 70% - 79% (n =333)          157  47.1  84    25.2      92     27.6
 60% - 69% (n = 219)          80  36.5  57    26.0      82     37.4
 50% - 59% (n =96)            22  22.9  26    27.1      48     50.0
 < 50% (n = 15)                4  26.7   5    33.3       6     40.0
Time spent on homework
per week(2)
 0 hours (n = 73)             13  17.8  13    17.8      47     64.4
 1-4 hours (n = 495)         187  37.8 137    27.7     171     34.5
 5+ hours (n = 394)          221  56.1  95    24.1      78     19.8
How often classes are skipped(3)
 Never (n = 571)             310  54.3 142    24.9     119     20.8
 Once a month or less
  (n = 264)                   86  32.6  78      29.5    100
37.9
 Once a week or more
  (n = 127)                   25  19.7  25      19.7    77
60.6
Ever been suspended
from school(4)
 Yes (n = 138)                30  21.7  18      13.0    90
65.2
 No(n = 824)                 391  47.5  227     27.5    206
25.0
Ever thought about
dropping out of school(5)
 Yes(n=116)                   20  17.2  27      23.3    69
59.5
 No (n = 846)                401  47.4  218     25.8    227
26.8

1 [chi square](10) = 45.4, p <.001
2 [chi square](4) = 76.4, p <.001
3 [chi square](4) = 101.7, p <.001
4 [chi square](2) = 89.8, p <.001
5 [chi square](2) = 56.8, p <.001




The more time students reported spending on homework, the less likely they were to report delinquency. For example, of students who reported spending five or more hours per week on homework, 56.1% reported no delinquency, and 19.8% reported a moderate/high level of delinquency. In contrast, of students who reported doing no homework, 64.4% reported a moderate/high level of delinquency, 17.8% reported a low level of delinquency, and 17.8% reported no delinquency.

Students who reported skipping classes often (once/week or more) were more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency (60.6%) than low (19.7%) or no delinquency (19.7%). Students who reported skipping classes often were three times more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency than no delinquency. Similarly, of students who reported having been suspended from school, 65.2% reported a moderate/high level of delinquency in contrast to 25% of students who had never been suspended. Of students who had ever thought about dropping out of school, 59.5% reported a moderate/high level of delinquency, compared to 26.8% who stated that they had never thought of dropping out.

Multivariate Analyses.

A series of stepwise multiple regression analyses was conducted on students' level of delinquency, using the three sets of independent variables measured in this study: 1) peer and social variables only, 2) school variables only, and 3) peer, social, and school variables together. All variables that had been categorized for purposes of the cross-tabulation analyses were used in their continuous forms for the regression analyses. These analyses identified factors most important in predicting students' delinquent behavior, and identified those factors that do not appear to enhance the ability to predict delinquent behavior.

Peer and social variables. Results from the multiple regression analyses using peer and social factors as independent variables and students' delinquency score as the dependent variable are presented in Table 4, with bivariate correlations between the delinquency score and each independent variable. The first variable to be entered into the regression equation, and the strongest predictor of delinquency within this set of independent variables, was peer delinquency (Beta weight = .53; Multiple R = .62). Other factors that entered into the equation were: whether parents approved of friends (negative correlation with delinquency), the extent of commercial/entertainment activities, the extent of sport activities, and the extent of arts and cultural activities (negative correlation with delinquency). A factor that did not significantly increase the accuracy of the prediction equation was frequency of activities with peers.
Table 4
Stepwise Multiple Regression Results
for Analysis of Peer and Social Variables

Independent variables                       Beta
in equation(1)             Bivariate rs   weight(2)    Multiple
R(3)
Peer delinquency              .62(*)        .53          .62
Parents approve of friends   -.30-         -.15          .64
Commercial/entertainment
 activities                   .30(*)         .11         .65
Sports activities             .11(*)         .10         .65
Arts and cultural activities -.19(*)        -.06         .65

(*) p [is less than or equal to],001

1 Independent variables are listed in the order in which they were
entered
into the regression equation.

2 Beta weights represent the value for each variable in the final
regression
equation.

3 Multiple R values are presented for each variable for the step
in which it was entered into the regression equation




School variables. Table 5 presents results from the multiple regression analyses using school factors as independent variables and students' delinquency score as the dependent variable, as well as bivariate correlations between the delinquency score and each independent variable. Of the school factors measured in the study, the strongest predictors of delinquency were how often classes were skipped and the number of times the student was suspended from school (Beta weights = .31 and .28, respectively; Multiple Rs = .42 and .50). Other factors that entered into the equation were the amount of time spent on homework (negative correlation with delinquency) and the number of times students thought about dropping out of school. The only variable that did not increase significantly the accuracy of the regression equation was students' grades in school.
Table 5
Stepwise  Multiple Regression Results
for Analysis  of School Variables

Independent variables                      Beta
in equation(1)             Bivariate  rs   weight(2)   Multiple
R(3)

How often classes are skipped  .42(*)        .31           .42
Number of times suspended
  from school                  .36(*)        .28           .50
Amount of time on homework
  per week                    -.28(*)        .17           .53
Number of times thought
  about dropping out of school .11(*)        .08           .53

(*) p [is less than or equal to].001

1 Independent variables are listed in the order in which they were
entered
into the regression equation.

2 Beta weights represent the value for each variable in the final
regression
equation

3 Multiple R values are presented  for each variable for the step
in which it
was entered into the regression equation




Peer, social, and school variables. Results from the multiple regression analyses using all independent variables measured in the study (peer, social, and school factors) and students' delinquency score as the dependent variable are presented in Table 6. As expected, the first variable to enter into the regression equation was peer delinquency (Beta weight = .42; Multiple R = .62). However, following this strong predictor was an interesting mix of school and peer and social factors. Listed in the order in which they entered into the regression equation, the remaining significant factors were: number of times suspended from school, parental approval of friends (negative correlation with delinquency), extent of commercial/entertainment activities, amount of time spent on homework per week (negative correlation with delinquency), extent of sport activities, how often classes are skipped, number of times the student thought about dropping out of school, and frequency of activities with peers. Factors that did not enter into the regression equation and thus were not significant predictors of delinquency were the extent of participation in arts and cultural activities, and grades in school.
Table 6
Stepwise Multiple Regression Results for Analysis of
Peer and Social Variables and School Variables

Independent variables in equation(1)      Beta weight(2)
Multiple
                                                              R(3)

Peer delinquency                               .42             .62
Number of times suspended from school          .17             .64
Parents approve of friends                    -.12             .66
Commercial/entertainment activities            .11             .67
Amount of time spent on homework per week     -.10             .68
Sports activities                              .11             .68
How often classes are skipped                  .12             .69
Number of times thought about dropping out of
school                                         .05             .69
Frequency of activities with peers            -.05             .69

1 Independent variables are listed in the order in which they were
entered into the regression equation.

2 Beta weights represent the value for each variable in the final
regression equation

3 Multiple R values are presented for each variable for the step in
which it
was entered into  the regression equation




DISCUSSION

Results from this study identified some interesting factors related to delinquency among youth. Consistent with the literature, males reported more delinquency than females. However, almost one-quarter of female students surveyed admitted to committing three or more delinquent behaviors within the past year. Morash[4] also found males significantly more likely to be delinquent, but that "a rather sizable group" of females had committed aggressive delinquent acts, and "in some cases the girls' seriousness scores were above the mean for both the male and female groups."

In terms of age, a greater number of ninth grade students (ages approximately 14-15) were delinquent compared to the other grades studied, including grades seven, eight, 10, 11, and 12. One contributing factor to this pattern may be that, in later grades, youth most likely to engage in delinquent behaviors also are more likely to have dropped out of school, and thus not be included in the sample. However, the finding of substantial levels of delinquency in ninth grade may indicate a need to target prevention efforts to the junior high school level.

The bivariate analyses revealed some interesting relationships between peer, social, and school variables, and students' level of delinquency. Predictably, peers' level of delinquency was strongly and positively correlated with students' level of delinquency. This finding is consistent with previous theoretical formulations concerning the relationship between delinquency and association with delinquent peers.[6, 9, 10] For example, both Differential Association Theory and Social Control Theory predict that a high level of delinquency will be associated with a delinquent peer group. However, these theories differ in terms of causal linkages. While Differential Association Theory states that a youth will learn delinquent behaviors by associating with a delinquent peer group, Social Control Theory states that delinquent youth will seek out a delinquent peer group. Unfortunately, due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, the direction of the causal relationship cannot be determined.

Students who reported engaging in activities often with peers were almost as likely to report no delinquency as a moderate/high level of delinquency. This finding suggests frequent association with peers is not sufficient to explain delinquency. Agnew[1] states that the impact of delinquent peers on an adolescent's own behavior depends on the amount of contact with peers, the extent to which peers are delinquent, and the extent to which the adolescent feels emotionally close to the peers. Agnew suggests that delinquency can be reduced by altering the relationship between the adolescent and delinquent peers, or reducing emotional closeness, thus increasing the ability to resist peer pressure.

Another interesting finding was that students who reported a high level of involvement in sports were considerably more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency than were students who reported a low level of sports activity. This finding raises the question of whether involvement in contact sports sanctions the use of violence in other activities.

The nature of students' extracurricular and leisure activities was associated with level of delinquency. Students who reported a high level of involvement in commercial/entertainment activities were more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency, and students who reported a high level of involvement in arts and cultural activities were more likely to report no delinquency. Possible explanations for these findings are that commercial/entertainment activities tend to be group-oriented, while arts and cultural activities tend to be individual-oriented. In addition, there may be more opportunity for youth to engage in delinquency in a mall setting, for example, than in a museum.

In terms of school factors, it is not surprising that students who spend more time on homework and have high grade averages are less likely to report delinquent behavior. Nor is it surprising that students who skip school often or have been suspended are more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency. What is important to note, however, is the magnitude of this relationship. Students who skip school were three times more likely to report a moderate/high level of delinquency than no delinquency. This finding underscores the importance of keeping young people in school.

Multivariate analyses were conducted to identify the factors most important in predicting delinquent behavior, and to identify those factors that do not appear to enhance the ability to predict delinquent behavior. Consistent with the literature, the strongest predictor of delinquent behavior within the group of peer and social variables was peer delinquency. Interestingly, as discussed above, frequency of activities with peers was not a significant factor in the regression equation.

Within the group of school variables, the strongest predictors of delinquent behavior were how often classes were skipped and the number of times students were suspended from school. Particularly since students' grades in school did not significantly increase the accuracy of the regression equation, students who are not in school may be using this time to engage in delinquent behaviors.

The multiple regression analyses using all of the independent variables measured in the study are particularly interesting because they indicate that both peer and social factors, as well as school factors, are important variables in predicting delinquency. Again, as expected, peer delinquency was the strongest predictor of delinquency, followed by number of times suspended from school, parental approval of friends (negative correlation with delinquency), extent of commercial/entertainment activities, amount of time spent on homework per week (negative correlation with delinquency), extent of sport activities, how often classes are skipped, number of times the student thought about dropping out of school, and frequency of activities with peers.

While strong relationships were found between these risk factors and delinquency, not all youth exposed to risk factors develop delinquent behaviors. The notion of resiliency, or protective factors, has recently been proposed to account for these exceptions. For example, it has been suggested that the presence of protective factors, such as positive family interaction, can offset the effects of risk factors, such as low socioeconomic status.[15] It may be that the presence of numerous risk factors, such as those found in this study, coupled with a lack of protective factors, places a young person at greatest risk for delinquent behavior. Intervention programs that attempt to foster protective factors, while at the same time reducing or minimizing the effects of risk factors, may be among the most effective strategies for reducing delinquent behavior.

CONCLUSION

The problem of youth violence causes great concern in today's society. Results from this study raise a number of questions and underscore the need for further research in several areas. Are female adolescents becoming more delinquent? Is delinquent behavior starting at younger ages? How can we lessen the effects of negative peer relationships? Do extracurricular activities that involve physical contact sanction the use of violence in other activities? How can we discourage students from skipping school? Do schools need to reconsider suspension policies? What protective factors are most likely to enhance resiliency among youth, and what methods are most effective in enhancing these factors? Further research will help answer these questions, and address the problem of delinquent behavior among youth.

References

[1.] Agnew R. The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Crim. 1991 ;29(1):47-72.

[2.] Brownfield D, Thompson K. Attachment to peers and delinquent behaviour. Can J Crim. 1991;33(1):45-60.

[3.] Giordano PC, Cernkovich SA, Pugh MD. Friendships and delinquency. Am J Soc. 1986;91 (5):1170-1202.

[4.] Morash M. Gender, peer group experiences, and seriousness of delinquency. J Res Crim Del. 1986;23(1):43-67.

[5.] Pabon E, Rodriguez O, Gurin G. Clarifying peer relations and delinquency. Youth Soc. 1992;24(2):149-165.

[6.] Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth M, Jang SJ. Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of interactional theory. Crim. 1994;32(1):47-83.

[7.] Warr M. Age, peers, and delinquency. Crim. 1993;31(1):17-40.

[8.] Warr M. Parents, peers, and delinquency. Soc Forces. 1993;72(1):247-264.

[9.] Sutherland EH. Criminology, 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: JB Lippincott; 1947.

[10.] Hirschi T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 1969.

[11.] Smith DA, Visher CA, Jarjoura GR. Dimensions of delinquency: Exploring the correlates of participation, frequency, and persistence of delinquent behavior. J Res Crim Del. 1991;28(1):6-32.

[12.] Smith RB, Bertrand LD, Arnold BL, Hornick JP. A Study of the Level and Nature of Youth Crime and Violence in Calgary. Calgary, Alberta: Calgary Police Service; 1995.

[13.] Clayton RR, Voss HL. Technical Report on Drug Abuse and Dropouts. Rockville, Md: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1982.

[14.] Graham J, Bowling B. Young People and Crime. London, England: Home Office; 1995.

[15.] Yoshikawa H. Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(1):28-54.

Joanne J. Paetsch, BA, Administrator; and Lorne D. Bertrand, PhD, Social Research Associate, Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family, c/o Faculty of Law, The University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N IN4 Canada. This study was conducted by the Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family for the Calgary Police Service, with funding from Solicitor General Canada. This article was submitted July 9, 1996, and revised and accepted for publication November 6, 1996.
COPYRIGHT 1997 American School Health Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1997 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Paetsch, Joanne J.; Bertrand, Lorne D.
Publication:Journal of School Health
Date:Jan 1, 1997
Words:5166
Previous Article:Guidelines for school health programs to promote lifelong healthy eating.
Next Article:Prevention: key to a healthy lifestyle.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters