Risk Factors for Delinquency and Effective Prevention Techniques

1. Risk Factors for Delinquency and Effective Prevention Techniques David Farrington Copenhagen March 5, 2008

2. SAVING CHILDREN FROM A LIFE OF CRIME By David Farrington and Brandon Welsh Oxford University Press, 2007

3. Crime Reduction/Prevention Strategies • Criminal justice prevention (deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation) • Community prevention (targeting community risk factors and social conditions such as cohesiveness or disorganization, or using the community as the context) • Situational prevention (reducing opportunities in the physical environment) • Developmental/risk-focussed prevention (targeting early risk and protective factors)

4. Risk-Focussed Prevention • Identify key risk factors for offending and implement prevention techniques designed to counteract them • Identify key protective factors and implement techniques designed to enhance them • Public health method. For example: • Key risk factors for coronary heart disease include smoking, a fatty diet, lack of exercise • Therefore, encourage people to stop smoking, eat more healthily, take more exercise

5. Advantages of Risk-Focussed Prevention • It links explanation and prevention, fundamental and applied research, scholars and practitioners • It is easy to understand and communicate • It is readily accepted by practitioners, policy makers and the general public • Both risk factors and interventions are based on empirical evidence: this is evidence-based practice • It avoids difficult questions about which factors have causal effects

6. What is a Risk Factor? • A factor that predicts an increased probability of offending (e.g. poor parental supervision) • Since the definition depends on prediction, longitudinal data are needed to study risk factors • Individual, family, peer, school, socio-economic, and neighbourhood/community risk factors have been studied • Focus on changeable risk factors • Example: Risk factors discovered in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development

7. Summary of Results So Far • Farrington, D.P. (2003) Key results from the first 40 years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. In T.P. Thornberry and M.D. Krohn (Eds.) Taking Stock of Delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. • For this: email fmb22@cam.ac.uk • Home Office Research Study 299 • from www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds

8. Original Aims of the Study • To describe the development of criminal and antisocial behavior in urban males • To explain why offending begins, why it continues, and why it ends • To establish the relative importance of different predictors of offending and antisocial behavior • To study correlates of offending at different ages • To investigate the effects of life events on the course of development of offending

9. Characteristics of the Sample • 411 South London males • Attending 6 schools in a working class area • Aged 8-9 in 1961-62 • Mostly born in 1953 • 357 White, British origin (87%) • 14 Irish, 12 Black, 12 from Cyprus, 16 other White • 94% working class • 6% no father, 1% no mother

10. Data Collected at Different Ages • Interviewed at ages 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 32, 48 • Whole sample interviewed at all ages except 21 and 25, when subsamples interviewed • Parents interviewed when boy aged 8-15 • Peer ratings at ages 8 and 10 • Teacher ratings at ages 8, 10, 12 and 14 • Criminal records up to age 50 • Multiple constructs and multiple data sources

11. Social Interview • Age 18: 389 out of 410 alive (95%) • Age 32: 378 out of 403 alive (94%) • Age 48: 365 out of 394 alive (93%) • At age 48, out of 411 men: • 17 had died (13 convicted) • 5 not traced • 24 refused

12. Criminal Careers • 21% convicted as juveniles (age 10-16) • 41% convicted up to age 50 • Peak age of conviction 17 • Peak age of increase in offending 14 • Peak age of decrease in offending 23 • Average age of onset 19 • Average age of “desistance” 28 • Average 5 crimes in 9-year criminal career • 8% convicted at age 42-47; av. 9 convictions in av. 24-year criminal career

13. Criminal Careers (Continued) • Continuity: 73% of juvenile offenders convicted at ages 17-24 (vs. 16% of juvenile non-offenders) • Similar continuity in self-reports • 28 Chronic offenders: 7% of males commit 52% of all crimes (10 or more crimes each) • Co-offending: Most crimes up to 17 committed with others, usually boys of a similar age living close by, and usually committed close to the boys’ homes

14. Early Onset and Incarceration • 35 males started offending at 10-13: average 9 offenses, criminal career from 12.6 to 25.4 • 51 males started offending at 14-16: average 6 offenses, criminal career from 15.5 to 28.5 • 44 males out of 167 offenders were incarcerated at some point (26%); average time served 1.3 years • 24 out of 28 chronic offenders (all of whom had committed 10 or more offenses) were incarcerated; average time served 1.9 years

15. Offending by Family Members • Analysis up to December 1993 (study males av. age 40) • Fathers: 28% convicted (av. age 72) • Mothers: 13% convicted (av. age 68) • Brothers: 43% convicted (av. age 40) • Sisters: 12% convicted (av. age 40) • Female Partners: 9% convicted (av. age 39) • Av. 1.5 convicted out of 5.5 in each family • 64% of families contain a convicted person • 6% of families account for half of all convictions

16. Risk Factors for Convictions

17. Risk Factors for Convictions

18. Risk Factors for Convictions

19. Independent Predictors • 1. Convicted parent • 2. High daring • 3. Low attainment • 4. Poor housing • 5. Disrupted family • 6. Large family size • Nearly significant interaction between poor housing and large family size (74% C if both) • Antisocial, troublesome, dishonest excluded

21. Large Family Size Predicts Delinquency: Why? • Less attention/supervision per child • Household overcrowding • Influence of delinquent siblings • Family poverty or stress • Antisocial or teenage parents • More disrupted families • More later-born children • More lax with each successive child

22. Family-Based Crime Prevention • Parent Training as developed by Gerald Patterson (Oregon) has been very influential • Patterson carefully observed parent-child interactions and showed that parents of antisocial children: • failed to tell them how to behave • failed to monitor behaviour • failed to enforce rules promptly • failed to make punishment consistent and contingent on the child’s behaviour

23. Patterson’s Parent Training • Based on Antecedent-Behaviour-Consequences • Notice what the child is doing • Monitor behaviour over long periods • Clearly state house rules • Make rewards and punishments consistent and contingent on behaviour • Negotiate disagreements so conflicts and crises do not escalate

24. Patterson’s Results • Parent training is effective in decreasing child stealing and antisocial behaviour over short periods in small scale studies • Mostly used with children aged 3-10; works less well with adolescents • Problem of cooperation of families and children with the worst problems

25. Types of Family-Based Programmes • Home visiting (Olds) • Parent training (Webster-Stratton, Sanders) • Home/community programmes with older children (Alexander, Chamberlain) • Multi-systemic therapy (MST) (Henggeler)

26. David Olds (Elmira, NY) • 400 mothers randomly assigned to: • home visits from nurses during pregnancy • home visits in pregnancy and infancy • control: no home visits • Visits every two weeks: nurses gave advice about child-rearing, nutrition, infant development (general parent education programme) • Find (15 year follow-up): experimental children had half as many arrests. Benefits > costs for lower class unmarried mothers

27. Carolyn Webster-Stratton (Seattle) • 426 children aged 4 (most with single mothers on welfare) randomly assigned to experimental or control conditions • Experimental parents got weekly parent training: • How to play with your child, helping your child learn, using praise and encouragement to bring out the best in your child, effective setting of limits and handling misbehaviour • Find: Experimental children had decreased misbehaviour according to home observation

28. Matthew Sanders (Brisbane) • Triple-P Positive Parenting Programme: can be used for primary prevention (media-based) or for high risk children or clinic samples • 305 high-risk children aged 3 randomly assigned to experimental or control conditions • Experimental parents received training in 17 child management stategies, with modelling, role-playing, feedback and homework • Find: experimental children’s antisocial behaviour improved

29. James Alexander (Utah) • Functional Family Therapy: Aim to change family contingencies to increase positive and decrease negative behaviour • Aim to modify family communication patterns to be clearer and more reciprocal, considering alternative solutions to problems • 86 delinquents randomly assigned to FFT or control conditions • Find: 26% of experimental delinquents reoffended, versus 55% of controls

30. Patricia Chamberlain (Oregon) • Treatment Foster Care (TFC): foster parents use behaviour management methods to provide boys with a structured daily living environment, with close supervision and clear rules and limits. Contacts with delinquent peers were minimized • 79 chronic male delinquents randomly assigned to TFC or group homes • Find: TFC boys had lower official and self-reported delinquency in a one year follow-up

31. Scott Henggeler (South Carolina) • Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST): family intervention to promote the parent’s ability to monitor and discipline the adolescent, peer intervention to promote prosocial friends, school intervention to enhance competence • 84 serious delinquents (mean age 15) randomly assigned to MST or the usual treatment (mostly out-of-home placement) • Find: the MST group had fewer arrests and self-reported crimes in a one year follow-up

32. School-based prevention • Schweinhart (1993): Perry pre-school intellectual enrichment programme had good effects on school success, delinquency, etc. For every $1 spent, $7 were saved in the long run. • Tremblay (1995) and Hawkins (1999): school-based programmes combining child skills training and parent training are effective • Anti-bullying programmes in Bergen, Norway (Olweus) and Sheffield, England (Smith) have been shown to be effective (see 2007 review by Baldry & Farrington)

33. Schweinhart: Perry Pre-School Programme • About 120 children age 3 randomly assigned to pre-school or control groups • Experimental children received daily pre-school programme plus weekly home visits • The pre-school programme was designed to increase thinking and reasoning ability and school achievement • Find: By age 27, experimental children had half as many arrests as controls. Benefits per child = $88,000, costs per child = $12,000, hence 7:1

34. Richard Tremblay (Montreal) • Over 300 aggressive/hyperactive boys randomly allocated to experimental or control groups • Between ages 7 and 9, experimental boys received skills training using coaching, peer modelling, role playing, reinforcement contingencies • Their parents received parent training • Find: experimental boys committed less delinquency between 10 and 15, less likely to get drunk, higher school achievement

35. David Hawkins (Seattle) • Multiple component programme including parent training, teacher training, child skills training • About 500 children aged 6 randomly assigned to experimental or control classes in schools • Teachers trained in classroom management, to provide clear instructions and expectations to children, to reward children for participation in desirable behaviour, to teach children prosocial methods of solving problems • Find: experimental children less violent, less alcohol abuse, fewer sexual partners at age 18

36. Olweus prevention programme: General • Create environment characterized by adult warmth, interest and involvement • Based on idea of authoritative child-rearing: warmth, firm guidance, close supervision • Set firm limits on what is unacceptable bullying • Consistently apply non-physical sanctions for rule violations • Improve monitoring and surveillance of behaviour • Decrease opportunities and rewards for bullying

37. Olweus prevention programme: Key features • Try to increase awareness and knowledge about bullying and dispel myths: • 30-page booklet about bullying to schools • 25-minute video about bullying to schools • 4-page folder about bullying to parents • Children complete self-report questionnaires • Schools receive feedback in conference day • Teachers develop explicit rules about bullying • Bullying discussed in class using role-playing • Supervision in playground improved

38. Olweus prevention programme: Results • Nationwide programme but evaluated in 42 Bergen schools • Compare before and after measures of bullying based on self-report questionnaires, equating for age (e.g. 13-year-olds before versus 13-year-olds after) • No control schools • Find: Bullying decreased by half

39. Sheffield prevention programme: Key features • Set clear guidelines about preventing and dealing with bullying • Curriculum work (discussion, video, literature, drama) to raise awareness about bullying • Train lunch-time supervisors in recognising bullying and dealing with it effectively • Work with individuals and small groups, e.g. assertiveness training for victims • Find (self-report questionnaires): bullying decreased 15% in primaries, 5% in secondaries

40. Multiple-Component interventions • The focus on multiple risk factors encourages multiple-component interventions targeted on child, family, peers, schools and communities • Generally, they are more effective than single component interventions • But hard to identify active ingredients and decide which elements of a package are more effective • Hard to learn from experience and improve multiple-component interventions

41. Communities that Care • Key community leaders meet and agree to implement CTC • Set up Community Board to take charge of CTC on behalf of the community • Audit of problems and risk and protective factors using surveys (school, community) and records (police, school, social, census) • Assess existing resources, choose programmes from a menu of strategies that have been proved to be effective in high-quality evaluations • Implement progammes, evaluate effectiveness

42. The Menu of Strategies • Prenatal/postnatal home visiting programmes • Preschool intellectual enrichment programmes • Parent training • Child skills training • Teacher training/curriculum development • Anti-bullying programmes • Media campaigns • Situational prevention • Policing strategies

43. Recent UK Prevention Initiatives • The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 required local authorities, police, health, probation to form partnerships to produce a crime audit and develop prevention strategies in each area • Audits based on records; use media, police or situational interventions • Sure Start for age 0-3 at risk in deprived areas • On Track for age 4-12 at risk in deprived areas • Youth Inclusion Programmes for 50 children aged 13-16 who are most at risk in deprived areas

44. Action Plan for Social Exclusion • Announced September 2006 by Tony Blair: • Focus on early intervention with children at risk • Home visiting programmes targeting at-risk children from birth to age 2 • Tackling teenage pregnancy with relationship education and better access to contraceptives • Family-based approaches including treatment foster care and multisystemic therapy • Interventions for adults with mental health problems and chaotic lives

45. Cost-Benefit Analysis • Very convincing argument to policy-makers: for every £1 spent on the programme, £5 are saved • Home Office Crime Reduction Programme required cost-benefit analysis of every study • Monetary costs of crime are enormous: Brand and Price (HORS 217, 2000) £60 billion per year • Monetary cost of a high-risk youth (Cohen 1998 JQC): $2 million • If program costs $1000 per child, will have benefits>costs if save 1 in 1000 high-risk children

46. National Prevention Agency • Most initiatives are targeted on children at risk or already identified as antisocial • YJB and YOT initiatives overwhelmingly focussed on detected offenders • Primary prevention is largely missing • There is no agency whose main mandate is to prevent crime. One should be set up in the UK • The model could be Denmark or Sweden, where there is a National Crime Prevention Council and local crime prevention councils

47. Functions of a National Agency • Continuous funding of prevention programmes • Technical assistance to local agencies • Monitor quality of programmes • Standards for evaluation research • Training in prevention science • Set national prevention agenda, coordinate policies of different government departments • Register of evaluations • Advise government on effective programmes

48. Conclusions • Risk-focussed prevention should be given high priority in all countries, targeting children at risk • Parent training and skills training should be used to tackle key risk factors such as impulsiveness and poor child-rearing methods by parents