The living environment shapes who people are. Naturally, in neighborhoods with a negative criminogenic environment, people often go deviant, and, when they do, it often is at a relatively young age. Researchers have gone to great lengths to study the underlying causes of delinquent behavior of young residents. Poverty appears to be one of the principal driving forces of offenders long with income disproportion, albeit to a far lesser extent. The blockade of opportunities or the means to achieve culturally acceptable norms in the society is also an important motivation. While race is not universally found to cause delinquency, its role is confirmed in a number of studies. Important is the distance a neighborhood may be from the inner city, the source of criminal instability due to poverty and other reasons. The failure of the replacement of primary institutions, such as social groups, church, and family fostering socially acceptable values and norms.
Of course, the lack of deterrence or the liquidation of offensive behavior in the bud entices young people through the illusion of guaranteed impunity. The presence of opportunities created by neighborhoods and the lack of guardians tempt youngsters into the life of crime, no matter how minor. Since neighborhood intervention programs do a solid job mitigating offenses, the presence of delinquent acts in neighborhoods may be a sign of the deficit of such programs. Health, expenses, the loss of appeal, and property price drop all point to juvenile delinquency affecting the neighborhood. Thus, the effects of a neighborhood on juvenile delinquency are crucial in many ways, and the same can be said of the impact such criminal, asocial behavior has on the neighborhood.
The Characteristics of a Society Shaping the Delinquent Nature of Young People
Poverty and Delinquency
Environmental forces can impede or support adolescent conduct and development (Mennis, Harris, Obradovic, Izenman, Grunwald, and Lockwood 175). However, this is not to claim that children are susceptible to detrimental environment in 100% of cases. Researchers are of the view that children may live in an utterly bad neighborhood, without responding to its demoralizing lure in any fashion (Reckless and Smith n.pag.). When they do, economic welfare may be one of the provocative cornerstones of the environment, in which young people find themselves residing. According to Smith and Green (422), a growing body of evidence suggests that a link exists between poverty and delinquency among children. Poverty enhances the proneness of young people to gang membership and warfare, violent criminality, and early death. Sampson, Morenoff, and Gannon-Rowley (n.pag.) admit that most studies are united in the belief that disadvantaged neighborhoods are criminogenic (qtd. in Kling, Ludwig, and Katz 88). Mennis et al. (174) posit that not only delinquency, but also recidivism is to be found in depauperated neighborhoods, of which violent crime is characteristic. According to Crane (n.pag.), violent offenses are more prevalent in more depauperated neighborhoods (qtd. in Barber 239). Psychological stress linked to neighborhoods with a high crime level is a developmental contribution that elevates the likelihood of criminal violence (Barber 239).
With this understanding in mind, at the root of the delinquency problem is poverty that turns a neighborhood into the breeding ground of crime producing psychological disturbance and nudges even more people in the direction of delinquent behavior. Barber (239) asserts that young people from less privileged households tend to perpetrate in excess of thrice as many robberies, sexual assaults, and aggravated attacks as their peers from middle-class families do. Kelly (n.pag.) arrives at a conclusion that, although related to violent offenses, income disparity is not as serious a factor to influence property offenses as absolute poverty is. Thus, there is a strong correlation between income inequality and violent crimes; however, since delinquency is associated with minor crimes, absolute poverty rather than income disproportion appears to be its important driver (qtd. in Barber 239).
Poverty, the Lack of Opportunities, and Anomie/Strain Theories
Anomie theories can explain why poverty is such a critical driving force of delinquent and criminal conduct as such. Based on Robert Merton’s anomie/strain theory, the better part of people identify culturally approved objectives along with the means of their achievement. Anomie presents itself whenever it is that people find access to such means blocked. An offender resort to criminal tools to accomplish the approved objective. Interestingly, to decrease poverty and provide legitimate success opportunities for lower class residents is what policy implications offered with regard to the theory seek (Vito and Maahs 162). Implications considered, it appears that, a neighborhood characteristic, poverty is in the way of people of whatever age to success. Low socio-economic status does not allow parents to provide their children with adequate education that would be a means to achieve socially and culturally acceptable goals, such as social standing or a high economic status, which may lead to frustration and the adoption of delinquent conduct. As follows from Vito and Maahs (162), next comes general strain theory of Robert Agnew of Robert Agnew. Causing negative emotional states like depression and anger, strain may stem from failure to accomplish an objective, the removal of positively values incentives, and the presence of harmful stimuli (Vito and Maahs 162). Neighborhoods seems to be the place where harmful stimuli emerge or positive ones go missing following their removal.
Vito and Maahs (162) provide the third anomie theory called the institutional anomie theory of Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld stating that macro level theory at the level of a society or a country can be a predictor of high offense levels based on social structure or culture. In culture where economic success is of great importance, the norms guiding how it is that a person should gain wealth become weak. High offense level results from economic dominance and the weakening of institutions responsible for children’s socialization, such as family and schools (Vito and Maahs 162). The American may be one of such societies. Success-driven families in US neighborhoods may dedicate a modicum of their time resource to children’s upbringing contributing to the erosion of the institution tasked with socialization and the cultivation of norms abhorrent to criminal values. In the next section but one, the explanation of institutional decay and replacement linked to this theory will receive further coverage. These are but three social structural theories pointing to the influence of social environment created by neighborhoods or society.
Race, Criminogenic Situation, Disorganization, and Inner City Distance
When it comes to race, the regression results of ordinary least squares analysis allowed researchers to find higher delinquency level to be prevalent in African American neighborhoods in one of the studies. Neighborhood racial character does not influence recidivism much, as became obvious after spatial lag model of recidivism level showing the availability of spatial spillover effects (Mennis et al. 174). Recidivism implies relapse into the crime, which means individuals regain their delinquent ways by committing offenses again. However, this behavioral shift to delinquent ways does not seem shaped by the racial characteristic of the neighborhood, as found in the study. Thus understood, race may not necessarily be an important variable and predictor of juvenile asocial, criminal conduct. Unsurprisingly, Shaw and McKay (n.pag.) found that the high levels of delinquency continued in Chicago neighborhoods contrary to changes in the ethnic and racial composition of the communities analyzed (qtd. in Kubrin and Weitzer 374).
As for location as delinquency likelihood determiner, Smith and Green (422) states that, although present in other locations too, violence is prevalent in urban inner-city neighborhoods where people are both criminals and victims. McKay (n.pag.) notes that Residential mobility, poverty, and racial heterogeneity were characteristic of such part of the city (qtd. in Trevino n.pag.). Since racial heterogeneity is an important part of the inner city predicting delinquency likelihood, race may be said to play an important role in delinquent behavior of young people by restraining or turning it loose. Smith and Green (422) suggest that families residing in the neighborhoods in these locations unchangingly face chronic unemployment, social isolation, involvement in illicit activities, and the high share of community and domestic violence. Worse, the urban poor often tolerate or have positive attitudes towards illegal occupations or deviancy more willingly. To quote an example of such trend, in Kingston, the capital of Jamaica, reside 25% of the population of the island country, with 70% of all violent crimes committed there. McKay (n.pag.) found in his time that the further from the inner city people resided the fewer crimes they committed (qtd. in Trevino n.pag.). Put otherwise, juvenile delinquency is in inverse proportion to the distance between the neighborhood and the inner city. If so, the central often-overpopulated district of the city is a rich source of crime; however, poverty is once again a strong predictor of such criminal status quo. Furthermore, Sampson (n.pag.) holds that neighborhoods notable for criminogenic organization and disorganization have the excessive number of delinquent young residents (qtd. in Mennis et al. 175).
Ecological Theory of Social Disorganization and Institutional Decay and Replacement
As far disorganization is concerned, Shaw (n.pag.) maintains that an ecological theory of social disorganization can rationalize the patterns of delinquency that makes itself observed in Chicago. As per the theory, the ability of socializing the youth to adopt traditional values is what distinguishes neighborhoods. The researcher conceptualized a geography to morality contingent on the pressure put by the city on primary institutions, such as social groups, church, and family. Such pressure disrupts the ability of the institutions of fostering appropriate or traditional values among young residents. With these institutions overloaded, urban societies have often come to rest upon secondary institutions like police and schools chosen in their stead, yet they fall short of fulfilling the task. Thus become competing value systems that more often than not prove asocial at their core find fertile ground especially among immigrant families that have yet to acclimatize to urban America. Therefore, families have their children attracted by the life of delinquency and offense due to primary institutions turning out weak enough for them to battle the negative values. What leads neighborhoods to run disorganized is the city itself. Now that has turned disorganized, the city becomes a magnet for criminality (qtd. in Lewis 96). Trevino (n.pag.) confirms an offense takes place when local institutions together with community relationships fail as well as adding that they may be nonexistent under the theory.
Wortley and Mazerolle (98) interpret the theory in terms of conditions noting that it puts paramount importance on the economic and social conditions cultivating offense perpetration. Of similar opinion are Kubrin and Weitzer (374) suggesting that, as per the theory, different kinds of neighborhoods create conditions that are delinquency conducive or otherwise. A community proves unable to solve chronic issues and fulfil common goals, which is why researchers use the concept of social disorganization. Residential mobility, poverty, ethnic heterogeneity, and poorly functioning social networks negatively tell upon the capacity of the neighborhood of controlling the conduct of residents in public, which renders offenses more likely. So create neighborhood residents conditions for juvenile delinquency.
The Lack of Deterrence and Guardians, the Availability of Targets and Opportunities for Crime within Neighborhoods
Cavanaugh (86) suggests that location-specific theories like those of broken windows, routine activities, and environmental criminology have emerged to rationalize the nature of juvenile delinquency, which means there is no single theory in the scientific discourse that would fully address the nature of juvenile delinquency. According to Trevino (n.pag.), this theory of broken windows developed by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling suggests that minor offenses stimulate willingness to perpetrate minor offenses resulting in crimes that are more serious. Wilson and Kelling (n.pag.) claim that, if a broken window goes unrepaired, those fond of getting windows broken will come to the realization that no one cares, and offenders will lay more windows shattered (qtd. in Shelden 1). Thus, if researchers link juvenile delinquency to the theory, it is because they believe the lack of law enforcement at the early stages can create an illusion of impunity encouraging young people with a system of deviant values fostered by the wrong institutions or the lack thereof into wreaking their rebellious asocial nature, which they do through offense commission. Thus, graffiti or petty thefts lying unpunished motivate adolescents to commit the offenses of their own in the firm belief that no punishment will follow. Shelden (1) states that a teenager acting rudely today may become a super-predator tomorrow; however, millions of teenagers committing minor offenses never proceed to become career criminals.
Osgood et al. (n.pag.) state that routine activities theory focuses on activities creating opportunities for deviant conduct. Activities involving unsupervised socialization with peers can provide such opportunities (qtd. in Burfeind and Bartusch n.pag.). Too strong may be the pressure of peers for adolescents to get out of committing an offense in some high-crime neighborhoods. Young people who manage to avoid such pressure and few and far between. It is understandable why they succumb to such pressure, as ostracism or isolation, the loss of status, and even exposure to physical attack await whomever does not. Adults claiming to have been under duress or forced by necessity, provocation, or domination with an eye to mitigating their guilt may be similar to what makes youngsters commit delinquencies (Scott and Steinberg 23). Naturally, where these activities with deviant peers take place is within specific neighborhoods; thus, their role in the formation of the asocial personality of young residents is apparent.
According to Siegel and Welsh (79), based on the theory authored by Marcus Felson and Lawrence Cohen, three variables influence the distribution and volume of predatory offense, inclusive of those, in which individuals try to misappropriate an object from its holder. The availability of motivated criminals like unemployed residents in their teens, the presence of proper targets like apartments with easy-to-sell, portable, and high-priced merchandise, such as laptop computers, iPads, smartphones, and netbooks, and the absence of guardians like relatives, friends, neighbors, and homeowners (Siegel and Welsh 80). Thus, in neighborhoods, property owners can be a restraining factor keeping teenagers from crime commission due to them precluding a theft opportunity by staying at home. However, the presence of motivated offenders seems contingent on the lack of guardians and the presence of proper targets. Targets of crime responsible for the formation of the crime decision through motivation are present in neighborhoods, as are guardians like neighbors whose absence leaves teenagers unguarded and prone to crime.
Based on routine activity theory and environmental criminology theory, the crime attracting and generating activities of places serve as a central mechanism bringing together motivated criminals and suitable victims or targets in not only space, but also time (Wortley and Mazerolle 98). The theory connects offense causation and reduction with the availability of opportunities for offense perpetration (Lawrence and Hesse 216). Opportunities for crime may present themselves in no better location other than neighborhood. Houses filled with salable expensive goods left empty or a poorly patrolled community may be one of such opportunities that let the hands of potential adolescent criminals loose. Thus, environmental criminology theory may have some bearing on one of the dimensions of routine activities theory, both related to neighborhoods. Mentioned in the preceding paragraph, ecological theory of social disorganization focusing on the creation of conditions favorable to criminals within a specific neighborhood may relate to these two theories in the sense that it also views neighborhoods as such that stimulate delinquency among young people by creating contributing conditions.
The Deficit of Community/Neighborhood Intervention Programs
Youth-serving agencies can do much to stifle recidivism among convicted young individuals, as they cultivate stronger bonds among those residing in the community and enhance the level of social control by the community or its alacrity to grow engaged in coping with criminogenic factors (Mennis et al. 176). Wilson (n.pag.), in turn, claims intervention programs to be able to act as a social buffer against the combined influence of family disruption, poverty, and residential turnover. Decreasing social isolation and stimulating social interaction between adults and adolescents, the community agencies can provide young people with access to social and cultural enrichment opportunities (qtd. in Mennis et al. 176). Speaking of the residential turnover, when excessive, it has the potential of reducing neighborhood social bonds and deplete neighborhood institutions by shattering the participation of neighbors. High residential instability coupled with intense disadvantage disrupts the capacity of neighbors to make a concerted effort, which restricts resident’s ability to curb crime and maintain order and safety within the community (Coulton 263). That crime is prevalent in specific communities may shows the deficit of such agencies or intervention programs that could produce a positive effect as the elements of the residential neighborhood. These initiatives appear instrumental in cushioning the impact of the causal factors of crime, such as poverty and residential turnover. Even if in place, it may be on neighborhoods that such programs and institutions may depend. Mennis et al. (176) admits that neighborhoods either weaken or strengthen the treatment effects of neighborhood interventions on the delinquent youth (Mennis et al. 176).
The Impact of Crime on Neighborhoods
The most fundamental outcomes of a juvenile offense is the loss of human life (National Criminal Justice Reference Service n.pag.). Although a delinquency is a minor crime that does not imply murder, a vindictive victim may seek to prosecute the offender judicially or express such desire on the spot, which may provoke the delinquent youngster to respond in the heat of passion staining his hands with blood. The loss of life leads to all manner of disadvantages to the neighborhood, such the loss of workforce or that of a potentially intellectually valuable human asset. Even minor offenses can demoralize neighborhoods keeping residents discouraged. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (n.pag.) goes on to note that young people commit the acts of motor vehicles theft, burglaries, vandalism, and arson, which is fraught with fiscal repercussions for victims. Medical and other treatment expenses for those who suffered from rapes, robberies, and assaults are considerable (National Criminal Justice Reference Service n.pag.). While rapes do not fall under the categories of less serious crimes, robberies and assaults do; thus, juvenile offenders make medical expenses felt when committing minor offenses.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (n.pag.) states that families experience distress while young people can consume alcohol or substances. While the service does not specify it, the victims of delinquent acts can develop the addiction following psychological trauma inflicted during the act. Children to fill in the vacant working positions may never do so succumbing to their lingering emotional distress, with the neighborhood losing taxpayers and workforce with specific coefficients of utility. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (n.pag.) additionally stresses the loss of productivity for offenders and victims along with costs associated with the provision of juvenile justice services. What remains unaddressed are expenses related to the need to allocate funds in crime prevention institutions like law enforcement or community organizations, the forfeiture of property appeal in the neighborhood, and its loss of prestige and investment microclimate.
Conclusions
Thus, when bad, neighborhood was found to have a profound effect of juvenile delinquency. Poverty, the lack of opportunities to achieve culturally acceptable goals, criminogenic situation, the lack of law enforcement creating opportunities for crime, distance to the inner city, disorganization, the failure of primary institutions, and the deficit of community intervention programs are all causal factors attributable to the neighborhood to varying degrees. Poverty emerges as the major driving force of delinquency, although the failure of social institutions is an important factor. Rather, juvenile offenders is an outcome of the mixture of the analyzed factors. Delinquency was also found to have a reversal impact on the neighborhood. Offenders, victims, and the neighborhood suffer from a variety of outcomes, such as psychological stress, economic expenses, and the loss of productivity, workforce, tax money, investment appeal, and property price stability.
Works Cited
Barber, Nigel. “Evolutionary Social Science: A New Approach to Violent Crime.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 13 (2008): 237-250. Web. 10 May 2016.
Burfeind, James W., and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch. Juvenile Delinquency: An Integrated Approach. 3rd ed. Routledge, 2015. Web. 10 May 2016.
Cavanaugh, Michael. “School Searches: Balancing Delinquency and Privacy.” Understanding Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. Ed. Marilyn D. McShane and Michael Cavanaugh. ABC-CLIO, 2015. 86. Web. 10 May 2016.
Coulton, Claudia J. Using Data to Understand Residential Mobility and Neighborhood Change. WhatCountsForAmerica.org. 260-270. Web. 10 May 2016.
Kling, Jeffrey R., Ludwig, Jens, and Lawrence F. Katz. Neighborhood Effects on Crime for Female and Male Youth: Evidence from a Randomized Housing Voucher Experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005. Web. 10 May 2016.
Kubrin, Charles, E., and Ronald Weitzer. New Directions in Social Disorganization Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40.4 (2003): 374-402. Web. 10 May 2016.
Lawrence, Richard, and Hesse, Mario. Juvenile Justice: The Essentials. SAGE Publications, 2009. Web. 10 May 2016.
Lewis, Dan A. “Crime and Community: Continuities, Contradictions, and Complexities.” A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 2.2 (1996) 95-120. Web. 10 May 2016.
Mennis, Jeremy, Harris, Philip W., Obradovic, Zoran, Izenman, Alan J., Grunwald, Heldi E., and Brian Lockwood. The Effect of Neighborhood Characteristics and Spatial Spillover on Urban Juvenile Delinquency and Recidivism. The Professional Geographer, 63.2 (2011): 174-192. Web. 10 May 2016.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service. “Chapter 2: Jurisdictional and Program Self-Assessment. Consequences of Juvenile Delinquency and Violence.” NCJRC. 2000. Web. 10 May 2016.
Reckless, Walter Cade, and Mapheus Smith. Juvenile Delinquency. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, 1932. Web. 10 May 2016.
Scott, Elizabeth S., and Laurence Steinberg. Adolescent Development and the Regulation of Youth Crime. The Future of Children 18.2 (2008): 15-33. Web. 10 May 2016.
Shelden, Randall G. Assessing Broken Windows: A Brief Critique. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. n.d. 1-17. Web. 10 May 2016.
Siegel, Larry J., and Brandon C. Welsh. Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, Practice, and Law. Cengage Learning, 2014. Web. 10 May 2016.
Smith, Delores E., and Katherine E. Green. Violence among Youth in Jamaica: A Growing Public Health Risk and Challenge. Pan American Journal of Public Health 22.6 (2007) 417-424. Web. 10 May 2016.
Trevino, Javier. Investigating Social Problems. SAGE Publications, 2014. Web. 10 May 2016.
Vito, Gennaro F., and Maahs, Jeffrey R. Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. 3rd ed. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011. Web. 10 May 2016.
Wortley, Richard, and Lorraine Mazerolle. Environmental Criminology and Crime Analysis. Routledge, 2013. Web. 10 May 2016.
