|
Findings The findings in this study fall into three broad categories: patterns of delinquency, supervision and activities of the boys during and after school, and barriers to effective delivery of youth services in DC. Findings under each category are presented below. Patterns of Delinquency Even among the relatively homogeneous group of boys in the study sample (all adolescent boys from three predominantly poor and predominantly African American DC neighborhoods), the study found significant distinctions based on the type of delinquency, if any, the boys were involved in and additional characteristics. In examining patterns of delinquency, the LINC study considered both the level of involvement in delinquency (delinquency category) and the effect of the following factors: drug dealing, age, employment, feelings of social isolation, gang membership, and substance abuse. LINC's findings reveal patterns of delinquency among adolescent boys in DC that are very similar to those among youth in other cities. Consistent with the findings of previous research, for example, LINC found that a small percentage of offenders are responsible for a large proportion of the crime in DC's most violent neighborhoods (Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin, 1972; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998). As explained in greater detail in the "Comparative Analysis" section of this Bulletin, however, DC's responses to juvenile crime and violence were found to differ significantly from those implemented in other cities that have successfully reduced levels of juvenile crime and violence.
 Delinquency category. LINC found that a large proportion of the crime in the three study neighborhoods was committed by a small percentage of boys in the sample. In particular, it found that the robber category (representing only 7 percent of boys in the sample) was responsible for 36.2 percent of all reported delinquent acts in the three study neighborhoods (figure 2). This same small group committed close to one-fourth (20.5 percent) of all juvenile assaults in the three neighborhoods (figure 3). Fighters, by contrast, committed only 10.6 percent of juvenile assaults. The data also showed that robbers on average assaulted 12 people each year (about 6 times as many as the fighters).
 As shown in figure 4, boys in the robber category were responsible for close to half (44 percent) of all drug deals committed by boys in the study sample during the 6-month period preceding the study. The robbers also committed almost half (44 percent) of all property crimes completed by boys in the sample during the same time period.
 Drug dealing. In examining patterns of delinquency, the LINC study found that most boys involved in selling drugs were less violent than those engaged in other criminal activities.1 Consistent with prior research, the study also found that many different types of youth (as opposed to any one stereotypical drug dealer) are involved in selling drugs (Chaiken and Johnson, 1988). While the dealers, as noted above, reported committing assaults infrequently, property offenders/drug dealers reported being very active offenders, with each on average committing more than 55 delinquent acts during the 6-month period preceding the interview. This group, however, committed approximately 50-percent fewer assaults than the fighters and approximately 60-percent fewer assaults than the dealers. The category responsible for the greatest number of violent crimes in the study neighborhoods was the property offenders. These boys—who do not deal drugs but are involved in theft, auto theft, vandalism, and other property crimes—represented about one-third (31.9 percent) of all boys interviewed and reported committing, on average, eight assaults or other violent crimes each year. While the property offenders committed fewer crimes on average than the robbers (most of whom commit more than 80 each year), they outnumber the robbers by about 4 to 1 and therefore, as a group, commit many more acts of violence. In addition, property offenders as a group were found to commit a total of about twice as many property offenses as the property offenders/drug dealers. Although most boys in the study who dealt drugs—whether dealers, property offenders/drug dealers, or robbers—committed significantly fewer assaults than nondealers (with the notable exception of the robbers), they carried weapons more frequently.2 Because those dealing drugs were more likely to carry weapons, assaults involving these boys were more likely to have lethal outcomes than those involving boys who used only their hands, feet, or a blunt instrument (Felson and Messner, 1996). This finding supports the view of many researchers that although drug dealing may not directly cause higher overall rates of violence, it results in youth arming themselves and, as a result, causes higher homicide rates (Blumstein, 1996). Age. Even among adolescent boys, age was found to make a difference. The study found, for example, that the least delinquent boys (the good kids) were the youngest (with a median age of 14.65) and the most delinquent (the robbers) were the oldest (with a median age of 15.83).
Social isolation. Like many adolescents, boys in the study sample were likely to report feeling different from or isolated from their peers. More than half (52.6 percent) agreed with the statement, "I usually keep to myself because I am not like other people my age." The most seriously delinquent boys were most likely to agree with this statement, with 77 percent of the robbers agreeing or strongly agreeing with it and none strongly disagreeing. By contrast, less than half (41.4 percent) of the fighters agreed with the statement, and 20 percent strongly disagreed. Although adolescents typically have concerns about fitting in, the robbers seemed to have more extreme concerns. Gang membership. While stories about gang wars dramatically portrayed by the media may suggest that gang membership is rampant in high-crime neighborhoods in the United States,5 only 15 percent of boys in this study reported ever having joined a gang. The likelihood of joining a gang was somewhat higher for the more delinquent boys. Less than 9 percent of the good kids and the fighters had ever joined a gang, compared with one-third of the robbers. Dealers were also likely to have been gang members, with 30 percent reporting gang membership at some time. Consistent with findings in other cities, this study showed that gang membership in the three neighborhoods examined lasted a relatively short time (between 1 and 2 years) (Loeber, Huizinga, and Thornberry, 1996). Of the boys who reported ever having joined a gang, only 4.2 percent reported still being members at the time they were interviewed. The study also found that neither the length of time that a boy belonged to a gang nor any current gang membership was related to the seriousness of delinquency, if any, that the boy was committing. Robbers were no more likely than less delinquent boys to be current gang members. Although studies in other cities suggest that boys commit more crimes when they belong to gangs (Thornberry and Burch, 1997), this study found that boys who were still gang members at the time of their interviews committed essentially the same number of assaults and other crimes in the weeks immediately before the interview as did nongang members. Substance abuse. Notwithstanding a widespread belief that drug use is high among all adolescents who engage in delinquent behavior,6 the use of illegal drugs (other than marijuana) has played little part in the pattern of delinquency among youth in the District. The use of crack or heroin was rare among boys in the study sample, as it is for youth in other cities across the Nation (Riley, 1997). None of the boys interviewed reported ever having used psychedelics or hallucinogens, crack or any other type of cocaine, or heroin. Only five boys (2.3 percent of the sample) reported having tried phencyclidine (PCP or "angel dust"), tranquilizers, or barbiturates. One boy stated that he had taken amphetamines, and one reported prior use of an inhalant (such as aerosols or glue). These findings are consistent with research findings around the country (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997). Although LINC found that few boys in the sample used illegal drugs other than marijuana, it found that a relatively high proportion used alcohol and/or marijuana. Approximately 30 percent of the study sample reported drinking beer or wine without adult permission, 18 percent reported drinking hard liquor without adult permission, and approximately one-third reported using marijuana. Alcohol and marijuana use was found to be much more prevalent among seriously delinquent boys (table 2). Only 7 percent of the good kids and 7 percent of the fighters reported drinking hard liquor without adult permission, compared with 12 percent of the property offenders, 30 percent of the dealers, 39 percent of the property offenders/drug dealers, and 60 percent of the robbers. Overall, a greater number of boys reported drinking wine or beer without adult permission than hard liquor, and once again, the more delinquent boys were more likely to do so. Slightly more than 10 percent of the good kids and fighters, approximately one-third of the dealers and property offenders, and more than half of the property offender/drug dealers and robbers reported drinking beer or wine without adult permission.
 Similarly, marijuana use was reported by 11 percent of the good kids, 27 percent of the property offenders, 70 percent of the property offenders/drug dealers, and 80 percent of the robbers. The dealers reported the greatest use of marijuana, at 90 percent; the fighters reported the least use, at 7 percent.
The LINC study also found that drinking alcohol (of any type) without adult permission or using marijuana increased a boy's likelihood of getting a girl pregnant. Slightly more than 12 percent of the boys interviewed said that they had impregnated a girl. Of these, 58 percent reported having used marijuana. Marijuana users were more than twice as likely to get a girl pregnant as nonusers: by their own report, 8 percent of the nonusers and approximately 20 percent of the users had been responsible for a pregnancy. Findings for boys who reported drinking beer or wine without adult permission were almost the same as for boys who reported using marijuana. Nineteen percent of those who had used beer or wine without adult permission (and only 9 percent of those who had not) were responsible for a pregnancy. The likelihood of getting a girl pregnant was even greater for boys who drank hard liquor. Although less than 9 percent of those who did not drink hard liquor reported getting a girl pregnant, 28 percent of the boys who drank hard liquor were responsible for a pregnancy. Considering the different delinquency categories of boys in the study sample, dealers were the most likely to cause a pregnancy (30 percent responsible for a pregnancy), closely followed by property offenders and robbers (27 percent of boys in these groups responsible for a pregnancy). Fighters, the least likely to drink, were also the least likely to report having gotten a girl pregnant (only 7.3 percent reported being responsible for a pregnancy). Supervision and Activities The Urban Institute's previous analysis of youth crime focused on when and where offenses by DC youth were taking place (Gouvis, Johnson, and Roth, 1997). LINC's analysis, by contrast, sought to understand the nature and extent of supervision received by boys in areas where youth crime was relatively rampant and determine what policy implications arose from the study's findings on supervision. In considering how boys in the study sample were occupied during and after school, LINC examined activities that the boys participated in and programs available to them through schools and youth-serving organizations in the community. LINC's findings on supervision and activities are presented in the following sections. Adult supervision after school. Boys in the study sample reported having adults in their lives who care about them and want to be there for them. Ninety-two percent reported having an adult other than a parent who cares "a lot" about them, and more than one-quarter (28 percent) named a caring adult in their lives (other than a member of their immediate family) as the adult to whom they felt closest. For most, this adult was either a godparent or a member of the boy's extended family (e.g., a grandparent or other close relative). The next most frequently mentioned person was an adult acting as a mentor. Several boys named leaders in local youth organizations as caring adults. Notwithstanding the presence of caring adults in their lives, boys in DC are most likely to encounter violence—as either offenders or victims—during the hours immediately before and after school (Gouvis, Johnson, and Roth, 1997). LINC's findings, based on its interviews of boys in the study sample, suggest one probable cause for violence during these hours: lack of adult supervision. In particular, LINC found that the vast majority of boys (75 percent) spend the afterschool hours unsupervised by an adult 1 or more days each week, and almost half (48 percent) never receive adult supervision during the afterschool hours. The relatively few boys who reported being supervised by an adult every day after school (23 percent of the sample) tended to be less delinquent than those who received little or no adult supervision in the afterschool hours. Forty percent of the good kids—as opposed to 20 percent of the robbers—were supervised by an adult every day after school. For boys in the study sample, spending the afterschool hours in a location known to their parents or guardians was even more important than spending that time with an adult present. Of the good kids, only 8.7 percent reported that their primary caregiver rarely or never knew where they were during the afterschool hours. By contrast, 15 percent of the fighters, 18 percent of property offender/drug dealers, 22 percent of property offenders, 30 percent of the dealers, and 33 percent of the robbers reported having primary caregivers who rarely or never knew where they were during that time period.
Athletics. Fifty-two percent of boys in the sample reported participating in sports during the afterschool hours. The sports most frequently mentioned by boys were football (35 percent participated) and basketball (17 percent participated). The study showed no relationship, however, between participation in these or any other sports and the likelihood that a boy would become involved in delinquency. In other words, good kids, fighters, dealers, property offenders, property offenders/drug dealers, and robbers were equally likely to participate in athletic activities. Participation in school sports appeared to have one positive effect. The number of drug deals made by boys participating in sports was significantly lower than the number made by nonparticipants. Football players, in particular, were less likely to sell drugs than boys who did not play football, with 19 percent of football players and 29 percent of nonfootball players reporting that they sold drugs. On the other hand, delinquent boys who played school basketball reported committing, on average, almost four times more property crimes than those who did not play school basketball and twice as many delinquent acts overall as nonbasketball players. While less involved in drug dealing, football players reported committing, on average, approximately twice as many property crimes as boys who did not play football.7 Although football players reported committing more assaults than boys who did not play football, the differences were not significant. Music groups. Approximately 10 percent of boys in the sample reported participating in a school band or choir during the afterschool hours. Good kids were slightly more likely to participate in these activities than the more delinquent boys: approximately 17 percent of good kids participated, compared with 10 percent of fighters and dealers and 6 percent of property offenders. No difference in rates of assaults, drug deals, property offenses, or overall delinquent acts was found based on a boy's participation in band or choir. Clubs that focus on building cognitive or social skills. Almost one-quarter (23.5 percent) of boys in the sample reported participating in clubs or other organizations that focus on building cognitive, social, or vocational skills. These groups included math and computer clubs, radio and television broadcast clubs, cooking and catering clubs, art and drama clubs, and groups that concentrate on promoting civic responsibility and providing community services (such as Concerned Black Men and student government organizations). Several studies have demonstrated that afterschool activities designed to increase students' cognitive or social skills and provide opportunities for community service are effective at preventing delinquency (Lipsey, 1992; Sherman et al., 1997; Tolan and Guerra, 1994). In examining the effect of these activities and the types of boys who participated in them, LINC found that good kids were not significantly more likely to participate in these activities than boys in the other delinquency categories. LINC also found, however, that boys involved in these clubs reported fewer delinquent acts, with participants committing, on average, approximately five times fewer property crimes and six times fewer delinquent acts. Boys involved in these activities also reported committing fewer assaults on average, but participation was not found to be a statistically significant factor in such lower rates of assault. Activities available through schools during school hours. Many cities that have experienced an increase in youth violence have implemented school-based violence prevention programs.8 According to adolescents in the study sample, however, very few or no such programs exist in their neighborhood schools. When asked if they knew of school programs or services designed to help students solve problems without violence, approximately two-thirds answered "no." Of the one-third who reported knowing of such a program, about half (16 percent of the total sample) either could not identify a specific program or named a program that no one else identified. Approximately 6 percent of those boys who knew of a violence prevention program mentioned the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) program and substance abuse programs such as DARE. A small number of boys mentioned programs run by particular counselors or teachers, peer programs, conflict resolution programs, and mediation. The study found no relationship between boys' identification of school-based violence prevention programs and their level of delinquency. Suspension and expulsion. Although youth crime peaks in the afterschool hours, school hours in DC are also a prime time for violence, according to The Urban Institute. This has not been true in other cities (Snyder and Sickmund, 1995). Violence during school hours, The Urban Institute found, may not necessarily occur on school grounds, but in areas surrounding schools (Gouvis, Johnson, and Roth, 1997). Findings in LINC's study indicate that high rates of suspension and expulsion in DC schools may be contributing to high rates of violence during school hours. The majority of boys in the sample (76 percent), for example, reported having been suspended from school at least once. Even among the good kids, more than half (57 percent) had been suspended at least once. All of the dealers and almost all (91 percent) of the property offenders/drug dealers had been suspended at least once. Expulsion rates were also high in the three study neighborhoods: more than 20 percent of the boys interviewed reported having been expelled from school. In addition, LINC found a strong association between expulsion and delinquent behavior. Although only 8 percent of the good kids and 12 percent of the fighters had been expelled, 40 percent of the dealers and 40 percent of the robbers had been expelled. For the 6-month period prior to the interview, the number of delinquent acts reported by boys who had been suspended was, on average, more than three times that of boys who had never been suspended. The boys who, at the time of the interview, said that they were not in school reported committing, on average, more than four times the number of delinquent acts during the preceding 6 months as did the boys who were attending school at the time of the interview. Activities available through youth-serving organizations. According to written materials provided by youth-serving organizations, many such organizations in DC focus on delinquency prevention and skill building. An update of the 1994 Resource Directory of Youth Services in the District of Columbia (updated by ILJ for this study) lists more than 50 organizations in or adjacent to the three neighborhoods examined in this study (table 3). Almost half of these organizations described themselves as providing services for delinquency prevention or intervention, and approximately 30 percent specified approaches for supporting the development of life skills, parenting skills, and other skills found to prevent delinquency. Only 24 percent of the boys in the study sample reported participating in the activities or programs of any such community organization.
 LINC also found that community centers and youth service agencies in the District are failing to engage adolescent boys in afterschool activities. Although these centers and agencies constitute approximately one-half of the youth services agencies listed for the neighborhoods in which the boys lived, less than 4 percent of the boys said that they had participated in activities provided by a DC community center or youth agency. Eighty percent of boys in the study sample were unable to name a single neighborhood organization with programs designed to help youth solve problems without resorting to violence. Less than 4 percent named a community center or other city youth service organization. Although the resource directory lists several churches and other religious organizations in each of the three neighborhoods, only 1 percent of the boys named a church group. The organization identified by the largest number of boys (9 percent) was the Boys & Girls Club. According to the boys' responses, affiliates of national youth organizations (such as Boys & Girls Clubs of America, Boy Scouts of America, the National 4-H Council, and Big Brothers Big Sisters of America) reached a substantially greater proportion of boys than purely local, community-based organizations. Affiliates, the study found, provided services to youth in all six delinquency categories. Although almost one-half of the boys reported belonging to or participating in the activities of an organization that may have been a local affiliate of a national youth-serving organization at some time in the past, whether the organizations were affiliated with a national organization could not be verified. The organization named by the most boys (27 percent) was the Boys Club. However, unlike those in other cities (that are affiliated with the national organization), some Boys Clubs in DC are independent and share only the name—and not the programs, services, or staff training—of the national organization. Moreover, at the time of their interviews, only 14 percent of the boys were still Boys Club members. In recent years, major national youth organizations, including Boys & Girls Clubs and others discussed in this section, have developed programs tailored to reaching youth in inner-city areas and providing them with the types of opportunities that research has demonstrated help prevent delinquency and allow youth to develop skills needed for productive adult lives (Chaiken, 1998a). According to a previous LINC survey, national affiliates that provide programs in inner-city neighborhoods attract far more adolescent participants than their counterparts in locations where adolescents are at a lower risk of delinquency. Moreover, national affiliates are more likely to operate safely in these areas when police are responsive to cooperating with them (Chaiken, 1998b).
Barriers to Delivery of Youth Services In analyzing data collected from administrators and staff of youth-serving organizations, LINC found two primary barriers to the effective delivery of youth services in the District: a lack of coordination between the DC local government and youth-serving organizations/agencies in the area and an excess number of inactive coalitions intended to head efforts to improve youth services in DC. The "Comparative Analysis" section below discusses other barriers to the effective delivery of youth services by comparing DC with other cities and evaluating how well the District is delivering services and programs to youth. Lack of coordination. In Washington, DC, the LINC study found, local government agencies are involved in very few coordinated efforts to address the problems of juvenile crime, delinquency, and violence. LINC's analysis showed that juvenile justice and other local government agencies in nearby Northern Virginia and suburban Maryland are working closely with local youth organizations in those areas, but that DC's government agencies are trying to provide youth programs themselves, rather than cooperating with youth organizations experienced in programs and services to youth. LINC found that the DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) staffs eight of its own Boys Clubhouses. These clubs are maintained through grants and other nonprofit funding sources, but salaries and benefits of officers working at the clubs are paid by the MPD. As DC's budget shrinks or suffers cuts, services such as these—dependent on local funds—will shrink or disappear as well. As part of this study, ILJ conducted a survey of youth services available in DC in 1994. By 1996, ILJ found, 15 percent of the services available in 1994 (92 out of 620) had vanished. Inactive coalitions. This is not the first study to recognize a lack of collaboration among DC agencies and organizations. Respondents in interviews carried out by LINC as part of this research, in fact, commonly mentioned that they, the Federal Government, and various other national organizations had separately sponsored coalitions or task forces to spearhead efforts to pull youth-serving organizations in DC together. Because many agencies and organizations sponsoring coalitions in DC have been unaware of one another's efforts, DC has many coalitions, each with a relatively small number of participants and most of which have failed to produce effective action plans. In addition, LINC found, these coalitions often duplicate one another's efforts and goals. For example, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in 1993 funded a limited number of cities to form coalitions to prevent violence. Coalitions formed include the DC Pulling American Communities Together (PACT) Project, which brought a subset of DC agencies together to discuss gaps in services and design a strategic plan for addressing those gaps. A high priority of DC PACT was "to coordinate resources and share information on local and federal anti-violence efforts" (DC PACT, Undated). Join Together, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation-funded project that was founded in 1991 and is based in the Boston University School of Public Health, was formed to help communities bring about concerted action to prevent violence and substance abuse. With additional funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DC has been one of Join Together's focal cities. Kids Count, funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, was designed to support communities around the Nation, including DC, to measure and report on the status of children (including their involvement in violence and drug use) in order to promote public action on behalf of children locally. Although the efforts of PACT, Join Together, and Kids Count have resulted in highly visible coalitions and concerted strategies in places other than Washington, DC, few administrators interviewed in DC knew about these three organizations' approaches, and none of the respondents were aware of more than one of the approaches. Staff involved in bringing these approaches to fruition in DC found the experience disheartening because of key agencies' unwillingness to cooperate.
As used in this Bulletin, the term "weapon" includes firearms (handguns, rifles, or shotguns) and knives—but not rocks, bottles, fists, or feet. Although the questionnaire did not distinguish between legal and illegal jobs, it asked about employment in the context of prosocial activities (such as participation in religious activities). The study, however, draws no conclusion as to whether the relationship between employment and delinquent behavior is coincidental or causal. For recent examples, see Mike Robinson's article, "Chicago Cop Accused of Running Guns," printed in The Washington Post on April 16, 1999. For example, the preamble to the National Governors' Association (NGA) Policy Statement on Juvenile Crime and Delinquency Prevention Programs and Principles states, "Delinquency, particularly drug- and gun-related violence, is escalating at a disturbing rate. Young people are killing each other. Children are terrorizing their schools, parks, and neighborhoods. Young people are either the foot soldiers or ringleaders in criminal enterprises involved in drug trafficking" (National Governors' Association, 1999). Like the relationship between employment and delinquent behavior, the study draws no conclusion as to whether the relationship between playing football or basketball and committing property crimes is coincidental or causal. For reports on different types of school-based violence intervention programs, see Violence in American Schools (Elliott, Hamburg, and Williams, 1998).
| ||||
Employment. Overall, 30 percent of the boys interviewed for the study reported having a job during the school year.
Although the study generally found a strong association between using hard liquor or marijuana and committing delinquent acts generally (with boys who used hard liquor committing a significantly greater number of all types of delinquent acts, including violent crimes, and those who used marijuana committing more property crimes and drug deals), it found no such relationship between the use of marijuana and the commission of violent crimes. Marijuana users, for example, reported committing more assaults, on average, than the boys who did not use marijuana, but these differences were not statistically significant.
Afterschool activities. Boys in the study sample reported participating in different types of afterschool activities. LINC considered the relationship, if any, between participation in these activities and the likelihood that a boy would become involved in delinquency.
Efforts of nationally affiliated organizations launched in the DC area are described below. The information is based on written materials submitted by the organizations.