Introduction
Foster children are commonly overlooked in terms of research. The topic of interest in the two articles that are being reviewed includes children in foster care and how that may impact criminal behaviour. Foster care can have a very substantial influence on how a child is raised and can definitely lure them towards a more deviant lifestyle in their future years. Two articles will be discussed and compared throughout this paper. The first article, written by Crawford, Pharris & Dorsett-Burrel (2018), looks at the possible threats to and the preventative factors for youth who have grown through the foster care system without permanent placement. Similarly, the second article that will be discussed, written by Yang, McCuish, & Corrado (2017), investigates how foster care placement impacts someone’s chances of offending in the future. By analyzing each articles’ process and findings, a conclusion will be drawn about the topic and implications will be examined.
Research Question & Theory
In Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel’s article, the purpose of the research is “to explore the risk and protective factors associated with serious criminal involvement for youth who have aged out of foster care” (2018, p. 451). This article does not make note of any pertaining theories relevant to the research.
The second article (Yang, McCuish, & Corrado), the purpose is to determine whether children who grow up through foster care systems experience increased offences whilst transitioning into adulthood. The article makes not of multiple theories relevant to the research being conducted. These include interactional theory (Thornberry, 1987) and concept of cumulative disadvantage (Moffit, 1993). These theories maintain that children in foster care may be at a higher risk of persisted offending due to the factors that may have placed them in foster care to begin with, and the psychosocial repercussions (as cited in Yang, McCuish, & Corrado, 2017, p. 47). Furthermore, the issue is examined through age-graded theory of formal social control as well (Sampson & Laub, 1997). This perspective considers the impact of reducing resources for foster children as they adjust into adulthood and how this may influence their likelihood of offending (as cited in Yang, McCuish, & Corrado, 2017, p. 47).
Literature review
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel review many different sources of previous research pertaining to the research question. The first topic discussed regards former foster youth and their transition into adulthood. The literature suggests that compared to those who do not grow through the foster care system, youth who do have an increasingly difficult time “achieving comparative standards” (2018, p.452). The next topic examined included maltreatment, foster care, and juvenile delinquency. The previous research from this topic drew many insightful conclusions. Wolff & Baglivio (2017) for example, maintained that children who go through traumatic experiences are more at risk for criminal tendencies (as cited in Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel, 2018, p.452). Furthermore, studies exhibit that foster care is strongly associated with not only lessened physical and mental health but also a greater risk of criminal behaviour later in life (2018, p.452). The last area of prior research that was investigated by Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel subjected the risk of criminal involvement in foster care youth aging into adulthood. This yielding similar findings, mainly associated with high percentages of legal involvement and apprehensions among such youth.
The second article written by Yang, McCuish, & Corrado, also considers multiple sources of prior research. The first topic examines how a child in foster care may have been impacted before, during and after foster care and how this may contribute to the likelihood of offending. Each stage of foster care (prior to, during, and after) imposes serious factors that may play a part in a child’s criminal tendencies. Many children often enter the foster care system at a predisposed disadvantage, as an abundance of cases string from maltreatment in the form of abuse or neglect (Taylor, 2006, as cited in Yang, McCuish, & Corrado, 2017, p. 47). Moreover, while placed in foster care, studies show “higher rates of substance abuse and antisocial behaviour” (Yang, McCuish, & Corrado, 2017, p.47). After considering all of the different factors impacting a child in foster care, they cumulatively increase the chances of offending long term. Secondly, the article reviews the justice system and how it impacts children in foster care. It is found that a large fraction of youth involved in the criminal justice system were placed in foster care at some point. Also noted, the criminal justice system may be especially detrimental to those involved with foster care in comparison to other youth (Yang, McCuish, & Corrado, 2017, p. 47). One specific study done by Ryan, Hernandez & Herz (2007), concluded three distinct criminal paths following a child in foster care into adulthood. These three trajectories include no offenders, those who desist from offending, and chronic offenders. Chronic offenders was found to make up the largest fraction, proportionately larger than the suspected general public (as cited in Yang, McCuish, & Corrado, 2017, p.47).
Hypothesis
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel do not explicitly hypothesize a relationship between foster care and risk of criminal involvement. However, it is hypothesized that “a history of childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences in early life render youth vulnerable in the early transition to adulthood” (2018, p.452).
Yang, McCuish, & Corrado hypothesize that compared to children who do not grow up in foster care, children in foster care will experience the transition into adulthood considerably different (2017, p.48).
Population, Sample, Site, & Participant Protection
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel discuss many characteristics of the chosen sample. The sample was made of all youth in any south western state that has grown out of foster care from the years 2009 to 2013 (2018, p.453). The sample included 1639 youth who fit this description. The article does not make note of the target population or any participant protection procedures.
Yang, McCuish, & Corrado consider multiple aspects of their sample as reviewed in the article. The sample was obtained from the Incarcerated Serious and Violent Young Offenders Study. It was then restricted to those that were studied preliminary to adulthood, specifically ages 18-23. It was composed of 309 males and 55 females, all of which belonged to the Vancouver district or surrounding areas. This sample is representative of youth offenders in Canada and specifically those with more consequential offences. Participant protection is taken into account in various ways. The researchers ensured confidentiality was maintained by interviewing participants in segregated rooms. Moreover, the participants were provided with an information sheet to explain the purpose of the research, the means of data collection and a statement ensuring the participants of their own confidentiality (2017, p.48).
Methods
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel identify many variables in their final model. The independent variables included types of services the participant used, the participant’s prime placement type as well as their final placement before exiting foster care, and the number of placements and/or runaways. The dependent variable in this model is an offence on the participant’s criminal record following their 18th birthday. Many other variables were also controlled for including race/ethnicity, sex, parental circumstances, etc. The variables were chosen with consideration of external sources such as prior research and reputable employees of related agencies. This allowed the researchers to maintain criterion validity. The study obtained data from multiple agencies at different levels of the system, along with self-reported surveys. They used such data to create a matching system and acquire their sample (2018, p. 453). The researchers use mainly nominal levels of measurement in their study, with ratio levels for specific variables such as age at first removal.
Yang, McCuish, & Corrado outline the procedure of their research as self-reported interviews and file-based information. Three main criteria must be met for an incarcerated youth to be eligible for this study. They included the ability to speak english, the ability to understand the questions being asked, and finally, the willingness to provide truthful responses. They compared the self-reported data to external sources in order to test the reliability of the data. Variables for risk factors of placement were accounted for, focusing of four main risk factors: “negative self-identity, family dysfunction, school behavioural problems, and substance use versatility” (2017, p. 49). The researchers compared data from youth in foster care to those who did not grow through foster care. They compared each group’s offending categories, which is “identified as the point at which the probability of a ‘next offence’ remains relatively high and stable” (2017, p. 49). Other relationships were also examined and they include foster care and the likelihood of reoffending, and the effects of foster care on gender (2017, p.49).
Results
Firstly, Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel outlined the descriptive statistics that resulted from the study. The sample was mostly caucasian (59%) and female (52%). They also determined the “average age at first removal was 11.11 years” (2018, p.454). Some other useful descriptive statistics included each participant’s living situation and parent history. It was expressed that 13% of the sample verified possessing an inadequate living situation. Moreover, the article states that “23% had a parent with drug or alcohol problems, and 9% had at least one parent with a history of incarceration” (2018, p.454). Furthermore, 24% were convicted as a juvenile, and 109 youth in the sample were convicted of a felony post foster care. The greater portion of the sample had been “removed due to neglect, followed by other forms of maltreatment, physical abuse and sexual abuse” (2018, p. 454). Also, the participants “averaged 13 placements and one runaway while in care” (2018 p. 454). With that being said, most participants had never runaway. With the addition of other variables into the model, it was found that the odds of committing a crime were higher among the youth that entered foster care due to physical abuse or maltreatment than those entering due to neglect. The odds also increased by 1.05 for each year older the youth was at first removal, and 1.04 for each added placement. The researchers determined there was a curvilinear relationship between runaways and adjudicated felonies. In specific, the odds of committing increased with each runaway or attempted runaway for the first seven times (2018, p. 455).
Yang, McCuish, & Corrado compared results between youth in foster care to those who are not to discuss their findings. The results show that youth in foster care were more likely to identify with the four main risk factors taken into account. These include family dysfunction, school behavioural problems, negative self-identity, and substance use versatility. Moreover, the youth in foster care saw a notably lower age of first conviction, experienced more incarceration time, and a larger number of convictions as a whole between ages 12-23. Using four different patterns of offending, descriptive statistics were determined for each group of youth. The four different patterns include deceleration, stabilization, acceleration and continued chronic offending. It was determined that 30.1% showed deceleration, 19.5% showed stabilization, 24.8% showed acceleration, and 25.7% showed continued chronic offending. From these patterns, it was found that the youth involved in foster care were 2.5 times more likely to identify with continued chronic offending, in comparison to the other youth. Furthermore, being a youth in foster care as well as being male put the youth more at risk for continued chronic offending, specifically 2.55 higher odds. Also, the odds increase by 10 times when a youth receives services for some type of mental health concern. Finally, in comparison to those not involved with foster care, children in foster care “averaged a significantly greater number of violent convictions, property convictions, violation convictions, and miscellaneous convictions” (2017, p. 50-51).
Discussion
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel discuss their findings and the analyses that came into light. Firstly, it was noted that males were more at risk for criminal behaviour in the future, compared to women. Also, those seeking mental health services were also at a higher risk of committing. These discoveries suggest the most at-risk group for continuing criminal involvement into adulthood would be males who receive mental health services. This group would benefit the most from services that help with the transition into adulthood. Though there is a strong correlation between mental health services being received and likelihood to offend, this is not a causal relationship. It can be assumed that “those seeking those services were already more likely to have an adjudicated felony. It is likely that in the absence of these services, the odds of serious criminal outcomes for those receiving services would be even higher” (2018, p. 455). Moreover, the researchers note the significance of placement instability and how this may play a large factor in the likelihood of offending.
Yang, McCuish, & Corrado uncovered some noteworthy analyses. The first being that they found that making up 58% of the sample, “among incarcerated youth, a history of foster care placement was the norm” (2017, p. 52). Youth in foster care possess certain measures such as likelier to offend at an earlier age, that makes them vulnerable targets for having an extended career as a criminal. The researchers also made note of how this may impacted gender, and that males may more at risk for impact. The data collected showing the lengthier time spent incarcerated among youth in foster care may be a result of bias against such groups in the juvenile justice system. It was noted that youth in foster care were not only more likely to be convicted, but also receive more severe sentences. These findings indicate why such groups continue to offend. Receiving a more punitive sentence does not reduce the likelihood to reoffend, and it raises concerns about how this may further detriment the transition into adulthood (2017, p. 52).
Limitations
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel did not discuss any limitations to their study.
Yang, McCuish, & Corrado touched on many limitations that pertain to their research. They recognized that the study only included individuals in the foster care system who had been convicted of a crime during adolescence. Moreover, the presence of youth in care may have been underrepresented due to the fact that the sample was drawn from self-reported interviews. Also, while the study included both genders, the number of female participants was significantly smaller than the number of males in the study. They noted that another limitation would be that the study was limited to only official data and that including self-reported data would provide better insight. Furthermore, the study did not incorporate foster care experiences. Measuring such experiences would help to strengthen the relationship between foster care and continued offending (2017, p. 52-53).
Recommendations
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel made plenty of recommendations that can be applied to policies or further research around the topic. They recommend that child welfare agencies take a better stance on the issues at hand and explore protective factors to help the youth in need, as well as possible policy alterations to reduce the placement interference during crucial times. Furthermore, a subarea of research that should be taken into account would be how the concept of self-control fits into the relationship. The researchers presume that the level of self-control the youth has can play a large factor in both the access to beneficial support programs and the likelihood of continued offending. It is also recommended that it may be beneficial to expand program services for youth in foster care to age 21. Services should also be extended to those who are least likely to take traditional paths such as further education (2018, p. 455-456).
Yang, McCuish, & Corrado suggest that interventions should be put in place for youth in foster care during their peak times, specifically the transitional period from adolescence to adulthood. These interventions could help reduce chronic offending and societal costs associated with incarceration of such individuals. The services put in place for youth aging out of foster care “should reflect the scaffolding supports most non-CYIC [youth not in foster care] receive from their parents/guardians well into emerging adulthood” (2017, p. 53). The research recommend future research to be conducted focusing on the transitional period between adolescence and adulthood for youth in foster care. Such research is needed in order to understand how to properly provide support for them (2017, p. 53).
Conclusion
Both articles conducted similar research and therefore, yielding similar results. They both found a relationship between foster care and the likelihood of continued offending. Furthermore, they both found that the impact of foster care on the likelihood was stronger for males than for females. Overall, the articles concluded that foster care youth are more at-risk for repeated offending in adulthood than those who never enter foster care. This brings light to the chosen topic because it is important to understand the impacts on such groups in order to support them through different mediums such as programs, services or interventions. The topic also focuses on aspects that affect not only individuals but society as a whole. Due to this, research needs to be carried out in order to help the individuals and therefore, aid society in its entirety. As the presence of youth in foster care is on incline, programs and services must be put into place to support future generations growing out of the system and avoid repeating unfortunate patterns that have been observed through the research.
Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel’s article had some holes within the article which raised confusion and therefore, resides as areas for imrpovement. Firstly, the article did not discuss any theories driving the research. While the literature review was fairly extensive, the research could’ve benefitted from a theory implication before heading into the study. Furthermore, the hypothesis was not openly and clearly stated in the paper. It makes it more difficult for the reader to understand what the expectations of the study are. The article indicated many variables in the model to discount any non-spurious correlations, but they failed to mention who the target population for the research was and any participant protection procedures. Finally, Crawford, Pharris, & Dorsett-Burrel did not discuss any limitations to their work, which can be deceiving to the reader as no study comes without limitations. This could raise questions about biases and how they may have impacted the researchers’ choice to not include limitations.
After analyzing these two articles, I agree with the recommendations that the researchers suggested. I would argue the most important recommendation I read was put forth by Yang, McCuish, & Corrado and it argues that services should be provided to youth aging out of foster care that are similar to the supports a ‘regular’ child would receive from parents or guardians during the same transitional period (2017, p. 53). This recommendation provides youth at risk with the tools and support that any other child would receive and gives them a better chance of thriving in their community instead of turning to criminal behaviour. Furthermore, recommendations allotting services to be provided up to 21 years of age instead of 18 would allow the child to more seamlessly transition into adulthood with strong supports rather than emerging into adulthood while simultaneously losing access to support systems.
References
Crawford, B., Pharris, A. B., & Dorsett-Burrell, R. (2018). Risk of serious criminal involvement among former foster youth aging out of care. Children and Youth Services Review, 93, 451-457.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701.
Ryan, J. P., Hernandez, P. M., & Herz, D. (2007). Developmental trajectories of offending for male adolescents leaving foster care. Social Work Research, 31(2), 83–93.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.). Development theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 133–161). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Taylor, C. (2006). Young people in care and criminal behaviour. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Thornberry, T. P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology, 25, 863– 892.
Wolff, K. T., & Baglivio, M. T. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences, negative emotionality, and pathways to juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 63(12), 1495–1521.
Yang, J., McCuish, E.C., & Corrado, R. R. (2017). Foster care beyond placement: Offending outcomes in emerging adulthood. Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 46-54.