'Antisocial behaviour: An examination of individual, family, and neighbourhood factors' (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 410, 2011) [PDF] is claimed as "the first of its kind in Australia to simultaneously examine individual, family and neighbourhood predictors of adolescent antisocial behaviour".
The study drew on Australian Bureau of Statistics census data and the Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy (MUSP), a prospective longitudinal study of mothers and their children in Brisbane, Australia, with data from birth through to adolescence (age 14 years).
Authors Tara McGee, Rebecca Wickes, Jonathan Corcoran, William Bor & Jake Najman found that little variation in antisocial behaviour was attributable to the statistical local area (SLA). Examination of SLA-level variables (neighbourhood disadvantage, immigration concentration and residential mobility), individual variables and familial variables showed that the strongest predictors of adolescent antisocial behaviour are those which measure disruptions in parenting processes, poor school performance and early childhood aggression.
The findings suggest that programs aimed at enhancing parenting practices (including improving communication, supervision and monitoring of children) are important in reducing adolescent antisocial behaviour.
'What makes juvenile offenders different from adult offenders?' (Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 409, 2011) [PDF] by Kelly Richards notes that "responding to juvenile offending is a unique policy and practice challenge. While a substantial proportion of crime is perpetuated by juveniles, most juveniles will 'grow out' of offending and adopt law-abiding lifestyles as they mature.
The eight page paper outlines biological, psychological and social factors that make juvenile offenders different from adult offenders and that necessitate unique responses to juvenile crime.
It is argued that a range of factors, including juveniles’ lack of maturity, propensity to take risks and susceptibility to peer influence, as well as intellectual disability, mental illness and victimisation, increase juveniles’ risks of contact with the criminal justice system. These factors, combined with juveniles’ unique capacity to be rehabilitated, can require intensive and often expensive interventions by the juvenile justice system. Although juvenile offenders are highly diverse, and this diversity should be considered in any response to juvenile crime, a number of key strategies exist in Australia to respond effectively to juvenile crime.
