• No results found

Risk factors of juvenile delinquency in the Philippines : a comparison between children in conflict with the law (CICL) and non-CICL

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Risk factors of juvenile delinquency in the Philippines : a comparison between children in conflict with the law (CICL) and non-CICL"

Copied!
29
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Risk Factors of Juvenile Delinquency in the Philippines. A Comparison between Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) and non-CICL.

by Jehanne de Loor

A Master Thesis submitted to the faculty of Universiteit van Amsterdam

Pedagogical and Educational Sciences H.E. Creemers

(2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ... iii Introduction ... 4 Methods ... 9 Sample ... 9 Instruments ... 9 Family functioning ... 9 Psychological well-being ... 10 Statistical analysis ... 10 Results ... 12 Descriptive information ... 12

Differences in family functioning between CICL and non-CICL ... 13

Differences in psychological well-being between CICL and non-CICL ... 13

Discussion ... 15

Limitations ... 16

Recommendations ... 16

REFERENCES ... 17 APPENDICES ... Error! Bookmark not defined.2 A. Youth Self Report ... Error! Bookmark not defined.2 B. Vragenlijst gezinsfunctioneren ... Error! Bookmark not defined.6

(3)

ABSTRACT

This study examined risk factors of juvenile delinquency in the Philippines. More

specifically, Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) were compared to non-CICL with regard to risk factors in the domains of family functioning and psychological well-being. In total 94 children, aged 9-17 (63.8% male and 54.8% CICL) participated in this study. They were selected from the non-governmental organization KnK (Kokkyo naki Kodomotachi), holding centers and the communities. The children completed the Youth Self Report (YSR) in order to outline their psychological well-being based on the constructs internalizing and externalizing problems. Information about family functioning (parenting skills, basic care provided by the parents and social contacts of the family) was obtained using the ‘Vragenlijst Gezinsfunctioneren’ (VGF; Questionnaire family functioning), completed by peer educators. The results indicated that there are no significant differences between CICL and non-CICL in family functioning and psychological well-being. Further investigation on risk factors of juvenile delinquency in the Philippines is recommended.

(4)

Risk factors of juvenile delinquency in the Philippines. A Comparative Study.

The Philippines is a country of 7,107 islands and has a population characterized by a high proportion of children. The Philippines has 95 million inhabitants of whom there are about 43 million under 18; this is 45% of the total population. Additionally, the country suffers from high levels of juvenile delinquency. Of all children aged 9 to 18 years,

approximately 228 are arrested each day for committing an offense (Ateneo Human Rights Center, 2004).

The rights of children are documented in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The Convention outlines in 41 articles the rights that must be respected and protected for each child younger than 18 years. All countries in the world have signed this treaty, with the exception of Somalia, the United States and Southern Sudan (De Graaf, 2012).

From the above it can be concluded that the CRC also holds for the Philippines. Signing the treaty obliges countries to protect the rights of children. One of the pillars of the Convention is ‘the best interest of the child’; the interest of the child must be paramount in all actions concerning children. The government should promote the welfare of all children and should monitor all facilities for the care and protection of children. Unfortunately, the large number of street children indicates that the rights of children are still violated. The (by some described as partially corrupt) Philippine Government sees compliance with the CRC not as a priority (Save the Children, 2004).

Nevertheless, in 2006 a law was passed that pays attention to 'children in conflict with the law’ (Children in Conflict with the Law; CICL), named the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344). The term ‘CICL’ refers to 'a child alleged to have committed an offense under Philippine laws’, or ‘anyone under 18 who comes in conflict with the law as a result of being suspected or accused of committing an offense’ (RA 9344). Currently, the compliance to the pillar ‘the best interests of the child’ is insufficient; in many prisons and institutions CICL have no right to medical care, education and personal development (De La Cruz, 2004). To improve this situation, it remains important to work on the prevention of juvenile delinquency. In order to prevent juvenile delinquency it is essential to identify what factors are associated with delinquency.

Worldwide there has been a lot of research on crime among minors; however, these studies have been conducted mainly in the USA. Since results cannot always be generalized, conducting research in different countries continues to be important. So how do children

(5)

become delinquent?

According to Smith and Rutter (1995) psychological, sociological and economic (risk) factors are the basis for juvenile crime. To reduce the risk of criminal behavior, Smith and Rutter (1995) emphasize the importance of improving family functioning, social

connections and relationships and the psychological well-being of the child. Risk factors for crime and other problem behaviors have also been categorized into different domains, such as individual, family, school, friends and peers and society and community (Hawkins, Herr Kohl, Farington, Brewer, Catalano & Harachi, 1998). Examples of risk factors in the individual domain are aggression and impulsivity. Deviant and negative parental behavior, low family functioning and ineffective parenting are examples from the family domain. (Dam, 2005).

The current study focuses on the association between on the one hand 1) family functioning and 2) psychological well-being of the child and on the other hand juvenile delinquency in Filipino children. Family functioning is divided into parenting skills, basic care and social contacts and psychological well-being into internalizing and externalizing problems.

Parenting skills can be interpreted as the way parents set limits for their children, how they reward and supervise, resolve problems and conflicts and the extent of their parental involvement (Al, 2012). According to Heinze, (1996) parenting skills consist of five important components of parenting, namely parental attachment, emotional capacity, judgment, knowledge of child development, and provision of safety. Various aspects of parenting skills have been linked to juvenile delinquency. Initially, an inconsistent parenting style and the lack of basic parenting techniques have been described as risk factors for delinquency (Vettenburg, 2006). Capaldi and Patterson (1996) also argue that a lack of parental monitoring and poor discipline methods have been consistently related to participation in delinquent and violent behavior for a range of populations. Additionally, Gorman-Smith et al. (1999) show that regardless of ethnic and socioeconomic group, it is important that parents use the proper discipline methods and monitor the children well in order to prevent the development of delinquent behavior. Further, Thomson, Hollis and Richards (2003) show that parenting skills are related to the development of behavior and criminal behavior. They argue that within families with children with behavioral problems, the parents show more negative parenting skills, compared to families with children without behavioral problems. A consequence of a lack of parenting skills is that parents experience parental stress which might affect the ways in which a child copes or adapts his own behavior.

(6)

This may lead to delinquent behavior (Willinger et al. 2005). Also across various studies, low levels of emotional warmth and cohesion, and expressing the parenting responsibilities and boundaries, have been associated with delinquent behavior (Farrington, 1994; Henggele et al., 1992; McCord, 1996; Tolan, 1988).

Basic care provided by the parents and household structure has also been related to delinquency (Demuth & Brown, 2004). One of the tasks parents have is to provide a warm, safe and affectionate environment in which a child’s individuality is encouraged. To enforce reasonable rules and standards and to administer their child’s activities is another task. Both of these tasks are associated with basic care, although, they partly overlap with parenting skills. A positive bonding between parents and their child emerges when a warm, supportive and nurturing relationship is present between them. This bonding may function as a protection against problem and delinquent behavior (Hawkins et al., 1992; Nada Raja, McGee, &

Stanton, 1992; Kazdin, 1997). In addition to this positive parental bonding, the ability of parents to direct their child decreases the likelihood of developing delinquency (Jessor et al., 1995; Patterson et al., 1992). Besides these factors, basic care relates solely to the extent to which the environment of the child, such as the quality of their housing, clothes and food is sufficient. When all above mentioned tasks and factors are not adequately performed or are insufficient, it may lead to problem and delinquent behavior in children (Deković, 2003; Van der Laan, 2006; Gates, Dowden & Brown, 1998).

Concerning the social contacts, it is important that the parents and their children are able to accept or seek for help when it is offered from outside, as this could strengthen their social network (Domburgh, Rider & Doreleijers, 2004). A lack of social contacts may lead to delinquent behavior (Van der Laan, 2006). In healthy families children learn that they can rely on their social environment that will provide for their emotional security and their physical safety. The parents create this environment which offers the children a sense of emotional security, social integration and certain social experiences. These experiences lead to effective self-regulation and adequate behavior of the child (Repetti, 2002). Based on this reasoning, the inability of parents to provide and maintain healthy social contacts, could increase the risk of problem behavior in their children.

In short, various aspects of family functioning play a role in delinquent behavior (Loeber & Dischion, 1983: Loeber & Loeber, 1986: Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984). The question remains to what extent lack of parenting skills, lack of basic care and lack of social contacts are associated with delinquency among children in the Philippines.

(7)

internalizing and externalizing problems play a role in delinquency (Junger, 2003). Internalizing problems are inward problems in one’s emotions and moods. This mainly concerns the problems that are detrimental to the individual him- or herself: depression, anxiety and loneliness. Externalizing problems are characterized by disturbed behavior that is directed outward, such as aggression, antisocial-, and oppositional behavior.Many young people with behavioral problems also have emotional problems and vice versa (Schoemaker et al, 2008).Children with internalizing or externalizing problems are at increased risk of developing delinquent behavior (Eisenberg, 2001). Thereby, it is shown that there is a relationship between internalizing and externalizing problems and delinquency. Moffitt (1993) argued that manifestations of behavioral problems and antisocial behavior that emerge early in the life course and remain present thereafter, are evidence of later criminal behavior. Factors in early childhood could usually explain the continuity of criminal and risky behavior throughout a child’s and adolescent’s life. Children with an increased risk of delinquent behavior are distinguished by their negative self-esteem, lack of self-esteem and tendency for risk-seeking behavior (Overbeek, Vollebergh, Meeus, Engel,s & Luijpers, 2001). They also demonstrated that there is a parallel increase of delinquent behavior and internalizing problems in early adolescence. It was found as well that internalizing and externalizing problems were precursors of delinquency. Based on this reasoning, delinquent behavior may develop when children are being exposed to violence and abuse at home. Parents who constrain, invalidate and manipulate children’s psychological well-being are also related to both internalizing and externalizing problems (Barber, 1996).

The present study aimed to provide further insight in the risk factors for delinquency in Filipino children. In order to better understand juvenile delinquency in the Philippines, CICL and non-CICL were compared in terms of risk factors regarding family functioning and psychological well-being. CICL were considered a group of delinquent children and non-CICL as a group of children from a (poor) general population. Hence, these two groups were compared in order to outline the risk factors of delinquency. Consequentially, the main question of this study was: Are family functioning and psychological well-being related to delinquency in Filipino children? To answer this question two sub questions will be addressed:

(8)

1: Are there differences between CICL and non-CICL in risk factors in family functioning (regarding parenting skills, basic care and social contacts)?

2: Are there differences between CICL and non-CICL in psychological well-being (internalizing and externalizing problems)?

Based on the literature, it was hypothesized that parents of the CICL have less well-developed parenting skills than parents of non-CICL. Second, it was expected that the CICL are provided less well in their basic care by their parents than non-CICL children. Further, the social contacts of CICL parents are less active and prominent than of the parents of non-CICL. At last, it was hypothesized that the CICL show higher levels of internalizing and externalizing problems in comparison to non-CICL.

(9)

Method

Sample

In order to answer the research questions, data were collected in a sample of 94 children aged 9-17, including CICL (n = 51) and non-CICL children from the ‘general population’ (n = 42). There was a significant difference in age F(93,1) = 9.58, p =.003 between CICL and non-CICL. The average age of the CICL was 14.8 (SD = 2.3), while the average age of non-CICL was 13.4 (SD = 2.1). There was a significant difference between CICL and non-CICL in the distribution of sex

χ

2(1,94) = 7.392, p= .006. The CICL-group consisted of 12 girls and 39 boys. The non-CICL-group consisted of 21 girls and 21 boys. The CICL were recruited in the organization KnK (a NGO that works with children at risk,

children in need of special protection and children in conflict with the law) or in the ‘holding centers’. Holding centers are temporary shelters for the CICL who are waiting for their (possible) processes. The children from the general population are recruited in the

'communities'. These communities are located in certain areas in Caloocan City. These areas can be seen as slums. The children were recruited in the period from March 2013 to May 2013. With the help of the social workers and peer educators the CICL and non-CICL children were selected in order to participate in this study. The children completed the questionnaires respectively in the holding centers, in the computer room of KnK or in the community houses. The executive director from KnK has given her permission to conduct this study.

Instruments

Family functioning

Family functioning was measured using the ‘Questionnaire family functioning’, (‘Vragenlijst Gezinsfunctioneren’; VGF; Haar, 2000). The VGF was filled in by professional educators who were qualified to do that and knew the children and their families well. This questionnaire measured (specific) family factors. The subscales that were taken into account were parenting skills by the mother and father, basic care and social contacts. The questions were answered on a five-point scale: 1 = does not apply at all to this family, 2 = applies a little, 3 = applies, 4 = strongly applies and 5 = very strongly applies. The construct parenting skills indicated how the parents are seen as educators. Example items were: ‘The father offers the children the structure they need’ and ‘The mother finds herself an incompetent and poor educator’. In total there were 28 items (α= .92), 14 about parenting skills of the mother and 14

(10)

about parenting skills of the father. For each parent a mean score was made and scores for father and mother were averaged. Basic care referred to how the parents took care of their children. It also indicated to what extent there was a fixed structure present in their daily live. An example item was: ‘The parents value the dental care of the children’ and ‘The meals are eaten at reasonably fixed times’. This construct consisted of 17 items (α= .93). The construct social contacts measured how the parents interacted and had contact with for example their neighbors, family members, school of the children and official authorities. This construct was measured by 8 items (α= .67). ‘The family has sufficient contacts in the neighborhood’ and ‘Often there are conflicts with relatives or acquaintances’, were example items.

Psychological well-being

To measure internalizing and externalizing behavior, the children completed the Youth Self Report (YSR; Achenbach, 2008). This was done under supervision of a peer educator. The YSR measured their skills and behavioral and emotional problems in the past six months. For internalizing problems the subscales anxious/depressed, withdrawn/depressed and somatic complaints were combined. An example item was ‘I’m nervous, anxious or tense’. The

subscales rule-breaking behavior and aggressive behavior measured externalizing problems. An example item was ‘I steal from places other than home’. The questions were answered on a three-point scale. 0 means not true, 1 means somewhat or sometimes true and 2 means very true or often true. Mean scores were calculated for both scales. The construct internalizing problems consisted of 31 items (α= .79), while the construct externalizing problems consisted of 32 items (α= .88).

Statistical Analysis

First, for descriptive purposes, means of parenting skills, basic care, social contacts, internalizing problems and externalizing problems were calculated, overall and separately for CICL and non-CICL. Then, in order to check for associations between the variables,

correlations were calculated. Correlations between continuous variables were calculated using Pearson’s r. Spearman correlations were used if one of the variables was ordinal.

Second, to answer the research questions, one-way ANOVA’s were used to test the group differences between CICL and non-CICL among the outcome variables parenting skills, basic care, social contacts, internalizing problems and externalizing problems.

Third, two MANCOVA’s (multivariate analysis of covariance) were performed to test the multiple dependent variables within each domain at once, adjusting for age and sex because these variables were not evenly distributed between the two groups. In order to

(11)

conduct a MANCOVA four assumptions should be met: 1) normality, 2) independence of observations, 3) Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances (assumption will be met when p>.05) and 4) homogeneity of covariance’s (assumption will be met when p> .01) (Field, 2009). All variables met the assumption of normality, except for basic care. To solve this problem a log transformation was made to this variable.

In the first MANCOVA, the continuous outcome variables were respectively basic care, social contacts and parenting skills of the parent(s) (family functioning). In the second MANCOVA, the continuous outcome variables were internalizing and externalizing problems (psychological well-being). In order to investigate the contribution of the covariates, the two analyzes were performed in two steps. In the first step of the analysis the covariates age and sex were excluded. Then, in the second step, age and sex were included. The grouping variable was CICL versus non-CICL, analyzed as a fixed factor.

(12)

Results

Descriptive information

The columns on the left side of table 1 show the means and standard deviations of each of the outcome variables, overall and separately for CICL and non-CICL. Table 2 shows the

correlations between all the variables. All significant correlations were in the expected direction. The findings in table 2 show that the two variables basic care and parenting skills were strongly correlated r(94), = .463, p=.000. Also the variables social contacts and basic care were strongly correlated, r(94), = .465, p= .000. Moderate correlations were found for the variables social contacts and parenting skills, r(94), = .384, p= .000 and for externalizing problems with internalizing problems, r(94), = .526, p= .000. Table 2 shows that internalizing problems and parenting skills were negatively correlated, r(94), = -.170, p=.102. Internalizing problems were also negatively correlated with basic care r(94), = -.063, p= .102, and social contacts, r(94), = -.173, p= .096.

Table 1

Overall and group means for parenting skills, basic care, social contacts, internalizing problems and externalizing problems.

Range Overall Mean (sd) (N=94) CICL (n=52) Non-CICL (n=42) Group differences F(df), p Parenting skills 1-4 1.97 (0.54) 1.99 (0.56) 1.91 (0.50) 0.408(1), .525 Basic care 1-4 2.12 (0.74) 2.06 (0.64) 2.19 (0.86) 1.277(1), .263 Social contacts 1-4 2.13 (0.53) 2.09 (0.49) 2.18 (0.57) 0.682(1), .411 Internalizing problems 0-2 0.72 (0.26) 0.73 (0.29) 0.70 (0.23) 0.168(1), .683 Externalizing problems 0-2 0.62 (0.31) 0.65 (0.35) 0.65 (0.35) 1.267(1), .263

(13)

Table 2

Correlations between the variables parenting skills, basic care, social contacts, internalizing problems and externalizing problems.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1.Parenting skills 2.Basic care .463** 3.Social contacts .384** .465** 4.Internalizing problems -.170 -.063 -.173 5.Externalizing problems .031 -.063 .005 .526**

Note. **Correlation is significant at 0.01 level.

Differences in family functioning between CICL and non-CICL

The ANOVA’s that were performed first yielded no significant differences between CICL and non-CICL in any of the outcome variables in the family functioning domain (Table 1). This indicates that CICL were not exposed to lower levels of parenting skills, basic care and social contacts in comparison to non-CICL. Also, and presented in Table 3 (model 1), results from the MANCOVA indicated that there were no significant differences between CICL and non-CICL regarding the domain family functioning. Further, the results of model 2 in Table 3 show that when sex was included as a covariate there was a significant difference between CICL and non-CICL in family functioning, F(3, 91) = 4.113, p=0.09. The means indicate that the peer educators of the girls report higher levels of family functioning than the peer educators of the boys.

Differences in psychological well-being between CICL and non-CICL

Model 1 in Table 4 that there were no significant differences when CICL were compared to non-CICL concerning the two variables of psychological well-being F(2, 92) = 0.181, p= .515. This indicates that CICL reported no higher levels of respectively internalizing and externalizing problems than non-CICL. Also, and presented in Table 4, results from the MANCOVA (adjusting for sex and age), there were no significant differences between CICL and non-CICL regarding their psychological well-being.

(14)

Table 3

MANCOVA, with three outcome variables of family functioning (parenting skills, basic care and social contacts)

F Df P Model 1: CICL vs. non-CICL 1.123 3.0 .344 Model 2: CICL vs. non-CICL 2.148 3.0 .100 Sex 4.113 3.0 .009* Age 2.424 3.0 .071

Note. * Significant at p < 0.05 level.

Table 4

MANCOVA, with 2 outcome variables of psychological well-being (internalizing and externalizing problems) F Df P Model 1: CICL vs. non-CICL 0.181 2.0 .515 Model 2: CICL vs. non-CICL 0.217 2.0 .806 Sex 1.837 2.0 .165 Age 0.644 2.0 .528

(15)

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the risk factors for delinquency in Filipino children from Manila. Based on the international literature, parents of CICL were expected to have less developed parenting skills when compared to parents of non-CICL. From the conducted research it can be said that according to the peer educators there are no significant differences between CICL and non-CICL in their parents parenting skills. The research findings do not support the expectation that the parents of the CICL children have less developed parenting skills. This result is in contrast with the literature since low levels of parenting skills have been linked to juvenile delinquency (Vettenburg, 2006). Second, it was expected that CICL children were provided less in their basic care than non-CICL children. The literature shows that when parents not sufficiently provide for their children’s basic care, this can lead to delinquency (Deković, 2003). The findings indicated that according to the peer educators there are also no significant differences between CICL and non-CICL in their provided basic care. Third, it was expected that the social contacts of CICL parents were less active and prominent than from the parents of non-CICL. This was expected because Wahler (1980) argued that delinquency in children could develop when the parents have few positive social contacts. The findings suggested that there are no significance differences between the two groups in social contacts as well. However, a striking result was that the reports of the peer educators regarding the higher levels of family functioning for the girls in comparison with the boys (in both groups together). This could indicate that girls talk more often and openly about their family functioning with the peer educators than boys do, or the girls have a closer bond with their family. At last, it was expected that CICL tend to show more

internalizing and externalizing problems in comparison to non-CICL. The results showed that there are no differences between the two groups in terms of internalizing and externalizing problems. This result is in contradiction with the current literature, as it was shown that there is a relationship between internalizing and externalizing problems and the development of delinquency (Eisenberg, 2001). An explanation for the same levels of internalizing and externalizing problems can be found in the fact that both groups of children were not offered any possibilities in order to deal with these potential problems.

Now all four hypotheses and the two sub questions were answered the main question What are the risk factors for delinquency in Filipino children? could be answered. No

significant differences between CICL and non-CICL were found, but in other studies the five used constructs are related to delinquency. Why is that not the case in this present study?

(16)

Some explanations can be given. The assumption that was made regarding the dividing between CICL and non-CICL may not be correct. The two groups were more similar to each other in terms of delinquency than initially expected. The CICL and non-CICL differed more in whether or not they were caught for their delinquent behavior. The fact that the two groups did not differ in externalizing behavior seems to give some support for this interpretation.

Other reasons for the unexpected findings could be found in the methodological shortcomings. The two questionnaires (YSR and VGF) may not be appropriate and sufficiently distinctive for the population. This is because both questionnaires are not standardized to the Filipino culture. This may cause that some questions were not well understood or made no sense to the children and peer educators because the content of the questions do not occur and fit into the culture. The second reason for finding no differences between the CICL and non-CICL children could be that some peer educators had slight difficulty with the English language and the children were not used to completing

questionnaires. Besides, a part of the data came from the information that the peer educators have given, and not from the children themselves.

Apparently the constructs of which family functioning and psychological well-being existed, do not address the development of and relation with juvenile delinquency. The similar (especially for the children of KnK) environment in which both groups of children grow up may be a confounding factor. Since the children stay in KnK and in the holding centers (or outside the family) for many months and even years, the used constructs (mainly basic care, social contacts and parenting skills) will be partly similar too for them. Therefore, it may be that CICL and non- CICL are more similar than initially expected. To confirm these findings further studies are required using another way of sampling children.

Limitations

As in other studies, there were a number of limitations to be referred. The first one was the number of children that participated. In total there were 94 children; in order to make a better comparative study more participants are wanted. Second, for three out of the five variables no child reports were used. For these three (parenting skills, basic care and social contacts) the information was obtained from the peer educators. This would have caused for some bias. The third limitation concerned the degree of generalization. Since the study took place in Manila, the results cannot be generalized to other children in the Philippines. A fourth limitation concerned the statistical section: in order to interpret the variable basic care the variable needed to be log transformed. This was done because the Levene’s test of the variable was significant. Because of this manipulation the values of the findings should be

(17)

interpreted with caution. Recommendations

As previously mentioned; given the limited scope of the research -94 children- no firm conclusions can be drawn. Consequently, it is recommended that further studies will integrate more participants.

In the present study, only two questionnaires were used to measure the risk factors for juvenile delinquency. In order to better comprehend (the development of) delinquency and the associated problems in the Philippines, it is also recommended that other studies include several questionnaires. This could include more self-reports for children and questionnaires particularly for parents. Thereby, until now, there are no standardized questionnaires for the Filipino culture. Therefore, it is recommended that some need to get developed and

standardized.

This study showed that there are differences between boys and girls and the levels of family functioning regarding delinquency. Unfortunately, because of the given time there was no chance to investigate these differences further. Worldwide there has been a lot of research on this topic, the Philippines should be next.

(18)

REFERENCES

Achenbach, T.M., Becker, A., Döpfner, M., Heiervang, E., Roessner, V., Steinhausen, H., & Rothenberger, A., (2008). Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: Research findings, applications and future directions. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 251 275.

Anmesty International (2003). Philippines, a different childhood: the apprehension and detention of child suspects and offenders. Verkregen van:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA35/007/2003/en/db3bf02a-d71b-11dd

b0cc-1f0860013475/asa350072003en.pdf.

Al, C. M. W., Stams, G. J. J. M., Bek, M. S., Damen, E. M., Asscher, J. J., & Laan, P. H. van der (2012). A meta-analysis of intensive family preservation programs: Placement prevention and improvement of family functioning. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1472-1479.

Banzon-Librojo, L. A. M. (2010). Parents, peers, and the Filipino adolescent: examining links to delinquent behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Ateneo de Manila University).

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. London: Sage Publications.

Capaldi, D. N., & Patterson, G. R. (1996). Can violent offenders be distinguished from frequent offenders: Prediction from childhood to adolescence. J. Res. Crime and Delinq. 33 (2), 06–231.

Dam van C. (2005) Juvenile criminal recidivism, relations with personality and post release environmental risk en protective factors. Trioprint Nijmegen.

(19)

Deković, M., Janssens, J. M., & Van As, N. C. (2003). Family predictors of antisocial behavior in adolescence. Family Process, 42 (2), 223-235.

De La Cruz, Y. (2004) Philippines Senate action builds hope for children in jail, UNICEF Philippines.

Demuth, S., & Brown, S. L. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 58–81.

Domburgh, L. van, de Ruiter, C. & Doreleijers, T. (2004). De rol van dynamische risicofactoren bij recidive van jeugdige delinquenten: een internationaal literatuuronderzoek. TOKK, 29 (1), 44-52.

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Reiser, M., ... & Guthrie, I. K. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children's externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child development, 72 (4), 1112 1134.

Farrington, D.P. (1994). Childhood, adolescent and adult features of violent males, in L.R. Huesmann (ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives. Plenum Press, New York. Farrington, D.P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: key theoretical and

empirical issues. The 2002 Sutherland Award Adress. Criminology, 41 (2), 221-256. Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England: SAGE.

Gates, M., Dowden, C., & Brown, S.L. (1998).Case need domain: Community functioning. Forum on Corrections Research, 10, 35-37.

Gibbs, G. R. (2008). Analysing qualitative data. SAGE Publications Limited.

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., and Henry, D. (1999). The relation of community and family to risk among urban poor adolescents. In Cohen, P., Robins, L., and

Slomkowski, C.(eds.), Where and When: Influence of Historical Time and Place on Aspects of Psychopathology, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

(20)

Graaf, J. H. de (2008). Rechten van het kind en ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid, Inleiding in J. H. de Graaf, C. Mak, & F. K. van Wijk (Eds.), Rechten van het kind en ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid, 17-27. Nijmegen: Ars AequiLibri.

Grimm, L. G. (1993). Statistical Applications for the Behavioral Sciences. Crawfordville: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Haar, A. N. van der, Brink, L. T. ten, & Veerman, J. W. (2000). Technische verantwoording van de Vragenlijst Gezinsfunctioneren. Duivendrecht: PI Research.

Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., & Harachi, T. W. (1998). A review of predictors of youth violence. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Heinze, M. C., & Grisso, T. (1996). Review of instruments assessing parenting competencies used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 14, 293-313. Henggler, S. W., Melton, G. B., & Smith, L. A. (1992). Family preservation using

multisystemic therapy. An effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Consultancy and Clinical Psychology, 60, 953–961.

Internationaal Verdrag inzake de Rechten van het Kind (1989).

Jessor, R., Bos, J. van den, Vanderryn, J., Costa, F. M., and Turbin, M. S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behavior: Moderator effects and developmental change. Development Psychology. 31, 923-933.

Junger, M. (2003). Psychosociale problemen bij adolescenten. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.

Kruithof, B. (2008). Overheid, kinderbescherming en ‘het belang van het kind’. Justitiële verkenningen, jrg. 34, nr. 8.

(21)

Laan, A.M. van der & Blom, M. (2006). Jeugddelinquentie: risico’s en bescherming. Bevindingen uit de WODC Monitor Zelfgerapporteerde Jeugdcriminaliteit 2005. Meppel/Den Haag, Boom Juridische uitgevers/Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum.

McCord, J. (1996). Family as crucible for violence: comment on Gorman-Smith et al. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 147–152.

Maxwell, C.D., & Maxwell, S.R. (2003). Experiencing and witnessing familial aggression and their relationship to physically aggressive behaviours among Filipino adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1432-1451.

Moderation. Test for Interaction in Multiple Regression (2010). Chapter 15. Geraadpleegd op 26 augustus, van: http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/47569_ch_15.pdf.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 700, 674-701.

Overbeek, G., Vollebergh, W., Meeus, W., Engels, R., & Luijpers, E. (2001). Course, co-occurance and longitudinal pathways between emotional disturbance and delinquency from adolescence to young adulthood: A six-year three-wave study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 401-426.

RA 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, Republic Act No. 9344 (2006).

Repetti, R. L., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2002). Risky families: Family social

environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (2), 330-366.

Save the Children (2004). Breaking Rules: Children in conflict with the law and the juvenile justice process. Quezon City: Save the Children, UK.

Schoemaker, C., Zwaanswijk, M. & Meijer S. (2008). Psychische gezondheid. Spelen met gezondheid. Leefstijl en psychische gezondheid van de Nederlandse jeugd. RIVM rapport nr. 270232001. Bilthoven: RIVM.

(22)

Shoemaker, D.J. (1994). Male-female delinquency in the Philippines: A comparative analysis, Youth and Society, 25, 299-329.

Tolan, P. H. (1988). Socioeconomic, family, and social stress correlates of adolescent antisocial and delinquent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 317 331.

Treffers, A.W., Goedhart, A.W., Veerman, J.W., Van den Bergh, B.R.H., Ackaert, L., & de Rycke, L. (2004). Competentie Belevingsschaal voor Adolescenten. Tijdschrift voor Psychiatrie 46, 468-469.

UNICEF Philippines (2004). Jail is no place for a child. Geraadpleegd op 12 maart, verkregen van: http://www.unicef.org/philippines/children/jj_1.html

Veerman, J. W. (1988). Bedreigende en beschermende factoren in de gezinsomgeving: Gegevens uit onderzoek. In P.P. Goudena, H.J. Groenendaal & F.A. Swets-Gronert (red.), Kind in geding: Bedreigende en beschermende factoren in de psychosociale ontwikkeling van kinderen. Amersfoort: Acco.

Willinger, U., Diendorfer-Radner, G., Willnauer, R. M., Jorgl, G., & Hager, V. (2005). Parenting stress and parental bonding. Behavioral Medicine 31, 63-69, Washington DC.

(23)

APPENDIX A Pangalan:

Kasarian: Edad:

Ang nasa ibaba ay talaan ng mga aytem na naglalarawan sa mga bata. Sa bawat aytem na naglalarawan sa iyo, ngayon o sa loob ng nakalipas na anim na buwan, bilugan ang numerong 2 kung ang aytem ay totoong-totoo o kadalasang totoo. Bilugan ang numerong 1 king ang aytem ay medyo o minsan totoo. Kung ang aytem ay hindi totoo, bilugan ang 0.

0 = Hindi Totoo 1 = Medyo o Minsan Totoo 2 = totoong- totoo o Kadalasang Totoo

2. 0 1 2 Umiinom ako ng alak na walang pahintulot ng aking magulang 3. 0 1 2 Madalas akong makipagtalo

5. 0 1 2 Kakaunti lamang ang mga bagay na ikinatutuwa ko

14. 0 1 2 Iyakin ako

16. 0 1 2 Masama ako sa iba

19. 0 1 2 Sinusubukan kong makakuha ng maraming atensiyon 20. 0 1 2 Sinisira ko ang aking gamit

21. 0 1 2 Sinisira ko ang gamit ng iba

22. 0 1 2 Hindi ako sumusunod sa aking magulang 23. 0 1 2 Hindi ako sumusunod kapag nasa paaralan

26. 0 1 2 Hindi ko nararamdamang may kasalanan ako pagkaraang gawin ang bagay na hindi dapat

28. 0 1 2 Sinusuway ko ang mga tuntunin sa bahay, paaralan, at iba pang lugar

(24)

29. 0 1 2 Takot ako sa ilang hayop, pangyayari, o lugar, maliban sa paraalan (ilarawan):

30. 0 1 2 Takot akong pumasok sa paraalan

31. 0 1 2 Natatakot ako na makaisip o makagawa ng bagay na masama 32. 0 1 2 Nararamdam ko na dapat akong maging perpekto

33. 0 1 2 Nararamdaman ko na walang nagmamahal sa akin 37. 0 1 2 Lagi akong napapaaway

39. 0 1 2 Sumasama ako sa mga batang lagging nasasangkot sa gulo 42. 0 1 2 Mas gusto kong mag-isa kaysa may kasama

43. 0 1 2 Nagsisinungaling o nandaraya ako 45. 0 1 2 Nininerbiyos o kinakabahan ako 47. 0 1 2 Nanaginip ako ng masama

50. 0 1 2 Masyado akong matatakutin at balisa

51. 0 1 2 Nakararamdam ako ng pagkahilo at pagkulula 52. 0 1 2 Nakararamdam ako ng pagkabahala (guilt)

54. 0 1 2 Nakararamdam ako ng sobrang pagkapagod kahit walang dahilan

56. 0 1 2 Problemang pisikal na walang medical na dahilan:

0 1 2 a Pananakit (hindi ng tiyan o ulo) 0 1 2 b Pananakit ng ulo

0 1 2 c Pagkahilo, parang may sakit

0 1 2 d Problema sa mata (hindi na masosolusyunan kahit magsalamin) (ilarawan):

(25)

0 1 2 e Rashes o problema sa balat

0 1 2 f Pananakit ng tiyan

0 1 2 g Pagsusuka

57. 0 1 2 Pisikal kong inaatake ang tao

63. 0 1 2 Mas gusto kong kasama ang mga batang mas matanda sa akin

kaysa sa kasing-edad ko

65. 0 1 2 Hindi ako nakikipag-usap 67. 0 1 2 Tumatakas ako sa bahay 68. 0 1 2 Madalas akong sumisigaw

69. 0 1 2 Malihim o nagtatago ako ng mga bagay sa sarili lamang

71. 0 1 2 Mahiyain ako

72. 0 1 2 Nanunuog ako

75. 0 1 2 Masyado akong mahiyain 81. 0 1 2 Nagnanakaw ako sa bahay

82. 0 1 2 Nagnanakaw ako sa ibang lugar maliban sa bahay 86. 0 1 2 Matigas ang aking ulo

87. 0 1 2 Mabilis akong sumpungin at magbago ang nararamdaman

89. 0 1 2 Mapaghinala ako

90. 0 1 2 Gumagamit ako ng malalaswang salita 91. 0 1 2 Iniisip ko na patayin ang aking sarili 94. 0 1 2 Lagi kong tinutukso ang iba

(26)

95. 0 1 2 Mainitin ang aking ulo

96. 0 1 2 Lagi akong nag-iisip tungkol sa pakikipagtalik 97. 0 1 2 Nananakot ako para makapanakit ng tao 99. 0 1 2 Naninigarilyo ako

101. 0 1 2 Lumiliban ako sa klase o hindi pumapasok sa paaralan 102. 0 1 2 Wala akong masyadong lakas

103. 0 1 2 Hindi ako masaya o depressed

104. 0 1 2 Mas maingay ako kaysa sa ibang bata

105. 0 1 2 Gumagamit ako ng bawal na gamot (hindi kabilang ang alak at sigarilyo) (ilarawan):

111. 0 1 2 Pinipigilan kong makisama sa iba 112. 0 1 2 Lagi akong nag-aalala

(27)

APPENDIX B

With this questionnaire the functioning of a family will be mapped. The list must be completed by a professional counselor who knows the family well.

The questionnaire consists a series of statements. Give per each statement to what extent this applies to the family. Do this by circling one of the numbers from 1 to 5. These have the following meanings: 1: the statement is entirely not true for this family, 2: the statement is a bit true for this family, 3: the statement is true for this family, 4: the statement is strongly true for this family, 5: the statement is very strong for this family. It may be that you cannot fill out a question, because you don’t have enough information about the family. In this case, circle the box (0: still have to check).

The list refers to the mother and father. This does not necessarily mean the biological mother or father. It means any person(s) who have had the mother/father role. The

questionnaire consists several parts. Basic care

1. The whole family lives in a relatively fixed daily routine. 1 2 3 4 5 0 2. If the parents are absent for example during the evening, they

ensure supervision for the children (consider the age of the child).

1 2 3 4 5 0

3. The whole family undertakes joint activities regularly. 1 2 3 4 5 0 5. The clothes of the children look pretty neat. 1 2 3 4 5 0

7. The house is of decent quality. 1 2 3 4 5 0

8. The parents devote sufficient attention to the physical care of the children.

1 2 3 4 5 0

10. The property is well-kept. 1 2 3 4 5 0

11. The parents usually know where the children are when they are out of school.

1 2 3 4 5 0

12. The parents maintain contact with the school in favor of the child’s needs.

1 2 3 4 5 0

13. The parents are good with money. 1 2 3 4 5 0

14. The meals are eaten at reasonable stable times 1 2 3 4 5 0 17. The children wear clothes that suits the weather. 1 2 3 4 5 0 19. The house offers sufficient living space given the number of 1 2 3 4 5 0

(28)

family members.

20. The parents value the dental care of the children. 1 2 3 4 5 0 21. The quality of household amenities in the house is good. 1 2 3 4 5 0 22. The family uses hot meals regularly.. 1 2 3 4 5 0 23. The children go to bed on appropriate times (given their age). 1 2 3 4 5 0 Social contacts

4. It is noisy in the family (such as a TV or radio that’s always on).

1 2 3 4 6 0

6. The parents are satisfied with the help they have had so far of aid institutions.

1 2 3 4 5 0

9. The parents know how to give shape in a good way to their contacts with official authorities (official agencies such as Social Services or Municipal Relocation).

1 2 3 4 5 0

15. The family has sufficient contacts in the neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5 0 16. There are financial debts – who are to the experience of the

family - seriously pressing.

1 2 3 4 5 0

18. Family members often have conflicts in the neighborhood. 1 2 3 4 5 0 24. There are sufficient contacts with relatives or acquaintances. 1 2 3 4 5 0 25. Often there are conflicts with relatives or acquaintances. 1 2 3 4 5 0 Parenting skills (for mother and/or father)

39. The mother has an eye for what the children need like support and attention.

1 2 3 4 5 0

42. The mother experience pleasure in dealing with one or more of the children.

1 2 3 4 5 0

44. The mother undertakes activities with the children regularly. 1 2 3 4 5 0 45. The mother creates a positive atmosphere for the children. 1 2 3 4 5 0 46. The mother rewards the children and encourages them

sufficiently.

1 2 3 4 5 0

48. The mother offers the children the structure they need. 1 2 3 4 5 0 49. The mother activates the children appropriately (like by

providing appropriate tasks or things to do).

1 2 3 4 5 0

(29)

sense of action, correct address on agreements).

52. The mother overestimated her qualities as an educator. 1 2 3 4 5 0 53. The mother has enjoyable outdoor activities for herself. 1 2 3 4 5 0 54. The mother is willing to actually be responsible for the welfare

of the children.

1 2 3 4 5 0

62. The mother seems able to handle her situation well. 1 2 3 4 5 0 64. The mother puts contact with the children on a nice way. 1 2 3 4 5 0 65. The mother plans or rules things in a flexible manner regarding

the children.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

A framework for the ethical evaluation of care robots requires recognition of the specific context of use, the unique needs of users, the tasks for which the robot will be used, as

bestaande (beheer- en onderhouds)procedures en/of inpassing in het gebied. Dat zijn twee werelden die bij elkaar gebracht moeten worden op het goede moment, daarbij is een

An additional finding was that levels of parenting stress have strong associations with child psychopathology, and that different associations for mothers and fathers came to

Because civic national identity and local affiliation were not significant and did not have any positive nor negative effect I did not keep them in the

Zeker, het gaat bij de industrie om grote private partijen die veel te verliezen hebben als hun investeringen falen of maatschappelijk (veiligheid, milieu, …) slecht vallen,

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate which of the following fac- tors affect the uptake of the combined test (CT) in the Netherlands: women’s socio-demographic

Finally, the search for comprehensibility among the participants with the Enclosed spirituality meaning system resulted in integration for most of the participants, but this process

Biomarkers in the blood of cancer patients include circulating tumor cells (CTCs), tumor-educated platelets (TEPs), tumor-derived extracellular vesicles (tdEVs), EV- associated