When love hurts: Assessing the intersectionality of ethnicity, socio-economic status, parental connectedness, child abuse, and gender attitudes in juvenile violent delinquency

(1)

Tilburg University

When love hurts

Lahlah, A.; Lens, K.M.E.; Bogaerts, S.; van der Knaap, L.M.

Published in:

Child Abuse and Neglect

Publication date:

2013

Document Version

Peer reviewed version

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Lahlah, A., Lens, K. M. E., Bogaerts, S., & van der Knaap, L. M. (2013). When love hurts: Assessing the

intersectionality of ethnicity, socio-economic status, parental connectedness, child abuse, and gender attitudes

in juvenile violent delinquency. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37, 1034-1049.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

(2)

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or

licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the

article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or

institutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are

encouraged to visit:

(3)

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Child

Abuse

&

Neglect

When

love

hurts

Assessing

the

intersectionality

of

ethnicity,

socio-economic

status,

parental

connectedness,

child

abuse,

and

gender

attitudes

in

juvenile

violent

delinquency

Esmah

Lahlah

a,∗

_,

_Kim

_M.E.

_Lens

b

_,

_Stefan

_Bogaerts

c,d

_,

Leontien

M. van

der

Knaap

b a_INTERVICT,_Tilburg_Law_School,_The_Netherlands b_INTERVICT,_Tilburg_Law_School,_The_Netherlands c_INTERVICT_and_TSB,_Tilburg_University,_The_Netherlands

d_Research_and_Innovation_Forensic_Psychiatric_Center_De_{Kijvelanden/Dok,}_The_Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received7December2012

Receivedinrevisedform27June2013 Accepted5July2013

Availableonline9August2013

Keywords: Intersectionality Ethnicity Socio-economicstatus Parentalconnectedness Childabuse Genderattitudes

Juvenileviolentdelinquency

a b s t r a c t

Researchershavenotyetreachedagreementaboutthevalidityofseveralcompeting expla-nationsthatseektoexplainethnicdifferencesinjuvenileviolentoffending.Ethnicitycannot solelyexplainwhyboyswithanethnicminoritybackgroundcommitmore(violent)crimes. Byassessingtheintersectionalityofstructural,culturalandindividualconsiderations,both theindependenteffectsaswellastheinterplaybetweendifferentfactorscanbeexamined. Thisstudyshowsthataforementionedfactorscumulativelyplayaroleinsevereviolent offending,withparentalconnectednessandchildabusehavingthestrongestassociations. However,sincemostvariablesinteractandethnicityisassociatedwiththosespeciﬁc fac-tors,aconclusiontobedrawnisthatethnicitymayberelevantasanadditionalvariable predictingsevereviolentoffendingalthoughindirectly.

Introduction

Ethnicdifferencesinjuvenileviolentcrimehavebeenrepeatedlyobservedindifferentcountriesacrosstheworld.For instance,intheUSA,ofﬁcialcrimestatistics(e.g.,Engen,Steen,&Bridges,2002;McCarter,2009;Rossiter&Rossiter,2009; Stahl,Finnegan,&Kang,2007)aswellassurveysonjuvenileviolentdelinquency(e.g.,Flores,2002;Pope&Snyder,2003) showthattheratesofinvolvementinseriousviolencearemuchhigherforblacksthanforwhites.InmostEuropeancountries, ethnic minorityboys witha non-Westernbackground areoverrepresented amongjuvenile offenders,such asTurksin Germany,AlgeriansinFrance,andMoroccansinBelgium(Esterle-Hedibel,2001;Gostomski,2003;Put&Walgrave,2006). ThisoverrepresentationofethnicminorityboysamongjuvenileoffenderscanalsobefoundintheNetherlands.Researchon reportedandunreportedcrimeshowsthat,comparedtonativeDutchadolescents,non-nativeDutchyoungstersaremore likelytocommitcriminalacts,especiallyviolentoffenses(DeJong,2007;Jennissen,Blom,&Oosterwaal,2009;Komen,2002;

(4)

VanderLaan&Blom,2011).ThisisparticularlytrueforMoroccan-Dutch boys,whoaredisproportionatelyrepresented amongjuvenileoffenders(Lahlah,Lens,VanderKnaap,&Bogaerts,2013a;Veen,Stevens,Doreleijers,&Vollebergh,2011). Infact,theproportionofcriminaloffensescommittedbyMoroccan-Dutchboysisnearlyfourtimestheproportionofthis groupinthetotalpopulation(Broekhuizen&Driessen,2006).Theseethnicdifferencesinjuvenileviolentcrimeremain constantintemporal,regional,andgender-speciﬁcterms(Baier&Pfeiffer,2008).Therefore,theacademicandpublicdebate hasbeenconcentratingoncausesofethnicdifferencesinjuvenileviolentcrime.

Theoreticalframework

Attemptstoexplainethnicdifferencesinjuvenileviolentoffendingcanbeclassifiedintothreegeneralcategories(fora reviewseeLahlahetal.,2013a).First,sociologicaltheoriessuggestthatrelativedeprivationorasociallyimposedgeneral straincancontributetoviolentbehavioramongsomeadolescents(Agnew,1992;Demuth&Brown,2004;Gould,Weinberg, &Mustard,2002;Pratt,2001).Structuralapproachesexplorerelationshipsbetweensocialconditionsandlevelsofjuvenile crimeinagivenplaceorsituationandsuggestthatharsheconomic,political,andsocialconditionsfacingapopulationaccount forthedisparateratesofcriminality(Demuth&Brown,2004;Gouldetal.,2002;Pratt,2001).Thesocialdisadvantagesarising fromgreaterexposuretopovertyandlowerschooleducationofethnicminoritiesingeneralandMoroccan-Dutchfamiliesin particulariswelldocumented(Boom,Weltevrede,Wensveen,San,&Hermus,2010;CBS,2012).Second,culturalexplanations focusontheexistenceandmaintenanceofspecificorientations(Baier&Pfeiffer,2008)andassertthatvaluesystemsfor minoritygroupsmightbequalitativelydifferentfromthoseofnatives(Berry,1997).Youthwhoareinvolvedintwocultures canexperienceproblemswhenthesetwocultureshavepartlydifferentvaluesystemsand/orprescribedifferentbehaviorin particularsituations(AitOuarasse&vandeVijver,2005).Adifferent,yetrelatedapproachwouldbetoseeviolenceamong ethnicminorityyouthsasassociatedwithacultureofhonor,animportantcharacteristicofsomeethnicminoritygroupswitha non-Westernbackground.Thecultureofhonor,whichissaidtobeastrongmotivationofviolence(Enzmann&Wetzels,2003; Nisbett&Cohen,1996),maynotbeuniformlydistributedamongdifferentethnicgroups.Lahlah,VanderKnaap,Bogaerts andLens(2013b)provideevidencethatMoroccan-Dutchboysholdmoreconventionalgenderattitudesincomparisonwith theirDutchpeersandshowthataftercontrollingforthesenormsinmultivariatemodels,Moroccan-Dutchboysdonotturn outtobemoreviolentthanDutchboys.Third,individual-orientatedpsychologicalexplanationsfocusontheimportanceof familyfunctioning(Stouthamer-Loeber,Wei,Homisch,&Loeber,2002).Itislikelythatfamilyfunctioningcouldhelpexplain violenceoffendingamongethnicminorityyouth.Familyriskfactors,particularlythoseassociatedwithparentalbehaviorand thefamilyenvironmentarekeytounderstandingwhysomeyouthareatgreaterriskofviolence.Studieshaveconvincingly shownthatyouthwhoaresafelyattachedtoandsubjectedtosufficientmonitoringbytheirparentsarelesslikelytobe involvedindelinquency(Palmer&Hollin,2001;Reid,Patterson,&Snyder,2002),whereasparentalrejectionhasbeenshown tobepositivelyrelatedtojuvenileviolentoffending(Bogaerts,Vanheule,&Desmet,2006;Hoeveetal.,2008;Low&Stocker, 2005;Vazsonyi&Pickering,2003).Lahlah,VanderKnaap,BogaertsandLens(2013c)haveshownethnicdifferencesinthe degreetowhichDutchandMoroccan-Dutchboysperceivetheirparents’upbringing,withMoroccan-Dutchboysreporting lowerlevelsofparentalemotionalwarmthincomparisonwiththeirDutchpeers.Inaddition,Lahlahetal.(2013c)have shownthesignificanceofparentalwarmthinself-reportedviolentdelinquency,supportingavastbodyofresearchthat identifiesthe importanceofthisvariable(Davalos,Chavez,&Guardiola,2005;Eichelsheimetal.,2010).However,some ofthekeyfamilyfunctioningfactorsbelievedtobeassociatedwithviolentoffendingincludechildabuse,partnerviolence andafamilysphereofconflictorhostility(e.g.,Fagan,VanHorn,Hawkins,&Arthur,2007;Stouthamer-Loeberetal.,2002; Swansonetal.,2003;Widom,1989a,1989b).Childabuseanddomesticviolenceseemtobemoreprevalentamongsome ethnicgroups(Alinketal.,2011;Finkelhor,Turner,Omrod,&Hamby,2005),albeitresearchismixedwhetherethnicityalone countsforthesedisparities,orwhetherotherfactorsmayplaymoreexplanatoryroles(Dettlaffetal.,2011;Ferrari,2002). Ifminorityadolescentsexperienceviolenceathome,theymaylearntoseeviolenceasanappropriatewayofdealingwith conflicts.Lahlah,VanderKnaap,andBogaerts(2013)showthatMoroccan-Dutchboysaremuchmorefrequentlyvictimof parentalviolencethanDutchboysare.Thisfrequentconfrontationwithparentalviolencemightresultsinmorefrequent imitationtoo(Widom,1989a,1989b).

(5)

Soc io-Economic Status Child Abuse Parental Connectedness Gender Attitudes SVO

Fig.1.Severeviolentoffendingseenasdependentonsocio-economicstatus,parentalconnectedness,childabuseandgenderattitudes.

Similarly,recentresearchonethnicdisparitiesinviolentoffendingcallintoquestiontheuseofaggregate(demographic) measures(Baskin-Sommers,Baskin,Sommers,&Newman,2013)astodosoobscuresimportantdistinctions.Consequently,a morenuancedunderstandingofethnicdisparitiesinjuvenileviolentoffendingrequiresanexaminationofthesevariablesin interactionwitheachother.Severalriskfactorsforjuveniledelinquencythathavebeenidentiﬁedintheextantliteratureare prominentamongethnicminorityfamiliesandcommonlyassociatedwithanethnicminoritystatus.Additionally,research hasalsoshownthatstructuralfactors,suchaslowfamilyincome,areriskfactorsforbothfamilialabuse(e.g.Faganetal.,2007) andmasculinitynorms(Enzmann&Wetzels,2003).Furthermore,researchershavearguedthatbeliefsaboutmasculinity areoftenenforced throughgenderrolesocializationprocesseswhat leadstosupposedbehaviorforboys topossess.It canbearguedthatfamilyviolencemightstrengthenthissocializationprocess,asresearchhasshownthatinmostcases perpetratorsofdomesticviolencearemale.Lastly,researchhasshownthatastrongemotionalbondbetweenparentand childisknownasaprotector,bufferingadolescentsfromthemanychallengesandriskstheyface.Likewise,onemightargue thatweakemotionalbondsbetweenparentandchildmightincreasetheriskforfamilialabuse(seeFig.1).

However,uptillnowresearchhaslaggedbehindinfullyincorporatingintersectionalityintotheoryandmethods,provided thatresearchcan,forexample,separatetheeffectsofethnicityandsocio-economicstatusfromoneanother.Giventhelarge ‘ethnic’disparityinjuvenileviolentoffending,thislackofknowledgeissurprising.Preventionandinterventionprograms thattargetriskfactorswillnotbeequallyeffectivefornativeandethnicminorityboysiftheseinfluencesarenotsimilarly relatedtojuvenileviolentdelinquency.Likewise,onlyiftheethnicspecificriskfactorsofviolentoffendingareknowncan ethnic-specificpreventionstrategiesbedeveloped.

Aimsofthestudy

Accordingtothestudiesandtheoriesdescribedabove,itseemsthatethnicityorratheranethnicminoritystatusincreases theriskofinvolvementinjuvenileviolentoffending.However,thisdoesnotautomaticallymeanthatviolentoffendingcanbe viewedasatypicalpathwaythatisbuiltonethnicity,noronsimpleethnicdifferencesinstructural,culturalandindividual factors. Thecurrent studyisdesigned toexaminepossible pathwaysbetween theabovementionedfactorsand violent offending.Forthisstudy,alargesampleofDutchandMoroccan-Dutchadolescentboyswasusedtocompareonseveralrisk factorsrelatedtojuvenileviolentoffending.Weexamined(a)whetherDutchandMoroccan-Dutchboysreportdifferent levelsof(exposureto)structural,cultural,andindividualriskfactors;(b)whetherviolentoffendingcanbeexplainedasan effectofstructural,culturalandindividualriskfactors;(c)whetherethnicdifferencesinviolentoffendingcanbeexplainedas aneffectofstructural,culturalandindividualriskfactorsandlastly;and(d)whichfactorscontributemosttothedevelopment ofviolentoffending.

(6)

individualfactorswasconstructedbylatentvariablesparentalconnectedness,constructedwiththemanifestandmeasured variables of father’semotionalwarmth and mother’semotionalwarmth, and childabuse, constructedby manifestand measured variablessexualabuse,physicalassault,psychologicalaggression,and exposuretointimatepartnerviolence (IPV).

Method

Procedureandparticipants

Thedatausedtotestthesehypothesesweretakenfrombothaschoolsurveyandayouthprobationofficesurvey.In theschoolsurvey,all9th,10th,11thand12thgradepupilsoffiveparticipatinghighschools(seniorhigh)werequestioned throughpaper-and-pencilinterviewsduringaonehourlesson,whilearesearchstaffmemberwaspresent.,Alltypesof schoolswererepresentedinthesurvey,exceptspecialneedsschools.Thisresultedin941questionnairesreturnedfrom bothboysandgirls.OnlyadolescentboyswhodesignatedthemselvesasDutchorMoroccan-Dutchwereincludedinthe presentanalyses.Attheprojectsite,surveyswereinspectedforvalidity(e.g.,incompletesectionsoridenticalresponses toeveryitem).Fifteenboysweresubsequentlydisqualifiedbecausetheyfailedtheinitialvaliditycheck.Fiveboysdidnot complete thequestionnaire,theremaindereither filledinidentical responsestoeveryitem(2)orfilledin ‘abnormally’ highscoresonalljuveniledelinquencyitems(8)(forexample,statingthattheycommittedeachoffenseathousandtimes). TwelveboyswereDutch;themeanagewas16.01(SD=0.91);andsocio-economicstatusrangedfrommediumtoupper class.Theanalysesoftheschoolsurveywerebasedondatafrom364DutchandMoroccan-Dutchboysonly:compared withtheoriginalsample,thenumberofcaseswassignificantlylowerbecauseonlyadolescentboyswhohaddesignated themselvesasDutch(295)orMoroccan-Dutch(69)andwhohadpassedtheinitialvaliditytestwereincluded.

Second,withthegoalofoversamplingdelinquentboys(Loeberetal.,2005),participantswererecruitedamongDutch (70) andMoroccan-Dutch (43)boys whoweresubjecttoa supervisionordereither atthe timeof the studyor inthe periodprecedingthestudy(113),intwo(regionallyoperating)youthprobationoffices,locatedinthesameregionsasthe participatingschools.Toavoidthatboyswereselectedtwice,viabothschoolandyouthprobationoffice,probationofficers wereaskedtoexcludeboysattendingoneofthefiveparticipatinghighschools.Inaddition,whenaresearchstaffmember contactedaboytoscheduleanappointment,theboywasaskedwhichschoolheattended.Noneoftheboysattendedone ofthefiveparticipatinghighschools.Aresearchstaffmemberwaspresentwhiletheboyscompletedthequestionnaireon theirown,eitherattheirschooloratatimeandplaceconvenienttothembutdidnotlookattheparticipants’responses unlessthesubjectaskedforhelp.Theywereallschool-goingyouthwholivedwithoneorbothoftheirparents.

Aninformationletter describingthestudywassenttoparentswhocouldindicateiftheydidnotwish theirsonto participate. Participantswereinformed thattheywerefree nottoparticipatein theresearch andthat the information providedinthequestionnairewouldremainconfidential.Participants’anonymitywasmaintainedbyascribingidentification numbersratherthannamestosurveys.Inclusioncriteriawere(a)sufficientreadingabilitytocompleteself-reportmeasures and(b)agebetween15and18years.Asnobackgroundinformationofthenon-participantswasavailable,possible non-responsebiascouldnotbeestimated.

Measureswerebasedonadolescentself-reports.Althoughconcernsabouttherelativemeritsofself-reporteddelinquency andofficialstatisticsexist(Juby&Farrington,2001),self-reportmeasuresprovideawidelypreferredmethodofmeasuring juveniledelinquencyinresearch(Thornberry&Krohn,2000;Wells&Rankin,1991).Whereasrelianceonofficialreports mightintroducelayersofpotentialbiasbetweentheactualbehaviorandthedata(e.g.,asubstantialamountofcrimeisnot reported,andevenmanycrimesthatarereportedorbroughttotheattentionoflawenforcementofficersarenotofficially recorded),self-reportsofdelinquencyareconsideredtobethedatasourcenearesttotheactualbehavior(Thornberry& Krohn,2000).

Measures

(7)

Socio-economicstatus:Ameasureofsocialeconomicstatuswascapturedthroughtheparticipant’sratingofhisfamily’s wealth.Responsesweregivenfromveryrich,quiterich,mediumrich,notsorich,notrich.Inaddition,theparticipantswere askedtoindicatewhethertheirfatherandmotherwereunemployed(yesvs.no).

Parentalconnectednesswasmeasuredby36itemsoftheEgnaMinnenBetraffandeUppfostranforAdolescents (EMBU-A),aself-reportinstrumentformeasuringadolescents’currentperceptionofparentalrearing(Gerlsma,Arrindell,Vander Veen,&Emmelkamp,1991).Thisquestionnaireconsistsoftwoparallelquestionnairesconcerningrelationshipswithfather and mother,usinga 4-pointLikert-typescale(i.e.,1=never,2=sometimes,3=often and4=most ofthe time). Forthe present analyses,weusedthe totalscoresonthesubscalesfather’semotionalwarmthandmother’semotionalwarmthas indicatorsofparentalconnectedness.ExamplesofitemsmeasuringEmotionalWarmthare:“Doesyourfather/mothershow you thathe/shelovesyou?”and“Doyouandyourfather/mothereverhugeachother?”.Theeighteen itemsmeasuring father’semotionalwarmthdemonstratedhighintercorrelations:Alphacoefﬁcient(˛)=0.96.Similarly,theeighteenitems measuringmother’semotionalwarmthshowedanalphacoefﬁcient(˛)=0.95.

Childabuseexposurewasassessedby20itemsoftheUnpleasantandNastyIncidentsQuestionnaire(seealso Lamers-Winkelman,Slot,Bijl,&Vijlbrief,2007).ThisquestionnaireisbasedontheDatingViolenceQuestionnaire(Douglas&Straus, 2006)andtheParent-ChildConﬂictTacticsScales(CTSPC;Straus,Hamby,Finkelhor,Moore,&Runyan,1998).The question-naireassesses(recalled)victimizationinthehomeasreportedbytheadolescent.Examplesofitemsmeasuringchildabuse are:“Howofteninthepreviousyeardidyourmom/dadgrabyoubytheneckorchokedyou?”,“Howoftenintheprevious yeardidanadultfamilymembereverforceyoutoperformcertainsexualacts?”and“Howofteninthepreviousyeardid yourmom/dadeverthroworknockyourdad/momdown?”.Thetwentyitemsdemonstratedhighintercorrelations:Alpha coefﬁcient(˛)=0.89.Thehighintercorrelationsbetweentheitemssuggestthatrelativelydifferenttypesofchildabuse,such as‘sexualabusebyafamilymember’,‘physicalassault’,‘psychologicalaggression’,and‘witnessingIPV’weredependenton the samelatentvariable‘Childabuse’.Asameanstohandleoutliers,recodedscalesofchildabusewereutilizedinthe analysis,from0to6;withvalues3–5recodedinto3;6–10recodedinto4;11–20recodedinto5;morethan20recodedinto 6.Afterrecoding,alpharemainedhigh(˛=0.84).

GenderattitudeswereassessedbytheGender-basedFamilyRolesscaleofthe GenderAttitudeInventory(foramore detaileddescriptionofthisquestionnaire,seeAshmore,DelBoca,&Bilder, 1995).TheGender-basedFamilyRolesscale consistoftenitemsusinga7-pointLikert-typescale.ExamplesofitemsconstitutingtheFamilyRolesscaleare:“Iwouldnot respectamanifhedecidedtostayathomeandtakecareofhischildrenwhilehiswifeworked”and“Thehusbandshould haveprimaryresponsibilityfortakingcareofthechildren”.AlphacoefﬁcientsforFamilyRolesscalethiswas0.81indicating agoodreliability(Kline,1999).

Ethnicitywasassessedbyasingleiteminthequestionnaire:“Whatethnicgroupbestdescribesyou?”(seealsoDekovic, Wissink,&Meijer,2004).OnlythoseadolescentswhodesignatedthemselvesasDutchorMoroccan-Dutchwereincluded inthepresentanalyses.Dutchboysservedasthereferencecategoryinallanalysesinthisstudy.

Statisticalanalyses

Thepresentstudyusedstructuralequationmodeling(SEM)withlatentvariablesbasedonmulti-itemmeasurements, whichshouldimprovetheanalysisbyreducingtheeffectofmeasurementerrorsassociatedwithindividualitems(Bratt, 2004). Measurement models of latent variables consider possible autocorrelations between items, i.e., questionnaire-imposedcontexteffectsfromoneitemonthenext(Byrne,2010).

First, a correlation analysis with all measured variables was conducted.This correlation analysis was done in two versions–onewiththeschoolsampleandonewiththeprobationofficesample.Thesecorrelationsarepresentedtogether withstandarddeviations,followingthegeneralrecommendationtoincludeinformationoncovariancesbetweenmeasured variableswhenstructuralequationmodelingisused(e.g.,Hoyle&Panter,1995).Aconfirmatoryfactoranalysiswasusedto testtheassumptionthattheselecteditemscouldbeappliedasindicatorsoflatentvariables.Thelatentvariable‘Severe vio-lentoffending’wastestedwithfourindicators.‘Socio-economicstatus’wastestedwiththreeindicators.Further,thelatent variable‘Parentalconnectedness’wastestedwiththesumscoresofeighteenitemsmeasuringfather’semotionalwarmth andeighteenitemsmeasuringmother’semotionalwarmthrespectively.Thelatentvariable‘Childabuse’wastestedwiththe sumscoresoftwentyitemsmeasuringsexualabusebyafamilymember(fouritems),physicalassault(eightitems), psycho-logicalaggression(oneitem),andexposuretointimatepartnerviolence(sevenitems).Thelatentvariable‘genderattitudes’ wasmeasuredbytenindicators,allonitemlevel.Whenboththeoryandconfirmatoryfactoranalysis(CFA)supportedthe useoflatentvariables,theywereincludedinmoreextendedstructuralmodels.AnadvantageofsomeSEMapplications (suchasAmos19,usedinthisstudy)isthe opportunitytoincludecaseswithmissingdataintheanalysisbyusingthe fullinformationmaximumlikelihoodestimationmethod(seeArbuckle,1996;Bratt,2004;Wothke,2000).Thisoptionwas usedinthisstudy.Maximumlikelihoodestimationsassumemultivariatenormality,butareknowntoberelativelyrobustin thepresenceofnon-normaldata(Chou&Bentler,1995).SeveralfitindiceswereusedtotesthowwellSEMmodels repro-ducedthecovariancesinthesampledata(testsofgeneralfitofthemodel).Whencomparingnestedmodels,hierarchical 2_{(hierarchical}_chi-square)_was_applied_(with_p_<_0.05_falsifying_the_more_parsimonious_model,_i.e.,_the_model_that_used

fewerparameterstoexplainthecomplexdatamatrix).Forothertestsofgeneralﬁt,2_was_not_emphasized,_because_of_the

tendencyof2_to_be_inﬂated_by_large_samples,_even_with_trivial_deviations_from_the_sample_matrix_–_particularly_when_data

(8)

Table1

Samplecharacteristics.

Schoolsample Probationofﬁcesample

Dutchboys(295) Moroccan-Dutchboys(69) Dutchboys(70) Moroccan-Dutchboys(43)

M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)

Severeviolentoffending 0.07(0.60) 0.17(1.16) 1.17(2.06) 3.14(3.08)

Connectedness

Father’semotionalwarmth 60.99(13.03) 51.94(13.03) 54.54(15.73) 35.79(17.28)

Mother’semotionalwarmth 61.77(11.17) 55.93(14.22) 57.80(14.01) 39.12(14.99)

Childabuse

Sexualabuse 0.19(1.43) 0.07(0.60) 0.65(3.06) 0.23(0.81)

Physicalassault 0.29(1.40) 0.62(2.12) 2.06(4.35) 3.02(4.18)

Psychologicalaggression 0.14(0.59) 0.97(1.71) 0.64(1.39) 2.86(2.05)

ExposuretoIPV 0.32(1.98) 1.58(3.45) 1.80(4.29) 2.86(3.57)

Genderbasedfamilyroles 40.07(11.03) 53.46(11.87) 44.76(10.15) 62.77(14.15)

%(N) %(N) %(N) %(N) Socio-economicstatus Family’swealth veryrich 3.7%(11) 1.4%(1) 7.1%(5) 2.3%(1) quiterich 34.2%(101) 10.1%(7) 37.1%(26) 2.3%(1) mediumrich 56.6%(167) 71.0%(49) 45.7%(32) 48.8%(21) notsorich 4.7%(14) 14.5%(10) 7.1%(5) 30.2%(13) notrich 0.7%(2) 2.9%(2) 2.9%(2) 16.3%(7) Paternalunemployment 5.1%(15) 29%(20) 14.3%(10) 72.1%(31) Maternalunemployment 10.2%(30) 65.2%(45) 24.3%(17) 72.1%(31)

Missingdatawerenotincludedincalculationsofmeans.

presented:thenormedchi-square(NC),theComparativeFitIndex(CFI)andtheRootMeanSquareErrorofApproximation (RMSEA),togetherwiththe90%conﬁdenceintervalfortheRMSEA.Althoughﬁtmeasuresarebasedonsubjective judge-mentsandthereforecannotberegardedasinfallibleorcorrect(Byrne,2010;Iacobucci,2010),recommendedcut-offvalues forthesetestsare:NC≤5.0;CFI≥0.90;RMSEA<0.10(Arbuckle&Wothke,1999;Byrne,2010;HuandBentler,1999;Kline, 1999).

Results

Groupdifferencesandcorrelationbetweenitems

Characteristicsof thestudyparticipants arereportedin Table1. Inboththe schoolsample andthe probationoffice sample,Moroccan-DutchboysreportedcommittingmoresevereviolentactsinthepastyearthantheirDutchpeers.These differenceswerestatisticallysignificantfortheprobationofficesampleonly(t=−3.71,p<0.001).Asforstructuralfactors,the socialcircumstancesofMoroccan-DutchboysareparticularlypoorincomparisonwiththeirDutchpeers:Theyratedtheir familywealthsignificantlylower(2₍₄₎₌_24.34,_p_<_0.001_for_the_school_sample_and2₍₄₎₌_29.67,_p_<_0.001_for_the_probation

ofﬁcesample)andtheproportionoffather’sunemployment(2₍₁₎₌_36.76,_p_<_0.001_for_the_school_sample_and2₍₁₎₌_38.50,

p<0.001fortheprobationofﬁcesample)andmother’sunemployment(2₍₁₎₌_103.59,_p_<_0.001_for_the_school_sample_and

2₍₁₎₌_24.92,_p_<_0.001_for_the_probation_ofﬁce_sample)_was_{signiﬁcantly}_higher.

Further,theMoroccan-Dutchboysratedsignificantlylowerlevelsofpaternalemotionalwarmth(t=4.26,p<0.001forthe schoolsample;t=5.93,p<0.001fortheprobationofficesample)andsignificantlylowerlevelsofmaternalemotionalwarmth (t=3.19,p<0.001fortheschoolsample;t=6.70,p<0.001fortheprobationofficesample)incomparisonwiththeirDutch peers.

Withtheexceptionofsexualabusebyafamilymember,Moroccan-Dutchboysreportedsignificantlymoreexposureto differenttypesofchildabuseincomparisonwiththeirDutchpeers.Inbothsamples,significantdifferencesbetweenthetwo groupswerefoundonlyforpsychologicalaggression(t=−4.00,p<0.001fortheschoolsample;t=−6.25,p<0.001forthe probationofficesample)andexposuretoIPV(t=−2.93,p=0.004fortheschoolsample;t=−1.36,p=0.02fortheprobation officesample).

Finally,inbothsamples,significantdifferencesingenderattitudeswerefound(t=−8.95,p<0.001fortheschoolsample; t=−7.28,p<0.001fortheprobationofficesample),withMoroccan-Dutchboyshavingmoreconventionallydefinedroles comparedtoDutchboys.

(9)

Table2

Correlationsbetweenmeasuredvariables,meansandstandarddeviations.Schoolsampleabovethediagonal,probationofﬁcesamplebelowthediagonal.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M SD Socio-economicstatus 1.Familywealth .30 .19 −.14 −.11 .01 .03 .11 .05 .13 .13 2.Father’sunemployment .58 .41 −.15 −.15 .01 .08 .16 .02 .20 .05 Mother’sunemployment .34 .62 −.21 −.18 −.06 .03 .27 .06 .33 .04 Parentalconnectedness

4.Father’semotionalwarmth −.15 −.31 −.51 .69 −.01 −.08 −.27 −.08 −.21 −.06 59.28 14.18

5.Mother’semotionalwarmth _−.32 _−.36 _−.55 .76 _−.09 _−.16 _−.23 _−.14 _−.19 _−.12 60.66 12.01

Childabuse

6.SexualAbusebyafamilymember .17 .04 .19 −.10 −.07 .21 −.02 .42 −.02 .02 0.16 1.29

7.PhysicalAssault .09 .03 .02 −.08 −.06 .03 .28 .61 .07 .01 0.35 1.56 8.PsychologicalAggression .31 .49 .45 −.45 −.51 −.01 .34 .27 .25 .04 0.30 0.97 9.ExposuretoIPV .18 .28 .36 −.29 −.36 .04 .36 .47 .14 .04 0.55 2.38 10.GenderAttitudes .38 .63 .60 −.60 −.63 −.04 .08 .53 .21 .09 42.61 12.35 11.Violentdelinquency .31 .34 .40 −.48 −.51 .03 .12 .45 .43 .39 0.15 1.01 Mean 47.41 50.69 0.50 2.42 1.49 2.20 51.61 1.92 SD 18.66 16.98 2.46 4.30 1.99 4.04 14.68 2.66

Patternsofcorrelationswerefairlysimilaracrossbothsamples,althougheffectsizeswerestrongerintheprobationofﬁce sample.

Amongallindicators,onlyFamilywealthwassignificantlyassociatedwithsevereviolentoffendingintheschoolsample, whileintheprobationofficesampleallindicators,withtheexceptionofSexualAbuseandPhysicalassaultweresignificantly associated.

Structuralequationmodeling

Testsofmeasurementmodels(latentvariables).

Severeviolentdelinquency. Fourindicatorsofthetendencytocommitsevereviolentoffendingwereused:robberywith assault,assaultwithaweapon,weaponpossession,andrape.Amodelwithalatentvariableloadingonallfourindicators providedacloseapproximateﬁt(2_based_on_p₌_0.984;_RMSEA₌_0.000)._The_measurement_model_was_also_supported_when testedontheprobationofﬁcesample(2basedonp=0.503;RMSEA=0.000).

Socio-economic status. A measurement model that applied three indicators of socio-economic status was supported (CFI=0.988;RMSEA=0.080).Thismeasurementmodelwasalsosupportedwhen testedontheprobation ofﬁce sample (CFI=1.000;RMSEA=0.000).

Parentalconnectedness. Ameasurementmodelthatapplied18indicatorsoffather’semotionalwarmthprovideda reason-ablefit,thoughithadarelativelyhighRMSEAinbothsamples(CFI=0.920;RMSEA=0.082ontheschoolsample;CFI=0.946; RMSEA=0.082 onthe probation office sample). Further, a measurementmodel that applied18 indicatorsof mother’s emotionalwarmthprovidedareasonablefit,thoughithadarelativelyhighRMSEA(CFI=0.893;RMSEA=0.084).Onthe probationofficesample,themeasurementmodelresultedinarelativelyhighRMSEAaswell(CFI=0.920;RMSEA=0.082on theprobationofficesample).

Childabuse. Ameasurementmodelwithalatentvariableloadingonallfourindicatorsprovidedacloseﬁt(2_based_on p=0.286;RMSEA=0.020)whentwotheoreticallyreasonablecorrelationsbetweenresidualvariableswereincluded:(1)a correlationbetweentheresidualvariablesforsexualabusebyafamilymemberandpsychologicalassaultand(2)acorrelation betweentheresidualvariablesforphysicalassaultandpsychologicalassault.Themeasurementmodelwasalsosupported whentestedontheprobationofﬁcesample(p=0.648;RMSEA=0.000).

Genderattitudes. Ameasurementmodelthatappliedtenindicatorsofgender-basedfamilyroleswassupported(CFI=0.966; RMSEA=0.055).Thismeasurementmodelwasalsosupported whentestedonthe probationofﬁce sample(CFI=0.967; RMSEA=0.062).

(10)

N = 477 χ2 = 792.669 df = 220 p = 0.000 R2 = 0.14 Normed chi-square(NC) = 3.603 Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.842

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.074 90% confidence interval for RMSEA = 0.068 to 0.080

SVO .05 GAI .28** .23*** -.16* Child Abuse .01 .43*** Parental Connectedness -.46*** .39*** SES

Fig.2. Severeviolentoffendingseenasdependentonsocio-economicstatus,parentalconnectedness,childabuseandgenderattitudes,fullinformation maximumlikelihoodestimationusingthewholesampleincludingmissingdata.Standardizedestimated.

relatedtoviolentoffendingthansocio-economicstatus(beta=0.01)andgenderattitudes(beta=0.05).Ontheotherhand,if socio-economicstatuswasestimatedasthesolepredictorofsevereviolentoffending,itdemonstratedabeta=0.17. Simi-larly,usingconnectednessasthesoleindicatorgaveabeta=−0.30.Childabuseasthesoleindicatorgaveabeta=0.31.Lastly, ifgenderattitudeswereestimatedasthesolepredictorofsevereviolentoffending,itdemonstratedabeta=0.13.

Theresultsobtainedwiththeschoolsamplewerecomparedwithananalysisoftheprobationofficesample(Table3). Itwasnecessarytousemeasurementvariancebetweentheschoolsampleandtheprobationofficesample,sinceidentical unstandardizedfactorloadingsfortheschoolandprobationofficewerenotsupportedbythedata.Fullinformationmaximum likelihoodestimationthenprovidedaclosefitfortheschoolsample(CFI=0.966;RMSEA=0.055)andamoderatefitforthe probationofficesample(CFI=0.800;RMSEA=0.094).Theregressioncoefficientfor‘socio-economicstatus’loadingon‘severe violentoffending’wassimilarfortheschoolsample(b=0.08)andtheprobationofficesample(b=0.04).Theregressionweight for‘connectedness’loadingonsevereviolentoffending’wassimilaraswell(b=−0.00fortheschoolsample;b=−0.00for theprobationofficesample),whiletheregressionweightfor‘childabuse’on‘severeviolentoffending’becamestatistically significantintheprobationsample(b=0.07,p=0.03).For‘genderattitudes’,theregressioncoefficientwassimilarforboth samples(b=0.02fortheschoolsample;b=0.07fortheprobationofficesample).

(11)

Table3

ThemodelinFig.1usedwiththeschoolsampleandtheprobationofﬁcesample.Fullinformationlikelihoodestimationswithunstandardizedestimates.

Schoolsample Probation-ofﬁcesample

(N=364) (N=113) Socio-economicstatus Family’swealth 1.00a _1.00a Father’sunemployment 0.72*** _0.83*** Mother’sunemployment 1.05*** _0.56*** Parentalconnectedness

Father’semotionalwarmth 1.00a _1.00a

Mother’semotionalwarmth 1.45** _1.00***

Childabuse

ExposuretoIPV 1.00a _1.00a

Sexualabusebyafamilymember 0.24*** _0.08

Physicalassault 0.44*** _0.55** Psychologicalaggression 0.12*** _0.72*** Genderattitudes GAI1 1.00a _1.00a GAI2 1.13*** _0.91*** GAI3 2.66** _1.57*** GAI4 4.18** _1.50*** GAI5 3.53** _1.48*** GAI6 3.12** _1.63*** GAI7 3.88** _1.74*** GAI8 0.26 0.83** GAI9 3.52** _1.48*** GAI10 1.98** _0.94**

Severeviolentoffending

Robberywithassault 1.00a _1.00a

Assaultwithaweapon 1.75*** _1.00*

Weaponpossession 0.03 1.67***

Rape 1.74*** _0.61**

SES_→Severeviolentoffending 0.08 0.04

Connectedness_→Severeviolentoffending _−0.00 _−0.00

Childabuse→Severeviolentoffending 0.00 0.07*

Genderattitudes→Severeviolentoffending 0.02 0.07

SES→Childabuse 0.15 1.50**

SES→Genderattitudes 0.64* _0.70**

Childabuse→Genderattitudes 0.01 0.166*

Connectedness→Childabuse −0.04** _−0.08***

2 _456.073 _437.988

df 220 220

p 0.000 0.000

Normedchi-square(NC) 2.073 1.991

Comparativeﬁtindex(CFI) 0.925 0.800

Rootmeansquareerrorofapproximation(RMSEA) 0.054 0.094

RMSEAconf.interval,lowerbound 0.047 0.081

RMSEAconf.interval,upperbound 0.061 0.107

a _Fixed_to_{unstandardized}_value_of₁_to_identify_the_model_(which_implies_that_no_{signiﬁcance}_test_of_this_individual_parameter_is_provided). * _p_<_0.05.

** _p_<_0.01. ***_p_<_0.001.

only exogenousvariable(see Fig.3),thustestingethnicityasapredictorofsocio-economicstatus,connectedness,child abuse,andgenderattitudes,whilealltheseﬁvevariableswereusedtopredictsevereviolentoffending.

Intheschoolsample,theSEM-basedanalysiswithonlyethnicity(Dutch=1)predictingthelatentvariable‘severeviolent offending’foundasmallassociation:beta=0.05(seeTable4).Theestimatedweightofethnicitywasreducedwhen socio-economicstatusand connectednesswasaccountedfor,beta=0.04;extendingthe modelfurther byalsoincludingchild abusedidnotimprovetheexplanationofethnicdifferences,beta=0.02.However,ethnicitydidhaveasigniﬁcanteffect onallremainingpredictorvariables:socio-economicstatus(beta=0.69,p<0.001);connectedness(beta=−0.27,p<0.001); childabuse(beta=0.31,p<0.001),andgenderattitudes(beta=0.29,p=0.03).Sincethecompletemodel(Fig.2)accounted foronly1%ofthevarianceofsevereviolentoffending,nofurtheranalyseswereperformedontheschoolsample.

(12)

sta-SVO GAI Child Abuse Parental Connectedness SES Ethnicity

Fig.3.Severeviolentoffendingseenasdependentonethnicity,socio-economicstatus,parentalconnectedness,childabuseandgenderattitudes.

tus(beta=0.67,p<0.001)andconnectedness(beta=−0.59,p<0.001).Furthermore,socio-economicstatushadasigniﬁcant effectonbothchildabuse(beta=0.35,p=0.02)andgenderattitudes(beta=0.68,p<0.001).Connectednesshadasigniﬁcant effectonchildabuseaswell(beta=−0.34,p=0.01).Explainedvarianceofsevereviolentoffendingwashigh(R2=0.61).

Alternative models were tested by hierarchical 2_. _Both _the _direct _path _from _ethnicity _on _severe _violent

offend-ing(2₌_1.59,_p_>_0.05)_and _the_direct_path_from _{socio-economic}_status_on_severe _violent_offending _could_be_released

Table4

SEM-modelstestingtheimpactofethnicityonalatentvariableofviolentoffending,withfullinformationmaximumlikelihoodestimations(standardized estimates):schoolsample.

Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5

Ethnicity(Dutch=1) 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03 Socio-economicstatus 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 Parentalconnectedness −0.08 −0.09 −0.09 Childabuse 0.01 0.02 Genderattitudes 0.02 R2 _0.00 _0.00 _0.01 _0.01 _0.01 Ethnicity_→SES 0.69*** Ethnicity→Connectedness −0.27***

Ethnicity→Childabuse 0.31***

Ethnicity→Genderattitudes 0.29*

2 _4.263 _42.104 _58.633 _173.104 _482.73 df 5 18 31 69 239 p 0.512 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 Normedchi-square(NC) 0.853 2.339 1.891 2.509 2.020 CFI 1.000 0.984 0.984 0.951 0.927 RMSEA 0.000 0.061 0.050 0.064 0.053

RMSEAconf.interval,lowerbound 0.000 0.037 0.030 0.053 0.046

RMSEAconf.interval,upperbound 0.067 0.085 0.069 0.077 0.060

(13)

Table5

SEM-modelstestingtheimpactofethnicityonalatentvariableofviolentoffending,withfullinformationmaximumlikelihoodestimations(standardized estimates):probationofﬁcesample.

Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4 Model5

Ethnicity(Dutch=1) 0.38* _0.13 _0.13 _0.17 _0.18 Socio-economicstatus 0.38* _0.28 _0.16 _0.34 Parentalconnectedness −0.58** _−0.46** _−0.53** Childabuse 0.40* _0.38** Genderattitudes 0.26 R2 _0.15 _0.23 _0.42 _0.56 _0.61 Ethnicity_→SES 0.67*** Ethnicity_→Connectedness _−0.59***

Ethnicity_→Childabuse 0.13

Ethnicity→Genderattitudes 0.12

2 _6.564 _28.482 _67.210 _161.02 _455.015 df 5 18 31 69 239 p 0.255 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 Normedchi-square(NC) 1.313 1.582 2.178 2.334 1.904 CFI 0.967 0.950 0.907 0.831 0.810 RMSEA 0.053 0.072 0.083 0.109 0.089

RMSEAconf.interval,lowerbound 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.087 0.077

RMSEAconf.interval,upperbound 0.149 0.120 0.130 0.131 0.102

* _p_<_0.05. ** _p_<_0.01. ***_p_<_0.001.

(2₌_2.25,_p_>_0.05)._However,_neither_the_direct_path_from_{connectedness}_on_severe_violent_offending,_nor_the_path_from

childabuseonsevereviolentoffendingcouldbereleased(p<0.001inbothcases).Asfortheindirectpaths,boththe indi-rect pathfrom ethnicityonsevere violentoffending throughchild abuse (2₌_0.932,_p_>_0.05)_as_well _as_the _indirect

pathfromethnicitythrough genderattitudes(2₌_0.828,_p_>_0.05)_could_be_released._Likewise,_the_indirect_path_from

childabusethroughgenderattitudescouldbereleased(2₌_2.39,_p_>_0.05)._All_other_indirect_paths_could_not_be_released

(p<0.001inbothcases).SEMfoundthatthealternativemodel(seeFig.4)providedareasonableﬁt(NC=1.889;CFI=0.810; RMSEA=0.089)andexplained63%ofthevarianceofsevereviolentoffending.

Discussion

Juvenileviolentoffendingamongadolescentboyswithaminoritybackgroundisreportedtobeasignificantproblem in severalcountries,includingtheNetherlands.Thisstudyfocusesonassessingtheintersectionalityofethnicity, socio-economicstatus,parentalconnectedness,childabuse,andgenderattitudesinjuvenileviolentdelinquency.Ratherthan relyingonanitem-levelanalysis,thisstudyappliedstructuralequationmodeling,analyzingtherelationbetweenlatent variables.Four indicatorsofthe tendencytocommitsevere violentoffending wereused: (1)robbery withassault; (2) assaultwithaweapon;(3)weaponpossession;and(4)rape.Confirmatoryfactoranalysisfoundthatthesefouritemscould beusedasindicatorsofonelatentconstruct,whichitselfisnoteworthy.Consideringthehighintercorrelationsamongthese fourindicators,itcouldbesuggestedthatprobationofficersshouldtakeanysevereviolentactasawarningthattheseboys maybeinvolvedinevenmoreseriousviolentoffending.Probationofficersarewellplacedtocounteractviolentoffending amongboys.

Ourresultsbuildupontheextantliteratureinseveralways.First,thisstudydemonstratesthatinboththeschoolsample aswellastheprobationofficesampleMoroccan-DutchboysreportedcommittingmoresevereviolentactsthantheirDutch peers.However,thesedifferenceswerestatisticallysignificantfortheprobationofficesampleonly.

Second,this studydemonstratedethnicdifferencesinlevelsof (exposureto)structural,cultural,andindividualrisk factors.Asforstructuralfactors,thesocialcircumstancesofMoroccan-Dutchboyswereparticularlypoorincomparison withtheirDutchpeers:Theyratedtheirfamilywealthlower,andtheproportionofparentalunemploymentwas signifi-cantlyhigher.Additionally,significantdifferencesingenderattitudeswerefound,withMoroccan-Dutchboyshavingmore conventionallydefinedrolescomparedtoDutchboys.Furthermore,Moroccan-Dutchboysratedsignificantlylower lev-elsofpaternalemotionalwarmthandsignificantlylowerlevelsofmaternalemotionalwarmth.Finally,inbothsamples, Moroccan-DutchboysreportedsignificantlymoreexposuretochildabusethantheirDutchpeers.Insum,incomparison withtheirDutchpeers,Moroccan-Dutchboysexperiencemoreriskfactorsforinvolvementinsevereviolentoffending.

(14)

N = 113

Normed chi-square(NC) = 1.889

Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.810

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.089 90% confidence interval for RMSEA = 0.077 to 0.100

Violent offending GAI Child Abuse Parental Connectedness SES Ethnicity .12 -.39* .55** .45*** _-.39*** -.59*** .70*** .77***

Fig.4. Severeviolentoffendingseenasdependentonsocio-economicstatus,parentalconnectedness,childabuseandgenderattitudes,fullinformation maximumlikelihoodestimationusingtheprobationofﬁcesampleincludingmissingdata.

reportedcommittingatleastoneactofsevereviolentoffending.However,theSEM-basedanalysiswiththeprobationoffice sampledidsupporttheproposedmodel,explaining63%ofthevarianceofsevereviolentoffending.Inaddition,itsuggested that parentalconnectednessandchildabusehadasignificantlystrongereffectonsevereviolentoffendingthangender attitudesandsocio-economicstatus.Inotherwords, theanalysisoftheprobationofficesampleindicatednoadditional effectonthedependentvariablefromsocio-economicstatus.Thus,familyinteractionsdemonstratedstrongassociations withsevereviolentoffending.Asexpected,thesurveysupportedboththeoreticalandempiricalresearchrecognizingthe familyasanimportantinfluenceonviolentoffending(forareview,seeBowlby,1969;Hoeveetal.,2008).However,while familyfunctioningwassignificantlybetteratpredictingsevereviolentoffending,theanalysisstillfoundanestimatedeffect ofsocio-economicstatusonfamilyfunctioning,i.e.,childabuse.Therefore,anotherconclusiontobedrawnfromthisstudy is thatsocio-economic statusmay berelevantas anadditionalvariablepredicting severeviolentoffending.Poorsocial conditionscontribute directlytochildabuse (Dettlaffetal.,2011; Faganetal., 2007;Messner,Raffalovich,&McMillan, 2001)andindirectlytoyouthviolence(Demuth&Brown,2004;Gouldetal.,2002;Pratt,2001),i.e.,theconnectionbetween poorsocialconditionsandsevereviolentoffendinginthisparticularsubsampleappeartoapplythroughchildabuse.Gender attitudescontributedfurthertoexplainingsevereviolentoffendingintheprobationofficesample.

Followingpreviousresearch(seeLahlahetal.,2013a),afourthadditionthatourstudyofferstotheexistingbodyof liter-ature,isourﬁndingthatsocio-economicstatus,connectedness,childabuseandgenderattitudescouldexplainasubstantial proportionofthedifferencesbetweenDutchandMoroccan-Dutchboyscommittingsevereviolentacts.Assuggestedby

(15)

wereaccountedfor.Still,ethnicityaddedsignificantlytotheexplanationofsevereviolentoffendingthroughsocio-economic statusandconnectedness.ThefirstMoroccanimmigrantsmostlycametotheNetherlandsforeconomicreasons.However, asaconsequenceoftheeconomichardshipsoftheoilcrisesandtheindustrialrestructuringinthe1980s(Crul&Doomernik, 2003;Laghzaoui,2009),manyofthefirstimmigrantslosttheirjobsandstayedoutsidetheDutchlabormarket,amongothers duetolowlevelsofeducation.Todate,Moroccan-DutchfamiliesstillliveinlowSESneighborhoodswithahighimmigrant density thanDutchfamilies(Boom etal.,2010;CBS,2012). Thissuggests thattheunfavorableconditionsof Moroccan-Dutchboysareprobablyduetothepresenceofseveralsocio-economicstressorsinthefamily,suchaslowlevelsofparental employmentofbothparentsandlowlevelofeducationalattainmentofparentsandchild(Dagevos&Gijsberts,2007),rather thanethnicityperse.Inaddition,thepresenceofthesestressorsmayleadtoahigherriskofchildabuseexposure,resulting insevereviolentoffending.Indeed,thisstudyshowsthatthehigherratesofchildabuseamongMoroccan-Dutchboysis relatedtotheexposureofseveralriskfactorsassociatedwithchildabuse,primaryamongthesebeingalowsocio-economic status.Thisisinlinewithpreviousresearchdemonstratingconsiderableevidencethatchildabuseoccursdisproportionately amonglowSESfamilies(forexampleseeDettlaffetal.,2011;Faganetal.,2007;Messner,Raffalovich,&McMillan,2001).This isparticularlyrelevanttounderstandingdifferencesinchildabuseexposureasMoroccan-Dutchfamiliesaresignificantly morelikelyasDutchfamiliestoliveinpoverty.

Arathersimilarmechanismmayapplytotherelationshipbetweenethnicityandparentalconnectedness.Althoughthe findingsofthis studydemonstrateethnicdifferencesinthe degreetowhichDutchandMoroccan-Dutchboys perceive theirrelationshipwiththeirparents,withMoroccan-Dutchboysreportinglowerlevelsofparentalemotionalwarmth,and althoughtheresultsofthisstudyindicatethesignificanceofconnectednessinsevereviolentoffending,supportingavast bodyof researchthatidentifiesthe importanceofthisvariable(Davalosetal., 2005;Eichelsheimet al.,2010),research oftenconsiderstheindividualfamilyinisolationfromitssocialsettingandoverlooksthewaythefamilyinteractswith itssocialsetting.Itseemsreasonabletoexpectthatparentingwillbeharderwhereparentshaveexpectationsthatdiffer from thoseoftheirsocialsettingingeneralandtheirchildreninparticular,andsimilarlyeasierwherethereis concor-dance between ‘normal’behavior within and outside the family (Lahlah et al., 2013c). This might beparticularly true forMoroccan-Dutchchildrenwithparentswhofailtoprovidesufficienthelpandsupportiflackof resourcesand their socialsetting make itdifficult tomake amore effectiveeffort.The discrepancybetween the parents’ andadolescents’ expectationsand/orpreferencesmightcauseconflictfortheadolescent,whichmayresultinanegativeinfluenceonthe parent-childrelationshiporevenresultinchildabuse,which,inturn,resultsinhigherriskofinvolvementinsevereviolent offending.

Conclusions

(16)

betterunderstandingof(economic)inequalitiesandtheimplicationsofthemultidimensionalimpactoffamilystressorson violentoffending.

Implications

CounselorsshoulddevelopadifferentapproachappropriatetoethnicminorityyouthsingeneralandMoroccan-Dutch boysin particular.Inlinewithbothcross-culturalandmulticulturalresearch,this studymakes itclearthat thereisno one-size-fits-allexplanationfortheoverrepresentationofethnicminoritiesinjuvenileviolentoffending.Preventionand interventionprogramsbasedontheexperiencesofadolescentswhodonotsharethesameethnicbackgroundandsocial classwillbeoflimitedutilityforthosewhoselivesareshapedbyadifferentsetofobstacles.Consequently,juvenileoffenders fromdifferentbackgroundsrequiredifferentinterventionsaswell.Theseinterventionsshouldfocusontheunderlyingand intersectingstructuralconditionsofpoverty,marginalization,discriminationwiththemeanstosignificantlychangethe boys’situationsandthatoftheirfamilies.Additionally,interventionsdesignedtocombatjuvenileviolenceshouldbelinked tostrategiesthatcombatviolencewithincommunities(childabuse/domesticviolence).Onewithouttheotherisinadequate, sincethisstudyshowsthatthetwoarecloselyconnected.Furthermore,practitionersshouldfurthertheirunderstandingof diverseethnicgroupssothattheycanbealerttothewaysinwhichethnicdifferencesmayaffecttheassessmentofjuvenile violentoffending.Forexample,Moroccan-Dutchboysaregenerallysocializedtobemachoordomineeringinaccordance withtheculturalconceptofmachismo(Lahlahetal.,2013b).Suchconfininggenderroles,incombinationwithcultural prohibitionsagainstdisclosing(child)abusetooutsiders,mayresultinreluctanceofmanyMoroccanstoreportabuseto counselors.Practitionersneedtobeawareofsuchethnicallyspecificbarrierstohelp-seekingamongdifferentethnicgroups. However,theauthorswouldliketostressthatontheotherhand,practitionersshouldbewaryoffacilecategorizationsof juvenileoffendersbasedonethnicity.Althoughbelongingtoanethnicminoritygroupholdssomeinherentrisks,thoserisks andtheresultingstressorsmaybemitigatedbystrengthsandotheruniquecircumstanceswithineachfamily.

Limitationsofthisstudy

Severallimitationsofthe researchdesign shouldbenoted. Mostimportantly,conclusionsarebased onself-reports. Althoughconcernsabouttherelativemeritsofself-reporteddelinquencyandofficial statisticsexist(Juby& Farrington, 2001),self-reportmeasuresprovideawidelypreferredmethodofmeasuringjuveniledelinquencyinresearch(Thornberry &Krohn,2000;Wells&Rankin,1991).Whereasrelianceonofficialreportsmightintroducelayersofpotentialbiasbetween the actualbehaviorandthedata(e.g.,asubstantialamountofcrimeisnotreported,andevencrimesthatarereported orbroughttotheattentionoflawenforcementofficersareoftennotofficiallyrecorded),self-reportsofdelinquencyare consideredas the datasource nearest tothe actualbehavior(Thornberry& Krohn,2000). However,in similarstudies, datamayalsohavebeenaffectedbyaquitedifferentvalidityproblemthansociallydesirableresponding:Someboysmay haveenjoyedreportingfrequentactsofviolentoffendingwhenthis infactdidnottakeplaceorwaslessfrequent.This potentialmethodologicalproblemwasaddressedbyseveralmeans:Fifteenquestionnairesthatappearedtobeunreliable wereexcluded;scoresabove100foraspecificactofsevereviolentoffendingweredefinedasmissing;andfinallyeach offendingwasrecodedintoa7-pointscale.Second,thestudy’srelianceoncross-sectionaldatalimitscausalinferences. Withoutlongitudinaldata,temporalorderingofthevariablescannotbedetermined,norcanethnicdifferencesbeassessed in individual pathwaystoviolentoffending. Thisweakenscausalanalyses. Itmay verywellbethat aboy’sdelinquent behaviorhasledparentstobecomemorecontrollingandstrictortowithdrawemotionally.

Acknowledgments

Theauthorsoffertheirheartfeltthankstotheboyswhohaveallowedthemtomakeuseoftheirstoriesandtonotethat, withoutthem,thisstudywouldnothavebeenpossible.TheauthorsalsothankBahadirBahtiyarandFayrouzElMohammadi fortheirhelpfulresearchassistance.

References

Agnew,R.(1992).Foundationofageneralstraintheoryofcrimeanddelinquency.Criminology,30,47–88.

AitOuarasse,O.,&vandeVijver,F.J.R.(2005).Theroleofdemographicvariablesandacculturationattitudesinpredictingsocioculturalandpsychological

adaptationinMoroccansintheNetherlands.InternationalJournalofInterculturalRelations,29,251–272.

Alink,L.,VanIJzendoorn,R.,Bakermans-Kranenburg,M.,Pannebakker,F.,Vogels,T.,&Euser,S.(2011).KindermishandelinginNederlandAnno2010.De

tweedenationaleprevalentiestudiemishandelingvankinderenenjeugdigen(NPM-2010).Leiden,theNetherlands:CasimirPublishers.

Andrew,P.,Russo,M.,Sommer,D.,&Yaeger,P.(1992).Nationalismsandsexualities.London:Routledge.

Anthias,F.,&Yuval-Davis,N.(1992).Racializedboundaries:Race,nation,gender,colourandclassandanti-raciststruggle.London:Routledge.

Arbuckle,J.L.(1996).Fullinformationestimationinthepresenceofincompletedata.InG.A.Marcoulides,&R.E.Schumackers(Eds.),Advancedstructural

equationmodeling.Issuesandtechniques.Maheah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Arbuckle,J.L.,&Wothke,W.(1999).Amos4.0.users’guide.Chicago,IL:SmallWatersCorporation.

Ashmore,R.D.,DelBoca,F.K.,&Bilder,S.M.(1995).Constructionandvalidationofthegenderattitudeinventory,astructuredinventorytoassessmultiple

dimensionsofgenderattitudes.SexRoles,32,753–785.

Baier,D.,&Pfeiffer,C.(2008).DisintegrationandviolenceamongmigrantsinGermany:TurkishandRussianyouthsversusGermanyouths.NewDirections

(17)

Baskin-Sommers,A.R.,Baskin,D.R.,Sommers,I.B.,&Newman,J.P.(2013).Theintersectionalityofsex,race,andpsychopathalogyinpredictingviolent crimes.CriminalJusticeandBehavior,http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854813485412

Berry,J.W.(1997).Immigration,acculturationandadaptation.AppliedPsychology,46,20–34.

Bogaerts,S.,Vanheule,S.,&Desmet,M.(2006).Feelingsofsubjectiveemotionalloneliness:Anattachmentexploration.SocialBehaviorandPersonality,34, 797–812.

Boom,de,J.,Weltevrede,A.,vanWensveen,P.,vanSan,M.,&Hermus,P.(2010).MarokkaanseNederlanders2010.Eennulmetingvanhunpositieopdeterreinen

vanonderwijs,arbeidenuitkeringencriminaliteitin22gemeenten.Rotterdam:Risbo,ErasmusUniversiteit.

Bowlby,J.(1969).Attachmentandloss.Vol.1.Attachment.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Bratt,C.(2004).FightFightsamongadolescentsfromtheethnicmajorityandfromimmigrantgroups:Theimpactofalcoholconsumptionandparticipation

inYouthbasedout-of-homeactivities.ActaSociologica,47,7–29.

Broekhuizen,J.,&Driessen,F.M.H.M.(2006).VanjevriendenmoetjehethebbenStructureleencultureledeterminantenvandejeugdcriminaliteit.Utrecht:

BureauDriessen.

Byrne,B.M.(2010).StructuralequationmodelingwithAMOS.Basicconcepts,applications,andprogramming.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

CBS(CentraalbureauvoordeStatistiek)(2012).URL:http://www.cbs.nl

Chou,C.-P.,&Bentler,P.M.(1995).Estimatesandtestsinstructuralequationmodeling.InR.H.Hoyle(Ed.),Structuralequationmodeling.Concepts,issues,

andapplications.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Collins,P.H.(1989).Thesocialconstructionofblackfeministthought.Signs,14,745–773.

Collins,P.H.(2000).Thetiethatbinds:Race,gender,andUSviolence.EthnicandRacialStudies,21,918–938.

Crenshaw,K.(1989).Demarginalizingtheintersectionofraceandsex:ABlackfeministcritiqueofantidiscriminationdoctrine,feministtheoryandantiracist

politics.TheUniversityofChicagoLegalForum,139,139.

Crul,M.,&Doomernik,J.(2003).TheTurkishandMoroccansecondgenerationintheNetherlands:Divergenttrendsbetweenpolarizationwithinthetwo

group.InternationalMigrationReview,37,1039–1064.

Crul,M.,&Heering,L.(2008).ThepositionoftheTurkishandMoroccansecondgenerationinAmsterdamandRotterdam:TheTIESstudyintheNetherlands.

Leiden:LeidenUniversityPress.

Dagevos,J.,&Gijsberts,M.(2007).JaarrapportIntegratie2007.DenHaag:SCP.

Davalos,D.B.,Chavez,E.L.,&Guardiola,R.J.(2005).Effectsofperceivedparentalschoolsupportandfamilycommunicationondelinquentbehaviorsin

LatinosandWhitenon-Latinos.CulturalDiversityandEthnicMinorityPsychology,11,57–68.

DeJong,J.D.A.(2007).Kapotmoeilijk:Eenetnograﬁschonderzoeknaaropvallenddelinquentgroepsgedragvan‘Marokkaanse’jongens.Amsterdam:Aksant.

Dekovic,M.,Wissink,I.B.,&Meijer,A.(2004).Theroleoffamilyandpeerrelationsinadolescentandantisocialbehaviour:Comparisonoffourethnic

groups.JournalofAdolescence,27,497–514.

Demuth,S.,&Brown,S.L.(2004).Familystructure,familyprocesses,andadolescentdelinquency:Thesigniﬁcanceofparentalabsenceversusparental

gender.JournalofResearchinCrimeandDelinquency,41,58–81.

Dettlaff,A.J.,Rivaux,S.L.,Baumann,D.J.,Fluke,J.D.,Rycraft,J.R.,&James,J.(2011).Disentanglingsubstantiation:Theinﬂuenceofrace,income,andrisk

onthesubstantiationdecisioninchildwelfare.ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,33,1630–1637.

Douglas,E.M.,&Straus,M.A.(2006).Assaultandinjuryofdatingpartnersbyuniversitystudentsin19countriesanditsrelationtocorporalpunishment

experiencedasachild.EuropeanJournalofCriminology,3,293–318.

Eichelsheim,V.I.,Buist,K.L.,Dekovic,M.,Wissink,I.B.,Frijns,T.,VanLier,P.A.C.,Koot,H.M.,&Meeus,W.H.J.(2010).Associationsamongtheparent–child

relationship,aggressionanddelinquencyindifferentethnicgroups.SocialPsychiatryandPsychiatricEpidemiology,45,293–300.

Engen,R.,Steen,S.,&Bridges,G.(2002).Racialdisparitiesinthepunishmentofyouth:Atheoreticalandempiricalassessmentoftheliterature.Social

Problems,49,194–220.

Enzmann,D.,&Wetzels,P.(2003).Ethnicdifferencesinjuveniledelinquency:Theroleofviolencelegitimizingnormsofmasculinity.InF.Dünkel,&K.

Drenkhahn(Eds.),Youthviolence:Newpatternsandlocalresponses–experiencesinEastandWest.Mönchengladbach:ForumVerlagGodesberg.

Esterle-Hedibel,M.(2001).YouthgangsinFrance:Asocio-ethnographicapproach.InM.W.Klein,H.J.Kerner,C.L.Maxson,&E.G.M.Weitekamp(Eds.),

TheEurogangparadox:StreetgangsandyouthgroupsintheU.S.andEurope.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Fagan,A.A.,VanHorn,M.L.,Hawkins,J.,&Arthur,M.W.(2007).Gendersimilaritiesanddifferencesintheassociationbetweenriskandprotectivefactors

andself-reportedseriousdelinquency.PreventionScience,8,115–124.

Ferrari,A.M.(2002).Theimpactofcultureuponchildrearingpracticesanddeﬁnitionsofmaltreatment.ChildAbuse&Neglect,26,793–813.

Finkelhor,D.,Turner,H.A.,Ormrod,R.K.,&Hamby,S.L.(2005).Thevictimizationofchildren&youth:Acomprehensive,nationalsurvey.ChildMaltreatment,

10,5–25.

Flores,J.R.(2002).Trendsinjuvenileviolentoffending:Ananalysisofvictimsurveydata.Bulletin.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfﬁceofJustice

Programs,OfﬁceofJuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention.

Gerlsma,C.,Arrindell,W.,VanderVeen,N.,&Emmelkamp,P.M.G.(1991).Aparentalrearingstylequestionnaireforusewithadolescents:Psychometric

evaluationoftheEMBU-A.JournalofPersonalityandIndividualDifferences,12,1245–1253.

Gostomski,B.C.,&von.(2003).Gewaltalsreaktionaufanerkennungsdeﬁzite?[Forceasreactiontoacknowledgementdeﬁcits].KölnerZeitschriftfürSoziologie

undSozialpsychologie,55,253–277.

Gould,E.,Weinberg,B.,&Mustard,D.B.(2002).CrimeratesandlocallabormarketopportunitiesintheUnitedStates:1977–1997.ReviewofEconomicsand

Statistics,84,45–61.

Hoeve,M.,Blokland,A.,Dubas,J.S.,Loeber,R.,Gerris,J.R.M.,&VanderLaan,P.H.(2008).Trajectoriesofdelinquencyandparentingstyles.Journalof

AbnormalChildPsychology,36,223–235.

Hoyle,R.H.,&Panter,A.T.(1995).Writingaboutstructuralequationmodels.InR.H.Hoyle(Ed.),Structuralequationmodeling.Concepts,issues,and

applications.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Hu,L.,&Bentler,P.M.(1999).Cutoffcriteriaforﬁtindexesincovariancestructureanalysis:Conventionalcriteriaversusnewalternatives.StructuralEquation

Modeling:AMultidisciplinaryJournal,6,1–55.

Iacobucci,D.(2010).Structuralequationsmodeling:Fitindices,samplesize,andadvancedtopics.JournalofConsumerPsychology,20,90–98.

Jennissen,R.P.W.,Blom,M.,&Oosterwaal,A.(2009).Geregistreerdecriminaliteitalsindicatorvandeintegratievanniet-Westerseallochtonen.Mensen

Maatschappij,84.

Juby,H.,&Farrington,D.P.(2001).Disentanglingthelinkbetweendisruptedfamiliesanddelinquency.BritishJournalofCriminology,41,22–40.

Kline,P.(1999).Handbookofpsychologicaltesting(2nded.).London:Routledge.

Komen,M.(2002).Dangerouschildren:JuveniledelinquencyandjudicialinterventionintheNetherlands,1960–1995.Crime,Law&SocialChange,37, 379–401.

Lahlah,A.,VanderKnaap,L.M.,&Bogaerts,S.(2013).Dangerousboysorboysindanger.Examiningtherelationshipbetweenethnicity,childabuseand violentoffending.EuropeanJournalofCriminoloy,http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477370812467570

Lahlah,A.,Lens,K.M.E.,VanderKnaap,L.M.,&Bogaerts,S.(2013).ThetroublewithMoroccan-Dutchboys.Reﬂectionsonethnicityandjuvenile(violent)

delinquency:Aliteraturereview.InternationalCriminalJusticeReview,inpreparation

Lahlah,A.,VanderKnaap,L.M.,Bogaerts,S.,&Lens,K.M.E.(2013b).Makingmenoutofboys?Violentdelinquencyasaresponsetoapproachingmanhood. JournalofCross-CulturalPsychology,http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022022113480041

Lahlah,A.,VanderKnaap,L.M.,Bogaerts,S.,&Lens,K.M.E.(2013c).TheeffectofperceivedparentingonjuvenileviolentdelinquencyofDutchand Moroccan-Dutchboys.JournalofChildandFamilyStudies,http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9725-2

(18)

Lamers-Winkelman,F.,Slot,N.W.,Bijl,B.,&Vijlbrief,A.C.(2007).Scholierenovermishandeling.Resultatenvaneenlandelijkonderzoeknaardeomvangvan

kindermishandelingonderleerlingenvanhetvoortgezetonderwijs.Amsterdam/Duivendrecht:VU,PIResearch.

Loeber,R.,Pardini,D.,Homish,D.L.,Crawford,A.M.,Farrington,D.P.,Stouthamer-Loeber,M.,Creemers,J.,Koehler,S.A.,&Rosenfeld,R.(2005).The

predictionofviolenceandhomicideinyoungmen.JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,73,1074–1088.

Low,S.M.,&Stocker,C.(2005).Familyfunctioningandchildren’sadjustment:Associationsamongparents’depressedmood,maritalhostility,parent–child

hostility,andchildren’sadjustment.JournalofFamilyPsychology,19,394–403.

McCall,L.(2005).Thecomplexityofintersectionality.JournalofWomeninCultureandSociety,30,1771–1800.

McCarter,S.A.(2009).LegalandextralegalfactorsaffectingminorityoverrepresentationinVirginia’sjuvenilejusticesystem:Amixed-methodstud.Child

AdolescentSocialWorkJournal,26,533–544.

Messner,S.,Raffalovich,L.,&McMillan,R.(2001).Economicdeprivationandchangesinhomicidearrestratesforwhiteandblackyouths1967–1998:A

nationaltimeseriesanalysis.Criminology,39,591–613.

Nisbett,R.E.,&Cohen,D.(1996).Cultureofhonor:ThepsychologyofviolenceintheSouthBoulder.CO:Westview.

Palmer,E.J.,&Hollin,C.R.(2001).Sociomoralreasoning,perceptionsofparentingandself-reporteddelinquencyinadolescents.AppliedCognitivePsychology,

15,85–100.

Pope,C.,&Snyder,H.(2003).Raceasafactorinjuvenilearrests.Bulletin.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofJustice,OfﬁceofJusticePrograms,Ofﬁceof

JuvenileJusticeandDelinquencyPrevention.

Pratt,T.C.(2001).Assessingtherelativeeffectsofmacro-levelpredictorsofcrime:Ameta-analysis.Cincinnati,OH:UniversityofCincinnati.

Put,J.,&Walgrave,L.(2006).Belgium:Fromprotectiontowardsaccountability.InJ.Muncie,&B.Goldson(Eds.),Comparativeyouthjustice:Criticalissues.

London:Sage.

Reid,J.B.,Patterson,G.R.,&Snyder,J.(2002).Antisocialbehaviorinchildrenandadolescents:Adevelopmentalanalysisandmodelforintervention.Washington,

DC:AmericanPsychiatricAssociation.

Rossiter,M.J.,&Rossiter,K.R.(2009).Diamondsintherough:Bridginggapsinsupportsforat-riskimmigrantandrefugeeyouth.JournalofInternational

MigrationandIntegration,10,409–429.

Stahl,A.,Finnegan,T.,&Kang,W.(2007).Easyaccesstojuvenilecourtstatistics:1985–2004.NationalJuvenileCourtDataArchive:JuvenileCourtCaseRecords, 1985–2004.

Stouthamer-Loeber,M.,Wei,E.,Homish,D.L.,&Loeber,R.(2002).Whichfamilyanddemographicfactorsarerelatedtobothmaltreatmentandpersistent

seriousdelinquency?ChildrenServices:SocialPolicy,Research,andPractice,5,261–272.

Straus,M.A.,Hamby,S.,Finkelhor,D.,Moore,D.W.,&Runyan,D.(1998).Identiﬁcationofchildmaltreatmentwiththeparent–childconﬂicttacticsscales:

DevelopmentandpsychometricdataforanationalsampleofAmericanparents.ChildAbuse&Neglect,22,249–270.

Swanson,H.Y.,Parkinson,P.N.,O’Toole,B.I.,Plunkett,A.M.,Schrimpton,S.,&Oates,R.K.(2003).Juvenilecrime,aggressionanddelinquencyaftersexual

abuse.Alongitudinalstudy.BritishJournalofCriminology,43,729–749.

Thornberry,T.P.,&Krohn,M.D.(2000).Theself-reportmethodformeasuringdelinquencyandcrime.CriminalJustice,4,33–83.

VanderLaan,A.M.,&Blom,M.(2011).JuvenileDelinquencyinthePeriod1996–2010.Developmentswithregardtoself-reportedoffenders,suspectsarrested

bythepolice,andprosecutedoffendersonthebasisoftheJuvenileCrimeMonitor2010.DenHaag:WODC/CBS.Cahier2011-2.

Vazsonyi,A.T.,&Pickering,L.E.(2003).Theimportanceoffamilyandschooldomainsinadolescentdeviance:AfricanAmericanandCaucasianyouth.

JournalofYouthandAdolescence,32,115–128.

Veen,V.C.,Stevens,G.W.J.M.,Doreleijers,T.A.H.,Dekovic,M.,Pels,T.,&Vollebergh,W.A.M.(2011).Ethnicdifferencesinthemother–sonrelationship

ofincarceratedandnon-incarceratedmaleadolescentsintheNetherlands.ChildandAdolescentPsychiatryandMentalHealth,5,23.

Wells,L.E.,&Rankin,J.H.(1991).Familiesanddelinquency:Ameta-analysisoftheimpactofbrokenhomes.SocialProblems,38,71–93.

West,S.G.,Finch,J.F.,&Curran,P.J.(1995).Structuralequationmodelswithnonormalvariables.Problemsandremedies.InR.H.Hoyle(Ed.),Structural

equationmodeling.Concepts,issues,andapplications.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Widom,C.S.(1989a).Doesviolencebegetsviolence?Acriticalexaminationoftheliterature.PsychologicalBulletin,106,3–28.

Widom,C.S.(1989b).Thecycleofviolence.Science,244,160–166.

Wothke,W.(2000).Longitudinalandmultigroupmodelingwithmissingdata.InT.D.Little,K.U.Schnabel,&J.Baumert(Eds.),Modelinglongitudinaland