A Latent Class Analysis

In the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency “A Latent Class Analysis Of Family Characteristics Linked To Youth Offending Outcomes” written by several authors Grace S. Chng, Chi Meng Chu, Gerald Zeng, Dongdong Li, and Ming Hwa Ting focuses on how family backgrounds does matter if a youth becomes an offender. The article focuses on how common family risk factors are related to the outcome of youth offending recidivism. Shows how the family background does contribute to wither a youth turns into an offender. According to the authors Chng, Chu, Zeng, Li, and Ting they stated that “Therefore, the effects of parental problems such as divorce, marital conflict, high work stress, and so on, are often not contained to the parent but spills
over into the surrounds of the child”. There were several approaches that were taken in order to prove that family background does have a big influence if a kid becomes an offender. To start off, the research study consisted of a total of 3,744 youth that had a record of courts orders or who were charged between January 2004 and December 2008. There was a specific age group required in order to apply with the research. The age group based on the ages of 12 and 18. “Majority of the offenders were males”(Chng, Chu, Zeng, Li, Ting, 2016,p766). The sample consisted of nonviolent and violent nonsexual offenses. Another part of the group sample was sexual related offenses such as rape or molestation. There are a couple of family factors that are highly concentrated on in order to examine the relation between family background and young offenders. “Eight factors were used to examine family characteristics. Father criminality, mother criminality, and sibling criminality were coded from case file information as to whether or not the family member had previously committed a charged crime. Nonintact family was defined as being from a family with separated divorced parents who had not remarried. Marital conflict, psychiatric/emotional distress, drug/alcohol abuse, and poor parenting were coded under part III” (Chng, Chu, Zeng, Li, Ting, 2016,p771). This procedures for the research study required training through a threes day program. The results from the study on the identification of three latent classes were covered over a series of one to five classes of models.
The Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and sample size adjusted (SBIC) are used across the latent classes. The BIC and SBIC values in comparison to the three-class solution were much lower than the two and four class. “ The LMRT revealed that the three-class solution was significantly better than the two-class solution, although the four- class solution was also shown to be significantly better. The five-class solution was shown to not be significantly better than a four-class solution” (Chng, Chu, Zeng, Li, Ting, 2016,p774). The three-class solution was found reliable in order to identify and distinguish the family classes. Men under the three-class solution were most likely to score poorly on the parenting scale. Families with criminality, poor managed families, and intact function families resulted in men having the poorest scores throughout the study. This connects back to where males are more likely to be an offender. In all the different classes of families the men were the one who got the lowest scores. The nonitact family is more on the level of being a poorly managed family class and characterized by higher level of poor parenting or showing the presence of martial conflict. The three subgroups mentioned are classified as intact functioning families, families with criminality, poorly managed
families. The study revealed that inside a youth offending population there are three subgroups of family factors found. The intact functional families had minimal sibling and parental criminality or drug/alcohol abuse and martial conflict. From the sample group the intact families were the subgroup that most fell into the category. This concluded that most youth offenders in this subgroup were more likely to participated in youth offending activities. Now, the families who had past criminality records were more likely to have the kids participate drug use or alcohol problems. This family structure is known to be nonintact families. This is the group that needs to have the most attention. This family structure showed evidence that in this subgroup the it consisted of the youngest offenders. On the other hand “the poor managed families had no significant difference in ages at first arrest, age at first charged offense, and recidivism outcomes when compared to families with criminality”( Chng, Chu, Zeng, Li, Ting, 2016,p779). This family type has the highest disruption but the lowest criminality. All-inclusive, the format of the article was vey well structure. The strength of the article was the family system explanation in accordance with youth offenders. It gave a breakdown of the classes and did a comparison and contrast of one another. One of the things I would have done differential in the study was not just concentrated on the overall offenders as one gender as a whole but break it down to male and female offenders. This research was very interesting to read. I do consider this study to be valuable since it gave me knowledge about how different family structure effect youth. According to the textbook “Delinquency in Society by Robert M.
Regoli, John D. Hewitt, and Matt Delisi relates to the research. “Although poverty and family circumstances set the initial conditions for delinquency, in that children born in disadvantaged areas are most frequently exposed to criminogenic conditions”(Delisi, Hewitt, and Regoli, 2014 p238). “Delinquent behavior may not the results of lifelong learning, but a results of immediate and current relationships with delinquent peers”(Delisi, Hewitt, and Regoli 2014 p154). The way it builds a connection with one another is that they both cover on how family background can lead to juvenile delinquency. Overall, the results from the study confirm that family is crucial to the outcome of youth either becoming an offender. Knowing how to deal with family issues can help reduce juvenile delinquency. Youth offenders were more likely to be charged at younger ages from the two latter classes. It concludes that family background does have great influences on wither youth turn into youth
offenders.