Working in referral and intake at a children’s residential treatment center (RTC) has taught me many things. I’ve learned to listen empathetically to families in crisis and at a loss as to what to do with their child. I understand when caseworkers call unsure that a RTC is the right option for a traumatized and acting out child on their caseload. Often I spend time answering questions that revolve around a central theme, “Won’t sending a child to a group setting with other children dealing with similar issues cause them to pick-up even more problems?” It’s completely understandable why they would be concerned about this. In fact, there have been numerous studies looking at adolescent development and peer deviancy training.
Peer deviance or the social endorsement of deviant activities can begin as early as Kindergarten. Developmentally, children before the age of 5 are generally believed to be too young to understand social norms, and therefore, too young to have deliberately anti-social behaviors. During this time period, parental guidance is essential for creating socially normative behaviors. Once the child is old enough to go out into group settings, for example pre-school academic environments, youth begin to be influenced by their peers. Agencies, such as my RTC which serves children from 3-13 years old, need to keep in mind this transition of influence. Although prior theorists posited peer deviance was most influenced by the individual peers themselves, current research theorizes the type of environment actually matters more.
Many settings within juvenile justice face issues relating to delinquent children coming into care and socializing with other delinquents and potentially getting positive reinforcement for antisocial thought patterns and behaviors. In fact, the move away from sending juveniles to facilities also housing adults, as well as, group correctional centers was an attempt to minimize exposure to deviant peers. What has been interesting is that group activities that are often viewed as positive, especially for at-risk youth, can also create an atmosphere that encourages peer deviancy training such as after-school programs and youth sports. What has been learned based on the research can be generalized for programs within a juvenile detention center to a mentoring program. The fact that plays the largest role in decreasing peer deviancy training is structure.
A Free For All
The saying, “Idle hands are the Devil’s playground,” fits flawlessly in the realm of peer deviancy training. Unstructured environments create an atmosphere ripe for delinquency both in the moment and in the future. This is independent of the presence of delinquent peers. When children are grouped together and not given clear expectations about how to spend their time, the outcomes show more deviance. In unstructured environments, negative behaviors are modeled, deviant talk increases and peers reinforce deviant attitudes and behaviors. Deviancy increases through a social learning process. So, although it may seem like allowing children to have free time will encourage them to develop social skills and be creative, it actually can be harmful while increasing antisocial traits.
Having a Plan
An interesting element in the current research is that unsupervised activities do not necessarily increase peer deviancy as long as they are structured. The clear expectations for how youth should spend their time during the activity, i.e. structure, are the element that decreases delinquency. Structured activities encourage social control, reduce opportunities for deviance, teach socialization skills, prompt positive goals and encourage healthy development. A key aspect to this is when agencies use evidence-based programs they are essentially using structure-based programs that teach specific skills, prosocial values and discourage deviancy training. When positive group leaders who understand the important of structure are added to the mix, they will be good role models and verbally discourage deviant talk and activities adding to the positive effect.
Program managers, whether in charge of activities within juvenile detention or pre-K community programs, need to keep in mind the importance of structure for not only encouraging prosocial behaviors during the activity but the effect this structure has on future deviant behaviors. At my RTC, every activity, from outdoor play to running program to art projects has clear expectations of how the children will spend their time. There are also clear rules about behavior and consequences for engaging in antisocial or deviant talk or behavior. The adults provide good role models by participating while at the same time addressing any deviancy that crops up. The agency has recreational protocols that incorporate best practices which staff brief on prior to the activity. At the end of the shift, they debrief to discuss any issues that might have occurred and any adjustments that might need to be incorporated. Another important aspect is the children are allowed freedom of choice and some control within the structured environment itself. Age-appropriate control is highly important especially in an at-risk population with a history of trauma.
Sending juveniles to group activities, including those required as justice interventions, does not have to be a negative thing with a child hardening while learning new deviant behaviors from their peers. Current research supports a structured environment is the factor that discourages peer deviancy training not the composition of the peers. This is encouraging as it would be difficult to keep youth out of a group setting that includes deviant peers, especially when working in a correctional setting. Many examples of evidence-based structured activities exist and can be borrowed. Knowing that it is the structure of the program and not the make-up of the youth can help any juvenile justice practitioner design positive programs that will reduce deviant behavior and long-term life consequences to the children in their care.
Michelle Perin
Michelle Perin has been a freelance writer since 2000. In December 2010, she earned her Master’s degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Indiana State University.
