My experiences as a childcare provider have given me great opportunity to observe and contemplate the mannerisms, behaviors and attitudes of children and their parents. Within the last six years I have noticed two potentially interrelated trends within these relationships. First, because of financial or personal needs, parents must largely rely on childcare to supervise and care-take their children. Secondly, children seem to be displaying a growing apathy as well as increased anger, hopelessness and disrespect directed toward adults. In my experience, this change in attitude is often demonstrated through aggressive or antisocial behavior in children.

An increase in court-petitioned status offense cases, or acts that are illegal only because the person committing them is of juvenile status, is consistent with my casual observations. Runaway, truancy, ungovernability and underage liquor violations are the four primary categories identified by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) as status offenses. Violations pertaining to curfew and tobacco laws are included under a fifth miscellaneous category.

According to Juvenile Court Statistics of 1995, compiled by the OJJDP, the number of status offense cases has increased by 77% between 1986 and 1995. (Sickmund, 1998) The data presented by the OJJDP are collected through court-level aggregate statistics and case-level reports. Court-level aggregate statistics are typically drawn from annual reports of state and local courts and provide records of status offense cases handled by courts in a specific year. Case-level data are created by automated client-tracking systems that are managed by juvenile courts or other juvenile justice agencies. (Sickmund, 1998) This method of data collection may be problematic since it takes into account only status offense cases brought to the attention of the court system. The actual number of status offenders is likely higher than the recorded numbers. Also, the data published in 1998 reflect information for 1995 and do not reflect current rates. It should be possible to predict, however, that the rates have continued to increase or stay at a similarly elevated level. Despite these questions, the Juvenile Court Statistics are still the most reliable source for this information.

For the purpose of this presentation I will look only at petitioned cases, or those cases that appear on formal court dockets. Table 1, from the Juvenile Court Statistics of 1995, shows the change in petitioned status offense cases as well as the change in case rates between 1986 and 1995. United States juvenile courts petitioned and formally disposed an estimated 146,000 status offense cases in 1995. This accounts for a 59% increase in runaway cases, 80% increase in truancy cases, 14% increase of ungovernability cases and an increase of 54% for liquor offenses. Case rates also increased within the same nine-year period. Juvenile courts processed 5.2 status offense cases for every 1,000 youth at risk (the population of children between age 10 and the upper age of jurisdiction in every U.S. county; state statutes determine the upper age of jurisdiction). This indicates a 63% increase in total cases from 1986 to 1995.

The consequences of greater numbers of status offenders are numerous. On an individual level, runaways are at a greater risk of disease or injury on the street. Truants are likely to be removed from schools permanently, which lessens their opportunities for success. Also, children labeled as ungovernable are likely to weaken already fragile ties to family and community. On a societal level, there are economic ramifications to specific status offenses. For example,

according to a 1989 study, each year’s class of dropouts will cost the nation approximately $260 billion in lost earnings and taxes. (Carnegie Council, 1989) The same study claims that welfare dependency is reduced by 35% for each year a student stays in high school.

Race is also a considered when discussing crime. Table 3 shows that Caucasians make up the greatest proportion of court adjudicated delinquency cases as well as a disproportionate number of petitioned status offense cases.

There are various theories attributed to the high rate of juvenile disobedience in general and status offenses specifically. Some of these theories include learning theory, conflict theory and control theory. Learning theory suggests that criminal behavior is learned. Environment, experiences and other social factors provide adolescents with opportunity to learn anti-social behaviors. Positive reinforcement from peers continues the learning process. Conflict theory implies that diverse interest groups compete for power. Those in power restrict the decisions of those without power creating a source of hostility. This hostility may be seen in antisocial behavior in teens. (Colvin, 1983)

While each of the theories has merit, control theory will be the focus of subsequent discussion.

Travis Hirschi in a 1959 study used control theory to explain criminal behavior as well as other antisocial behavior. He focused on four divisions of the ties that give individuals incentive to conform to societal expectations. These four segments of the bond are: 1) attachment, which is measured by the strength of the bond to parents, teachers and other primary socialization agents; 2) involvement, or the amount of involvement and time spent in conventional or accepted activities; 3) commitment, or the amount of loyalty one feels to socially accepted behaviors; and 4) the degree to which one believes in the expectations. Attachment theory is a form of control theory, focusing on the attachment bond discussed by Hirschi. Attachment theory suggests that consistent separation (physical or emotional) of a child from their primary attachment figures will make a child less capable of forming attachments. This will diminish the child’s capacity for emotional control while decreasing their desire to conform to societal expectation. (Goossens, 1991)

It is possible to identify factors that are likely to weaken the parent/child bond. With parents working longer hours and children spending more time in daycare, children have less opportunity to form strong attachments to their parents. Sixty-five percent of mothers with children under 6 and 78% of mothers with children between 6 and 13 are in the labor force. (Children’s Defense Fund, 1998) Information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau reports that 22% of these children are cared for at home by their parents and another 26% are cared for by grandparents or other relatives. This means that slightly more than half of the children of working mothers are cared for by someone other than family members. Figure 1 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1993) summarizes this information.

Weak Bonds Between Secondary Socialization Agents

Consistent and high-quality daycare may foster strong bonds between child and caregiver, but it is not always attainable for all families. Various factors contribute to this. Families are limited by financial restraints when looking for quality care. In 1994, full day daycare costs ranged between $4,000 and $10,000 annually, according to data collected by Child Care Information Exchange as presented in the Children’s Defense Fund Fact Sheet. The same fact sheet reported data from the 1996 Census stating that about half of America’s families with young children earn less than $35,000 per year. Obviously, daycare represents a major portion of family income.

Financial concerns notwithstanding, quality childcare is hard to find. Many recent studies have questioned the overall quality of daycare in the United States. One noteworthy example was discussed in the Children’s Defense Fund Fact Sheet. A 1995 study (Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study: Executive) looked at daycare in four states and found that 40% of rooms serving infants in childcare centers were of such poor quality that the health, safety and development of children was jeopardized. While this only accounts for four states, it does illicit concern and questions regarding daycare quality. The quality of care has been identified as a variable in the causal relationship between daycare and weak attachment. (Lamb, 1996)

A third element of daycare that may hamper a strong relationship between caregiver and child is turnover rate of daycare staff. Continuity of care is important for children to form attachments, and the continual change in staff can have negative effects. According to a study of high turnover among family daycare providers, The National Child Care Staffing Study found that "turnover is detrimental to children." High turnover has been linked to staff burnout, personal work ideologies, low weekly pay as well as insufficient total family income and job dissatisfaction. (Nelson, 1990)

Regardless of daycare costs and quality, American parents are not encouraged to stay home with their children. According to information collected by the International Labor Organization, parents in the United States are allowed a total of 12 work weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the birth of a child and the care of the newborn. This is protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 and applies to either male or female parents. After 12 weeks it is likely that both parents will return to full-time employment. In fact, just over half of women with newborns stay home to take care of the newborn. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1995) Policies found in several other countries encourage or afford parents a longer period of direct care, which in turn would provide a greater opportunity for parent-child attachment. Denmark, Norway and Sweden, for example, provide extensive paid leave that may be taken by either parent. Table 4 shows the parental leave mandated by various countries. Not only do many of these countries allow for longer periods of leave, but they also provide at least a percentage of their income. It is important to note that this financial benefit is sustained through social security taxes, not by the employer in most cases. Social security taxes in many other countries provide for social services and programs for all citizens instead of just for the elderly or poor.

Numerous studies use attachment theory in attempts to find a relationship between maternal employment or extensive daycare and antisocial behavior. A study by Jay Belsky and David Eggebeen used attachment theory to help explain a relationship between maternal employment and aggressive children. Their study examines children from the ages of four to six whose mothers were studied as part of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to assess the effects of early maternal employment on socioemotional development. Belsky and Eggebeen proposed that due to poor parental attachment, children whose mothers work full time outside of the home during the first or second year of their children’s lives were less compliant and socially adjusted than their peers whose mothers were at home. (Belsky and Eggebeen, 1991) Belsky and Eggebeen’s study gives legitimacy to my hypothesis because it establishes a potential causal relationship between poor parental attachment and antisocial behavior.

A study by Goossens looked at the stability of daycare and number of hours in daycare as the independent variables and aggressive behavior as the dependent variable. This study also uses attachment theory to understand the causal relationship. Stability of daycare and number of hours in daycare were found to be more significant than daycare in general. High turnover rate was linked to children forming weak bonds to caregivers and long hours in care were seen as a deterrent to forming strong bonds with parents. (Goossens, 1991)

Broken home (due to divorce or the death of a parent) is also considered when trying to explain weak attachments causing antisocial behavior. A literature analysis by Marvin D. Free Jr. evaluated studies pertaining to broken home/ delinquency relationships. The results of his critique revealed that broken home was more strongly related to minor offenses than to major offenses. (Free, 1991) These findings are relevant to my hypothesis, because they suggest that insecure attachments, due to the absence of a parent, are related to juvenile disobedience. These weak attachments are created by a physical and/or emotional estrangement from one or both parents.

A study by Anthony Walsh looked at attachment theory as it relates to college students and drug use and promiscuity. Through questionnaires, measured attachment and antisocial behavior, his study found a causal relationship between weak parental attachment and both dependent variables. (Walsh, 1994)

Much of the research involving status offenses attempts to find a relationship between weak parent/child attachment and juvenile disobedience. Therefore, a solution to reduce the rates of status offenses would need to bolster the parent/child bond. I suggest a solution to strengthen bonds and discourage antisocial behavior in children. It is important to note, however, that factors such as divorce, single-parent families and poverty are inevitable. In these cases, secondary socialization agent relationships, such as those with grandparents, paid caregivers or other interested third parties (i.e., Girl/Boy Scout leaders, teachers, social workers) need to be fostered. I therefore suggest a second part to the solution that also would encourage attachment between children and other socialization agents to decrease status offenses.

Institutional policies to encourage strong parent/child bonds would be the first step in this solution. Again, parents in the United States are not encouraged or expected to stay home to raise their children. The potential loss of a job due to extended leave or financial concerns created by lengthy unpaid leave may cause parents to shorten the time they stay home with their children. By changing the policies outlined by the FMLA, parents could be encouraged or even motivated to stay home for a longer period of the child’s life to facilitate a strong bond.

I propose that policies be established to allow a minimum of 20 weeks with 66% income for either parent. This would allow bonding between parent and child while providing financial security during that time. By changing the policies already in place, I believe that parent/child attachment would increase and in turn the rate of status offenses would decrease.

The second aspect of my proposed solution addresses community involvement as a way to increase child/socialization agent bond. I suggest that programs such as Boys and Girls Clubs and Big Brothers/Big Sisters should address a larger range of children from different socioeconomic groups. The Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization and Boys and Girls Clubs of America traditionally provide services to lower socioeconomic groups. Box 1 presents information from The Boys and Girls Club of America web page reporting the demographics of children served by the organization.

Children of all socioeconomic groups would benefit from the services

provided by this and other children’s organizations. Group interaction offered by Boys and Girls Clubs would be beneficial to all children because it would offer opportunities, such as after-school activities, organized recreation and community involvement. The one-on-one mentoring provided by Big Brothers/Big Sisters would foster attached relationships between children, regardless of socioeconomic class, and a singular attachment that is important to children who spend a great deal of time in group daycare.

Many of the previously tried solutions have attempted to correct juvenile violent crime rather than status offenses. While I recognize merit in these programs, I do not believe that they sufficiently address all youth at risk. In 1992, Congress enacted the State Challenge Activities Program under Title II, Part E, of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act. This program funds state agencies and provides incentives to create and improve delinquency prevention programs. Identifying appropriate discipline, creating safe facilities and directing delinquents to suitable treatment institutions are the primary aims of this program. I believe that these objectives neglect to identify or address the needs of nonserious offenders. There would be less need to fund these programs if the money was used initially to create more opportunity for children and adolescents to form attachments to secondary socialization agents.

Currently, FMLA provides a total of 12 work-weeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for the birth of a child and the care of the newborn. This provides job security to either parent wishing to take time from work. FMLA applies only to companies with 50 or more workers. Legislation outlining changes to include an additional eight weeks to either parent and 66% of pay provided by taxes will be proposed to Congress. Also, legislation will stipulate that any businesses receiving tax breaks or governmental grants is obligated to comply, regardless of number of employees.

It is likely that this legislation will meet opposition. Potential contention might include arguments for the best interest of big business – profit may be compromised by employing temporary employees, continuity may be disturbed causing a slowdown of production or employees may take advantage of the flexible nature of the new system. To counter these arguments it will also be necessary to provide a tax break as an incentive for companies to comply with legislation. Furthermore, any federal support will be contingent on compliance. Once the program is in place businesses will likely become accustomed to the practice and will consider it a part of the standard hiring package offered to new employees, analogous to health or dental insurance.

It may be difficult to persuade voters to see the importance of a new tax to fund paid leave. In this case it will be important to convince voters, through public service announcements, lobbying efforts and education, to the potential benefits of early parental care.

A Children’s Mentoring Program (CMP) would be created to work with current programs. CMP will differ in that it will be set up in after-school programs and daycare settings. It will provide children with an opportunity to have one-on-one interaction with a consistent attachment figure. Adult mentors will be assigned to three to four children for a five-year period, beginning with the child’s admittance to an organized daycare setting (as distinguished from a private family care facility). Each mentor will establish an individual relationship with each of his/her charges. Mentors will spend a specified amount of time each week with each child in their care during daycare or after-school care hours. Members of AmeriCorps, the already-established national service organization that provides need-based programs to communities, will staff the Children’s Mentoring Program. AmeriCorps volunteer/staff receive a modest living allowance and a $4,725 education voucher or a $1,200 cash stipend for each year of service. Because this program is already in place and volunteer/staff already employed, it is conceivable that staffing for CMP will be relatively uncomplicated. Moreover, because I predict fewer children in daycare due to the first part of my solution, I suggest that volunteers will be abundant.

Because consistent and strong relationships are the goal of CMP, AmeriCorps workers wishing to accept a special assignment as a CMP mentor must agree to follow their assigned children through the entire five-year commitment. If a mentor breaks his/her commitment, barring unforeseen emergencies or mentor/client incompatibility, the education voucher or cash stipend for that year will be revoked. Mentors who break their commitment will still be eligible to work for AmeriCorps but not in the capacity of a CMP mentor. If a mentor wishes to continue his/her commitment to the children in his/her care

after completing the initial five years, they may do so by committing to year-long renewable reassignments. The longevity aspect of this program will provide consistency despite daycare worker turnover, class (grade) transitions and change in family dynamics.

Because I will be using federal policy to encourage greater parental involvement and federal funds to create and foster youth programs, I will target status offenders of the entire United States as a whole. While this seems daunting, the data available to my research will help manage the enormity of the task.

There will need to be a three-part evaluation program once the legislation is in place and the mentoring program is established. The first part will look at whether the design meets the original goals. The second aspect will measure the number of working parents and the enrollment of daycare programs. The last stage of the evaluation will examine the actual rates of status offenses to determine if there has been an increase or decrease. Each of these tasks will operate on an individual timeline.

The first stage of evaluation should take place during the first year following the implementation of legislation. During this step, it will be important to look at governmental policy implementation. Policy is always open to interpretation, and it may be necessary for special interest groups to contact public administrators to ensure goals are being met. During the same time period, it will also be important to evaluate the efficiency and success of the assignment of AmeriCorps staff. Is the number of staff sufficient? Are mentors and children being well matched? Are impoverished and affluent areas receiving comparable programs?

The second stage will start five years after the implementation of the design and will be adjusted every five years following. This stage will consider the effectiveness of the previously mentioned legislation and programming. Information gathered by the U.S. Census will be most useful for measuring numbers of working parents as well as numbers of children in organized care. Evidence that the design is reaching its goals will come with a decrease in these two numbers. Counter-findings will see an increase in working parents as well as children in organized care settings.

It is important to recognize that it would be imprudent to measure the rate of status offenses at this point. During this time there will likely be results that indicate a decrease in status offenses. Although positive, they may not be directly related to the attachment design. Since the data are collected through petitioned court cases, usually the consequence of parents reporting juvenile offenses, there is the probability of spurious results due to a change in parental attitude and reporting. The changes made in policy and programming may also change attitudes within the community and courts, which may also affect the reported rate of status offenses. For instance, a father who has a strong attachment to his child due to more one-on-one time may be less likely to turn to the court system for help with his obstinate teen.

The third stage will begin during the tenth year after design implementation. As stated, it will take a full 10 years before there can be an expected change in the rate of status offenses. The first generation of children receiving the attachment design will be considered youth at risk by the age of 10, so it will be superfluous to measure the rates of status offenders before this time. During the tenth year and each subsequent fifth year, information published by OJJDP concerning rates of status offenses will be studied. These data will show a change in status offenses; a decrease will show the effectiveness of design while an increase will indicate design inadequacy.

Belsky, Jay and David Eggebeen: Early and extensive maternal employment and young children’s socioemotional development: children of the national longitudinal survey of youth, Journal of Marriage and the Family 53, Nov. 1991, p. 1083-1110.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development: Turning points: Preparing American youth for the 21^st century, Report of the Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents, Wolk Press, Wood Lawn, MD, 1989.

Children’s Defense Fund: "Facts about child care in America," published July 8, 1998; <http://www.childrensdefense.org/cc_facts.html#4>

Colvin, Mark and John Pauly: A Critique of Criminology: Toward an Integrated Structural-Marxist Theory of Delinquency Production, AJS 89: 1983, p. 513-547.

Free, Marvin D., Jr.: Clarifying the relationship between the broken home and juvenile delinquency: A critique of the current literature, Deviant Behavior 12, 1991, p. 109-167.

Goossens, Frits A., Geertruud Ottenhoff, Willem Koops: Day care and social outcomes in middle childhood: a retrospective study, Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 9, 1991, p. 137-150.

Hirschi, Travis: Causes of delinquency, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1969.

International Labor Organization: "More than 120 nations provide paid maternity leave," published February 15, 1998; <http://usus.ilo.org/news/prsrls/maternity.html>

Lamb, Michael E: Effects of nonparental child care on child development: an update, Can J Psychiatry 41, 1996, p. 330-342.

Nelson, Margaret K: A study of turnover among family day care providers, Children Today 19, 1990, p. 8-14.

Sickmund, Melissa, et al: Juvenile Court Statistics 1995, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice: Washington, DC, 1998.

United States Census Bureau: <http://www.census.gov.>