Predictability Of Delinquency Rates Through Acculturation

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Margaret Sabia

Walden University

Predictability of Delinquency rates through Acculturation Status among Adolescents

Issues concerning immigration have existed in the United States since the founding of the nation (Congressional Budget Office, 2006). The process granting foreign born individuals the ability to become United States citizens has been well established since 1790 (Congressional Budget Office, 2006). In 2010, the American Community Survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau found there were 40 million foreign-born individuals living in the U.S. (Walters & Trevelyan, 2011). The term foreign-born refers to any individual who was not born in the United States, which includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, temporary migrants, humanitarian migrants, and undocumented migrants (Grieco et al., 2012). The term native born was used for all individuals born in the United States (Grieco et al., 2012). According to data collected by the Census Bureau in 2010, foreign-born individuals made up 12.9 percent of the U.S. population of which 5.6 percent were naturalized citizens and 7.3 percent were noncitizens (Grieco et al., 2012). The negative impact of the influx of immigrants on American society has been a primary concern since the 20th century (Bui, 2012). This concern generated research into investigating the relationship between crime and immigration (Bui, 2012).

Problem Statement

The problem is the general perception of immigrants in the United States in which immigrants are perceived to disproportionately engage in criminal or delinquent activities (Bui, 2012). This perception is compounded by the number of immigrants incarcerated in U. S. prisons, entering the United States illegally, and engaging in criminal or fraudulent activities (Hoefer, Rytina & Campbell, 2006). According to estimates made by the Department of Homeland Security, 20 percent of inmates in prisons or jails are immigrants; this percentage included both legal and illegal immigrants (Hoefer, Rytina & Campbell, 2006). However, empirical evidence does not support the notion of increased rates of crime and delinquency among immigrants (Desmond and Kubrin, 2009).

Numerous studies investigating the relationship between crime and immigration have demonstrated lower levels of crime and delinquent involvement for foreign born individuals compared to native born individuals (Butcher & Piehl, 2005; Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Harris, 1998; Rumbaut, 2005; Sellin, 1938). Similarly, Desmond and Kubrin (2009) asserted criminologists have exhibited lower crime rates for numerous immigrant groups compared to various native groups. This assertion coincides with Sellin’s (1938) research findings that showed native-born Americans had higher crime rates than immigrants of different nationalities. In addition, it illuminated how crime rates of immigrants’ children increased within successive generations, and eventually reflected a crime rate similar to native-born American youth (Sellin’s, 1938). Research has since investigated how familial, social, and educational factors contribute to crime and delinquency among immigrant populations (Bui, 2012; Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Fridrich & Flannery, 1997; Miller, 2011). Samaniego and Gonzales’s (1999) research demonstrated how the effect of acculturation status on delinquent behavior of youth was mediated by maternal monitoring, family conflict, inconsistent discipline, and negative peer hassles. Research has also investigated the effect of acculturation on crime and delinquency within subsequent generations of immigrant populations (Bui, 2012; Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Fridrich & Flannery, 1997; Loukas, Suizzo & Prelow, 2007).

While the effect of acculturation on crime and delinquency has been conducted in prior research (Bui, 2012; Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Fridrich & Flannery, 1997; Loukas, Suizzo & Prelow, 2007), the research does not examine if a level of acculturation can be used to predict delinquent behavior. Therefore, this quantitative study will fill this gap by investigating if acculturation status can predict delinquency rates among native and immigrant adolescent populations.

Purpose Statement

The focus of this research is to expand upon prior research that addressed delinquency in terms of generational differences and acculturation. The purpose of the quantitative research study is to determine if acculturation status is a predictor of delinquency. The predictability of delinquency via acculturation status will be investigated by establishing if there are differences in delinquency rates among native adolescents, acculturated immigrant adolescents, and unacculturated immigrant adolescents. Analysis of delinquency among the three groups will establish if differences in delinquency rates exist. If the null hypothesis is rejected, a post hoc analysis will be used to establish where differences existed. It is theorized that there will be differences in delinquency rates between the three groups tested.

Research Hypotheses

Ho: µ1= µ2 = µ3 There are no differences in the delinquency rates between native adolescents, acculturated immigrants, and unacculturated immigrants.

H1: µ1≠µ2≠µ3 There are differences in the delinquency rates between native adolescents, acculturated immigrants, and unacculturated immigrants.

Method

Participants

The study will use a stratified random sample that would consist of 600 students’ ages 12 to 18 attending grades 7 through 12 in Hartford County, Connecticut. The 600 participants would include 200 native adolescents, 200 first generation immigrant adolescents, and 200 immigrant adolescents second generation or later who were randomly selected from stratified groups. The stratified groups were formed using data obtained from an acculturation status survey.

Procedures

The purposive sampling procedure was used to select a sample that was equally representative of the three research test groups. Prior to sampling, informant consent would be obtained from school administrators, parents, and students who would like to participate in the study. Once consent is obtained, acculturation status would be determined using a survey asking students three questions requiring a yes or no response: were you born in the United States; did you come to the United States from another country; did either of your parents come to the United States from another country? This survey had been tested by various researchers prior to its use for this study (Cuellar et al., 1980; Fridrich & Flannery, 1995; Sabogal et al., 1987). Those who consented to participate in the research will have an acculturation status survey mailed to the home of the student with a prepaid envelope to send the survey back to the researcher. A follow-up letter will be sent out reminding respondents about the survey deadline. Once sample selection is finalized, notification will be sent out to notifying individuals of their selection to participate in the study and an appreciation letter to those who were willing to participate but were not selected.

The starting sample would be 66,911 student participants attending 9 middle schools and 10 high schools located in Hartford County. The starting value will likely be less than 66,911 due to obtaining lack of consent from administrators, parents, or students. The sample will then be further reduced to 600 participants upon reviewing student responses to a survey identifying their acculturation status. Students will then be separated into three strata based on acculturation status: native adolescents, first generation immigrant adolescents, and immigrant adolescents second generation and later. Two-hundred students from each stratum will then be randomly selected using a random numbers table in order to form a 600 participant sample. The native adolescent group will be referred to by the same name; the unacculturated immigrant group would include first generation immigrant adolescents, and the acculturated immigrant group would include immigrant adolescents who are second generation and later. In the study, native adolescent, unacculturated immigrants, and acculturated immigrants would serve as the independent variable.

Measures

The dependent variable in the study is delinquency rates, which will be measured based on official court records obtained through Harford Superior Court. The court was provided a list of the study participants, and the records provided by the court included the juveniles’ age, the type and class of the offenses, the name of the statute violated, and type of sentence received. The data obtained through court records would be used to distinguish which adolescents engaged in delinquent behaviors from those who did not for each of the three test groups. Using that data, a delinquency rate would be calculated for each group as the number of individuals who engaged in delinquency out of the total number of adolescents in the group. The values obtained for each group would be multiplied by 100 to attain a percentage, which would each fall on a ratio scale of 0% to 100%. Delinquency rates associated with the native adolescents group, acculturated immigrants group, and unacculturated immigrants group were comparatively assessed using ANOVA to determine if differences exist.

Design

The study used a quasi-experimental design in order to examine if differences exist between acculturation status and delinquency rates. A preliminary acculturation questionnaire allowed for the sample to be stratified into three groups based on acculturation status. These three groups form intact groups that can be used within a quasi-experimental design (Creswell, 2009).

Statistical tests

One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if differences exist between the IV groups (i.e. native adolescents group, acculturated immigrants group, and unacculturated immigrants group) and delinquency rates, the dependent variable. The two-tailed test used in this study served the purpose of accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis. Determining where the differences exist was performed using a post hoc analysis; more specifically, Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (HSD = q o MSE / n*) was used for the post hoc analysis (Stevens, 1999). Tukey’s HSD test was selected because it is designed for studies using equal sample sizes, and identifies means that are significantly different when used in conjunction with ANOVA (Stevens, 1999). ANOVA was deemed appropriate because it requires the independent variable to be categorical and the dependent variable to be an interval or ratio scale (Bachman & Paternoster, 2008). In the case of this study, the IV is separated into three categorical groups (i.e. native adolescents group, acculturated immigrants group, and unacculturated immigrants group), and the dependent variable (delinquency rates) was measured on a ratio scale (Bachman & Paternoster, 2008).

Limitations/Delimitations/Assumptions

Assumptions. 1. Participants provided accurate responses to the preliminary acculturation survey. 2. All delinquent behavior is reflected within the data obtained via court records.

Limitations. 1. Selection bias in terms of the types of individuals who were willing to participate in the study via informed consent and completion of the acculturation survey (Creswell, 2009). In addition, the use of a school-based sample could lead to selection bias because it does not account for youth who dropped out of school (Creswell, 2009). 2. Random selection of participants for each stratum could threaten population validly in terms of detracting from the generalizability of the sample (Bachman & Paternoster, 2008). 3. The study did not test for potential mediating or moderating effects of other variables (Bachman & Paternoster, 2008).