ASSESSING AN AGE-GRADED THEORY OF INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL: A QUALITATIVE STUDY EXPLORING PATHWAYS TO YOUTH INCARCERATION IN TURKEY By Serkan Tasgin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Criminal Justice 2012 ABSTRACT ASSESSING AN AGE-GRADED THEORY OF INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL: A QUALITATIVE STUDY EXPLORING PATHWAYS TO YOUTH INCARCERATION IN TURKEY By Serkan Tasgin The juvenile delinquency problem in Turkey has become increasingly visible in the last decade. Although there are some studies to explain juvenile delinquency, existing research on Turkish youth convicted of delinquency is still in its early stages. The purpose of this dissertation was to explore the life course of convicted juveniles, including the experiences and life course events that lead them to prison. Based on the data from in-depth interviews with thirty convicted juveniles in juvenile prison, this study focused on and described the context of the juveniles and the peer influences, which had a major effect on juveniles’ trajectories. It also considered how several factors, such as low socioeconomic status of the family, father’s alcohol use, family moves, disrupted education, drug use, low attachment to the family, harsh discipline, and lack of supervision affected juveniles’ lives. Finally, it examined the short-term effects of the prison experience on youth. It provided a broad multi-level explanation by exploring youth’s contextualized experiences that led them to engage in crime. The findings suggest that it is essential to implement family oriented interventions, drug treatments, identity reorientation, and mentoring programs to help youth. Copyright by Serkan Tasgin 2012 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This research project would not have been possible without the support of many people. First and foremost, I want to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Merry Morash who was abundantly helpful and offered invaluable assistance, support, and guidance. I always considered myself as privileged for being her student. One simply could not wish for a better or friendlier supervisor. Deepest gratitude is also due to the members of the supervisory committee, Prof. Dr. Robert Griffore, Dr. Chris Melde, and Dr. April Zeoli for their guidance and suggestions. It is an honor for me to have worked with each of them during my dissertation preparation and to have been a student in their courses. Special thanks also to staff of the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University especially Melissa Christle for answering my endless questions and to Terri Bulock, Peggy Donahue, Mary Lee VanderMoere, and Denise Davenport for helping whenever I needed. I also acknowledge the School of Criminal Justice for its financial support for this dissertation. The author would also like to convey thanks to the Habil Kanoglu who helped to get approval from Justice Department in Turkey for conducting interviews in the juvenile prison in Ankara. I would like to thank my family members, especially my wife, Senem Taşğın, my daughter Nüvid Meryem Taşğın, and my son Ömer Sencer Taşğın for supporting me to pursue this degree. I also thank my friends from the Turkish National Police at Michigan State University for their constant and generous support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................ 1 The Turkish Juvenile Justice System ....................................................................................... 2 Convicted Juveniles ................................................................................................................. 5 Studies of Convicted Juveniles in Juvenile Prisons ............................................................... 10 The State of Knowledge about Delinquency in Turkey.......................................................... 12 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 14 Theoretical Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 16 The Life Course Perspective ..................................................................................................... 16 Different Types of Life Course Theories................................................................................ 16 Life Course Theory and Age-Graded Theory of Informal Social Control ................................ 17 Trajectories ............................................................................................................................ 20 Transitions ............................................................................................................................. 23 Turning Points ....................................................................................................................... 24 Cumulative Continuity ........................................................................................................... 26 Human Agency ....................................................................................................................... 28 Routine Activities ................................................................................................................... 30 Social Control Theory ............................................................................................................... 32 Prevalent Influences in the Sampson and Laub Life Course Theory ........................................ 34 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 35 Family .................................................................................................................................... 36 School .................................................................................................................................... 38 Peers/Siblings ........................................................................................................................ 39 Bronfenbrenner’s Human Ecology Theory ............................................................................... 41 Adapting Sampson and Laub’s Life Course Theory to Turkey ................................................ 44 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 49 Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 49 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 51 Overall Strategy......................................................................................................................... 51 Qualitative Inquiry ................................................................................................................ 51 Retrospective Design and Life Course Theory ...................................................................... 52 Weaknesses of Retrospective Designs ................................................................................ 53 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 55 The Role of the Researcher and Research Team ................................................................... 55 Unit of Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 57 Research Site ......................................................................................................................... 57 Access to Participants ........................................................................................................... 57 v Building Rapport with Participants....................................................................................... 58 Sampling Strategy .................................................................................................................. 58 Sample Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 60 Sample Size ........................................................................................................................ 62 Life History In-Depth Interview ............................................................................................ 62 Interview Guide ..................................................................................................................... 65 Incentives ............................................................................................................................... 67 Protection of Rights of Participants .......................................................................................... 67 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 70 Coding ................................................................................................................................... 70 Writing Memos ...................................................................................................................... 72 Strategies for Validating Findings............................................................................................. 72 Comprehensive Data Treatment ............................................................................................ 73 Respondent Validation ........................................................................................................... 73 Search for Negative Cases ..................................................................................................... 74 Triangulation ......................................................................................................................... 74 Repeated Interviews ............................................................................................................... 75 Transparency ......................................................................................................................... 76 Low Inference Descriptors .................................................................................................... 76 Role of Interviewers ............................................................................................................... 76 Inter-rater Reliability ............................................................................................................ 77 CHAPTER FOUR: INFLUENCES of BACKGROUND FACTORS, FAMILY and SCHOOL 78 Influential Structural Background Factors ................................................................................ 78 Family’s Low Socioeconomic Status ..................................................................................... 78 Family Moves ........................................................................................................................ 81 Poverty and Family Moves ................................................................................................ 81 Influence of Neighborhood Context ...................................................................................... 82 Squatter Areas .................................................................................................................... 82 Why Juveniles Return to Squatter Areas and Bad Neighborhoods.................................... 84 Squatter Relations .............................................................................................................. 87 Living with the Family .............................................................................................................. 89 Family Attachment ................................................................................................................. 89 Lack of Attachment to Fathers ........................................................................................... 89 Attachment to Mothers ....................................................................................................... 91 Domestic Violence ............................................................................................................. 92 Family Discipline .................................................................................................................. 94 Family Supervision ................................................................................................................ 96 Interconnection of Family Attachment, Discipline, and Supervision ..................................... 100 Running Away and Independent Living Trajectory ................................................................ 102 Education Trajectory ............................................................................................................... 108 CHAPTER FIVE: CRIME/DRUG TRAJECTORIES AND KEY IDEAS IN LIFE COURSE THEORY ................................................................................................................................... 118 Perceived Typical Life Course ................................................................................................ 118 Crime and Drug Use Trajectory .............................................................................................. 121 vi Running Away ...................................................................................................................... 122 Peer Influence ...................................................................................................................... 123 Establishing Bachelor Houses and Continued Delinquency ........................................... 124 Fear of Ridicule, Loyalty, and Status............................................................................... 126 Curiosity about Drugs...................................................................................................... 129 Effect of Cousins .................................................................................................................. 131 Father’s Effect ..................................................................................................................... 132 Siblings’ Effect ..................................................................................................................... 132 Older Males’ Influence ........................................................................................................ 133 Family’s Reaction to Drug Use ............................................................................................... 140 Interconnection of Trajectories ............................................................................................... 142 Stigmatization in Various Contexts ........................................................................................ 146 Influence of the Juvenile Justice System on Trajectories ....................................................... 149 Juveniles Exercising Their Agency ......................................................................................... 155 Turning Points ......................................................................................................................... 158 Change in Identity ................................................................................................................... 162 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 174 Discussion of Findings ............................................................................................................ 174 Influential and Irrelevant Background Factors................................................................... 175 Family Influence .................................................................................................................. 177 Education Trajectory ........................................................................................................... 180 Peer Influence ...................................................................................................................... 181 Stigmatization ...................................................................................................................... 183 Turning Points ..................................................................................................................... 184 Change in Identity ............................................................................................................... 184 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 186 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 189 Policy Implications .............................................................................................................. 189 Future Research Implications ............................................................................................. 196 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………….198 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………233 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Number of Convicted Juveniles and Young Adults between 2006 and 2008…………...6 Table 2: Age Group of Arrested Juveniles between 2004 and 2006……………………………...7 Table 3: Characteristics of Arrested Juveniles between 2004 and 2006………………………….8 Table 4: Perceptions of Youth and Experts on Age for Ideal Life Course Milestones for Turkish Youth……………………………………………………………………………………………117 Table 5: Summary of the Some Studies on Juvenile Delinquency in Turkey………………….223 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Influential Family Background Factors ……………………………………………….88 Figure 2: Interconnection of Family Processes and Their Influences ……………………….…101 ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Turkey, a country between Europe and the Middle East, had a total population of 74,724,269 in 2011. According to the 2011 Census, 25,204,158 (33.7%) of the population was under the age of nineteen. One child in five is working, and children living and working on the streets became a social phenomenon particularly in big cities; one child in four lives in poverty and the number of children in need of protection has increased (UNDP, 2008). In addition, the images of the children that were represented in the media in the last decade have raised concerns about sexually exploited children, street children, forced child labor, children working as prostitutes and street sellers, and child beggars, glue-sniffers, and criminal (Irtis, 2010). By 2009, young people under the age of 18 comprised approximately 32% of the total population and almost one third of them were between 12 and 18 (UNDP, 2008). Potentially undermining the promise afforded by Turkey’s growing youth population, the country is now facing a juvenile delinquency problem that has become increasingly visible in the last decade. Existing research on Turkish youth convicted of delinquency is still in its early stages when compared with studies in Western countries. Although there are some studies to explain juvenile delinquency, due to the failure to use criminological theory, weak research designs, and the use of primitive statistics, existing research has failed to adequately explain the problem of juvenile delinquency. Further, there is very little scholarly research on the experiences of convicted juveniles. Therefore, we know little about the experiences leading to youths being convicted. 1 The Turkish Juvenile Justice System According to Turkish law, a juvenile offender is defined as a person under eighteen years old who violates the law. Turkish Penal Code, which was revised in 2005, assesses juveniles in three different age categories. The first category involves juveniles younger than twelve years old at the time of the committed crime; they are not considered as being responsible for their acts. Whatever crime they commit, they cannot be punished. However, if they commit serious crimes, protective precautions can be taken such as being returned to their families or being placed with a foster family or in a children’s home, which is a residential social service institution under the Department of Child Service. These youth are not held in juvenile prisons, and are not considered in this dissertation (Oto, 1998). The second category includes juveniles between thirteen and fifteen. Their criminal responsibility is determined by psychologists. They are examined by an expert to determine their capacity for being responsible for the crime. If they are determined to be able to consider the consequences of their criminal behaviors, they get less punishment than juveniles between sixteen and eighteen. If their criminal offense requires life imprisonment, their punishment is reduced to between nine and twelve years imprisonment, and sentences for all other offenses are reduced to one third of the original punishment. They are sent to reformatories, juvenile training homes, or juvenile prisons, as determined by the courts. If their criminal activity is not serious, protective precautions may be applied as is the case for juveniles in the first category. If they are determined to be unable to consider the consequences of their criminal behaviors, they are routinely handled like juveniles in the first category (Oto, 1998). The third category consists of juveniles between sixteen and eighteen. The law does not require determination of criminal responsibility for juveniles in this category; they automatically 2 receive less punishment than adults. For instance, if their criminal offense requires life imprisonment, their punishment is reduced to between fourteen and twenty years incarceration (Oto, 1998). All other offenses result in incarceration for half the length of time that would be used for adults. Youth age sixteen to eighteen are incarcerated in juvenile prisons. Deterrence oriented laws and punishments are designed to reduce delinquency. However, there are mixed results from U.S. research on the deterrent effect of laws and punishment intended to reduce delinquency (Trojanowicz et al., 2001). Consistent with this research and motivated by the European Union membership process, the Turkish criminal justice system became less punitive, less stigmatizing, and more lenient for juvenile offenders after a drastic policy change in 2005. Detention and incarceration are only used as a last option. There is no life imprisonment for juveniles for any kind of crimes. Youth are sent to juvenile prisons, juvenile training homes, or reformatories, where they are held separated from adult prisoners. However, even the shift to leniency and the suspension of trials did not slow the increase in numbers of juveniles being convicted or arrested (Solmaz, 2010). If the old penal code had been used, there would have been even more convicted or arrested juvenile between 2005 and 2008. Reformatories and juvenile training homes are for juveniles who were sentenced for less serious criminal offenses. The main purpose of the three reformatories in Turkey, which have a total capacity of three hundred and sixty youth, is to reintegrate juveniles into society. Juvenile prisons are for juveniles awaiting a court hearing or sentenced for serious criminal offenses (Irtiş, 2010). In juvenile reformatories, juvenile training homes, and prisons, juveniles are encouraged to attend different activities such as reading courses, elementary and high school level distance education, and classes teaching handcraft skills. For instance, if convicted juveniles did not graduate from elementary or high schools, they are provided opportunities to finish their 3 education. Most of the programs implemented in reformatories, juvenile training homes, and juvenile prisons focus on education or providing youth job skills instead of rehabilitation of the juveniles. In order to rehabilitate juveniles, the causes of their delinquency need to be identified and addressed. The lack of information about causation or pathways which youth follow into delinquency stands in the way of developing and delivering effective rehabilitation. Consistent with this view, a criticism at a conference sponsored by the Turkish Justice Department was that, instead of identifying causes of delinquency and related needs, the focus was on education and, after release, monitoring youths’ behavior (Acar, 2004). Rehabilitation initiatives were limited due to high numbers of convicted juveniles, lack of personnel, and a lack of cooperation among agencies which negatively affected the effectiveness of initiatives (Kırımsoy & Çavdar, 2005). In terms of judicial decisions, it can be stated that infrastructure insufficiencies have limited the standardization of services and practices. Reports from psychological and social evaluation of youth are a cornerstone of judgements that promote rehabilitation, but are generally not completed. Irtis (2010) found that such reports were hardly ever prepared, and when they were, they did not fulfill the required criteria. In addition, due to lack of time, judges did not thoroughly read even those reports that were prepared in accordance with the required criteria. Thus, judges did not know the factors that led children to deviance and crime, and their judgments were based only on the nature of the offense itself. This approach eliminates the possibility of interventions which might prevent delinquency or reduce recidivism. Juveniles are released from Turkish reformatories, juvenile training homes, or prisons either after serving all of their time or on parole. Upon being released, there is no official institution to supervise or help them. Therefore, they are free to return to the same social context 4 that may have contributed to their delinquency. According to the Juvenile Court Act, juveniles might be on parole from six months to three years. However, in most cases, courts order six months of parole. Usually social workers are appointed to prepare reports for paroled juveniles once every two months and to submit them to the juvenile court. Those reports are used to identify behavioral changes of juveniles, and to present evaluation of their family issues, school participation, and working conditions if they are employed. Based on this information, the social workers recommend whether or not it is necessary to extend parole. Uluğtekin and Acar (2005) examined 926 parole reports of 219 juveniles and stated that parole reports were not helpful to guide supervision and to help youth upon release from prison or reformatories. They found that although the report forms specified many types of information to be collected, most sections were left blank, which made it difficult to identify change in juveniles’ circumstances. Therefore, we do not have valid data on juvenile offenders on parole. As seen above, the juvenile justice system lacks the information needed to guide rehabilitation efforts for convicted juveniles either in reformatories or prisons or when they are on parole. Convicted Juveniles As displayed in Table 1, there is an increasing trend in the number of convicted juveniles between 1997 and 2008. The available official numbers include both male and female offenders. There were 4076 convicted juveniles between 1997 and 2000. This number grew to 7889 convicted juveniles between 2001 and 2004, and again to 10,649 convicted juveniles between 2005 and 2008. However, these numbers do not fully represent the problem of juvenile delinquency, because the criminal cases of some juveniles were suspended until they became adults at the age of nineteen. When they are nineteen and twenty years old, they are prosecuted for these suspended cases and most likely they are sent to adult prison. For instance, as displayed 5 in Table 1, in all three periods, the number of convicted young adults between ages nineteen and twenty was twice or three times greater than for all juveniles in the same period (TUIK, 2010). Table 1. Number of Convicted Juveniles and Young Adults between 2006 and 2008 1997 and 2000 12-18 4,076 2001 and 2004 12-18 7,889 2005 and 2008 12-18 10,649 19-20 9,937 19-20 17,780 19-20 20,424 The Turkish Institute of Statistics only provides information about the age of convicted juveniles, but we do know more about arrested youth. I therefore examined statistics from the Turkish Institute of Statistics to describe additional characteristics of arrested juveniles. As displayed in Table 2, the number of arrested juveniles increased between 2004 and 2006. Most of the arrested juveniles were between ages sixteen and eighteen, and the next largest group was between twelve and fifteen. Male and female numbers are presented in the table that shows juveniles arrested between 2004 and 2006. In all three years, male offenders consisted of an average of eighty-one percent of the offenders, whereas females consisted of an average of nineteen percent of the total offenders. It is obvious that the number of males is substantially greater than the number of females, especially for youth between ages twelve and eighteen, who are held responsible for their criminal acts. 6 Table 2. Age Group of Arrested Juveniles between 2004 and 2006 2004 2005 2006 Total Under 6 7 and 11 12 and 15 16 and 18 Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female 2023 1472 5083 2268 22671 4256 28780 4367 58557(83%) 12363(17%) 2330 1587 5260 2409 23026 4963 30523 5236 61139(81%) 25929(19%) 3032 1983 5286 2666 22404 5344 36418 6977 67140(79%) 16970(21%) 12427 (5%) 22972 (10%) 82564 (36%) 112291 (49%) 81% 19% As displayed in Table 3, the education level of the arrested juveniles is low. The categories of education are arranged on an ordinal scale, from the least to the most education. Youths with the least education were illiterate and were not attending school. Considering all three years, seventy-three percent of arrested youth had no education beyond elementary school. Some of them were illiterate and not attending school and some were literate but had not graduated from even elementary school, and were no longer attending school. For the combined group of youth for the three years, twenty-six percent of the arrested juveniles were either in high school or had dropped out of high school, or had graduated from high school. There were few vocational or college students. The majority of the arrested juveniles were living in urban areas and few of them lived in rural areas. This is consistent with population statistics for the country. That is, almost eighty percent of the Turkish population is living in urban areas (TUIK, 2010). 7 Table 3. Characteristics of Arrested Juveniles between 2004 and 2006 1 2004 2005 2006 Illiterate Literate but not graduated from school Elementary school student Drop out elementary school Graduated from elementary school High school student Dropout high school Graduated from high school Undergrad or college student 5369 (12%) 1872 (4%) 6185 (13%) 7063 (15%) 14448 (31%) 8231 (18%) 1528 (3%) 1422 (3%) 202 (0.4%) 4423 (10%) 2146 (5%) 6441 (15%) 7673 (17%) 12882 (29%) 7498 (17%) 1817 (4%) 1441 (3%) 174 (0.3%) 4122 (9%) 1383 (3%) 6622 (14%) 8569 (18%) 11760 (25%) 10573 (23%) 2151 (4.5%) 1432 (3%) 170 (0.3%) Urban Rural 42430 (94%) 2895 (6%) 41340 (93%) 3159 (7%) 44088 (94%) 2703 (6%) Offended Alone Offended with more than one person 18943 (42%) 26382 (58%) 19060 (43%) 25439 (57%) 21199 (45%) 25592 (55%) First Offense Offended once Offended more than once 32462 (72%) 3181 (7%) 9682 (21%) 31521 (71%) 3301 (7%) 9677 (22%) 36632 (78%) 2479 (5%) 7680 (17%) Homicide Assault Robbery Theft 344 (1%) 16803 (54%) 1649 (6%) 12147 (39%) 271 (1%) 16537 (54%) 1913 (6%) 11791 (39%) 281 (1%) 16970 (54%) 2032 (7%) 12064 (38%) More than half of the juveniles were arrested for committing crimes with another person, and the remaining forty-three percent offended alone. Seventy-four percent were arrested for a first offense, and twenty-six percent had at least one prior offense. Acar (2004) stated that robbery, assault, and theft were the most common offenses by Turkish juvenile offenders. More 1 Descriptive statistics in Table 2 and Table 3 were taken by the author from Turkish Statistics Institute (TUIK); therefore they are not available in the website of TUIK 8 than half of the arrested juveniles committed assault; the next most common offenses are theft and robbery (Table 3; TUIK, 2010). The numbers given in Table 3 may be confusing when compared to the total number of arrested juveniles in Table 2. For example, we know that the number of arrested juveniles in 2004 was 70,920. However, the education level is indicated for just 46,325 youth. Whether the offense was committed alone is indicated for just 45,325 youth. The reason for this difference is the missing information in the forms turned in to the police or gendarme (soldiers who work as police in rural areas). Apart from descriptive information about convicted and arrested juveniles, information is available from Öğel et al.’s (2004) interviews with 194 juvenile offenders who also were street children in Istanbul. Almost half of the children had been living on the streets for more than four years; half of them graduated only from elementary school and almost twenty percent of them were illiterate. The youths’ families exhibited many difficulties. Most family members were elementary school graduates or were illiterate, which indicates that youth are coming from very poorly educated families. Economic conditions of their families were also bad. Alcohol consumption of fathers was reported as high. More than half of the youth had separated from their families and almost seventy percent of them did not have any contact with their mothers or fathers. Öğel et al. (2004) concluded that youths’ exposure to violence at home and school bred violence in them, which they exhibited in other contexts such as in schools or on the streets. Almost seventy-three percent had been physically abused, and almost seventy percent had been emotionally abused. Thirty percent of the street children had been sexually abused and almost eleven percent had been raped. Rape was more prevalent among girls than boys. 9 The youth that Öğel et al. (2004) studied had a high prevalence of substance abuse (80 percent) and illegal activity. The starting age for substance abuse had been reported as between 12.1 and 12.8 years of age. Almost half of the street children had used easy-to-find and cheap inhalants, often so that they could forget their problems. Genar (2007) also conducted a study on street children in Istanbul, and when research team members asked why juveniles used inhalants, one-fourth of the juveniles said that they used inhalants to forget everything. Peer influence was also a key influence on substance use (Öğel et al., 2004). Almost seventy-three percent had reported that they were involved in criminal activity and fifty-three percent reported that they carried a knife or gun. Almost twenty-six percent had reported that they were involved in groups of street children which commit crimes (Öğel et al., 2004). Studies on Convicted Juveniles in Juvenile Prisons The earliest studies on convicted Turkish juveniles were conducted by Günçe and Konanç (1983), Yavuzer (1981), Subaşı (1979), and Mangır (1992). The researchers contended that physical abuse by parents, coming from poor and crowded families, living in disorganized parts of urban areas, having a low educational level, running away, delinquent peers, and lack of being monitored and supervised by parents were some of the causes of convicted juveniles’ delinquency. However, all of those studies relied on percentages for analysis and drew conclusion based on the prevalence of various background factors among delinquent youth. Except for Günçe and Konanç (1983), none of the mentioned studies used comparison groups of non-convicted youth. Contemporary studies suffer from the same low quality that characterized the early research (Hancı et al., 2005; Öğel & Aksoy, 2007; Öntaş & Akşit, 2008; Türkeri, 1995). Moreover, none of those studies conducted in juvenile prisons were informed by any criminological theories. For instance, Öğel and Aksoy (2007) examined substance use of 10 convicted adolescents by using a survey with measures that had untested validity and reliability. Moreover, they made under-theorized and questionable causal statements without using multivariate analysis. For instance, they indicated that having a father who drinks alcohol causes substance abuse of the children. They gave some descriptive information about juveniles in four juvenile prisons, but it only included average age, education level, economic status of families, and whether or not families knew that youth used substances. All of those studies were crosssectional, so the researchers were unable to demonstrate time order, which is necessary for making strong inference about causation. Especially relevant to this dissertation, prior research did not show the sequence of events leading to youths’ incarceration, nor did it show how various predictors affected youth in combination and over time. For some qualitative studies on convicted juveniles, data collection methods also are questionable. For instance, Öntas and Akşit (2008) examined reasons for crime from the viewpoint of juvenile offenders. They provided pencils and paper and asked juveniles to answer some questions, such as, what are the living circumstances of themselves and their families, their future plans, and experiences in their own lives? However, juveniles may not be willing to write about their experiences, because they may think that written comments would be used against them. They may not feel comfortable writing due to their limited writing skills or learning disabilities. As indicated above, the educational level of convicted juveniles is very low, so it is unrealistic to expect them to describe their experiences in writing. The use of official data on convicted juveniles is also problematic due to invalid or missing information. Acar (2004) criticized studies using official data because files lacked detailed information about juveniles’ families, socio-cultural and socioeconomic conditions, and leading causes of delinquency; therefore, studies relying on these files do not give valid 11 information about juvenile delinquency and in turn do not inform intervention or prevention programs. The State of Knowledge about Delinquency in Turkey As discussed above, the state of knowledge about convicted juveniles is limited due to low quality studies in terms of their methodological shortcomings, use of primitive statistics, and lack of theoretical grounding. Aside from information on convicted youth, more general knowledge about delinquency in Turkey also suffers from serious limitations. I grouped articles on juvenile delinquency in Turkey into three categories. The first category included literature reviews relevant to delinquency. The authors evaluated the literature and drew conclusions without using any data and without identifying any new concepts; they thus made limited contributions to the field. For instance, Bahar and Seyhan (2007) made inferences about causes of juvenile delinquency based on just a literature review of basic criminological theories and studies in the U.S. Koçak (2006) attempted integration of differential association, social control, and social learning theory to explain juvenile delinquency in only two pages. Sümer and Aydın (1999) examined violence in schools without any data. The lack of individual level data that could be used to complement such descriptive work adds to the problem, since forms that are filled out by juveniles or institutions, as noted above, have much missing information. The second category of publications included studies which gave only descriptive statistics of their results such as means and standard deviations or the results of bivariate analysis such as t-test. For instance, Akduman and Çolak (2008) examined depression levels and delinquency by conducting bivariate analysis; Işır et al. (2007) relied on bivariate analysis to examine the role of the family; Uluğtekin (1989) examined family background and resocialization of delinquents based on the means and standard deviations of the variables. 12 According to Polat and Gül (2010), criminal justice institutions only relied on descriptive statistics (numbers or numbers and percentages) to explain delinquency and crime instead of using multivariate analysis. They also did not use detailed qualitative information, which is another method of showing how youth become involved in delinquency. The third category of publications included some exceptions to publications that either present no data analysis or that use univariate or bivariate statistics, and which sometimes are unrelated to theory. These exceptions are work by Özbay and Özcan (2006), who tested general strain theory; Özbay and Özcan (2008) who tested social control theory; and Özbay and Köksoy (2009) who tested self-control theory by using logistic regression. Although Özbay and Özcan (2006), Özbay and Özcan (2008), and Özbay and Köksoy (2009) drew on theory, their work can be criticized based on their neglect of key propositions or the assumptions underlying the theories. For example, general strain theory identifies different types of strain as causes of negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety and depression; depending on youths’ coping strategies, these emotions influence delinquency. Özbay and Özcan (2006) tested for effects of strains on delinquency, but did not include negative emotions and coping mechanisms in their explanatory model. Therefore, their model was misspecified. Also, all of those studies on juvenile delinquency were cross-sectional and failed to establish time order, which is necessary for making a strong causal inference. Moreover, the predictive models do not consider youths’ capacity to exercise some degree of agency. As seen above, neither quantitative nor qualitative studies of delinquency in Turkey are adequately designed to allow for strong inference about its causes. Existing research lacks theoretical grounding or suffers from methodological shortcomings. For quantitative studies, problems include item reliability, validity, primitive statistical techniques, and reliance on 13 inadequate official files. For qualitative research, shortcomings are lack of theoretical grounding, methodological limitations, and lack of rich description which is necessary for causal inferences. Most of the studies on juvenile delinquency or convicted juveniles in Turkey can be considered as reductionist because they did not consider multiple levels of influence. Another weakness of prior studies is that they have failed to provide strong evidence of cause and effect relationships. Without evidence of what caused youths’ delinquency, interventions and prevention programs are not supported by valid knowledge of juvenile delinquency. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the life course of convicted juveniles, including the experiences and events that lead them to prison. The research focused on a purposively selected group of twenty-six convicted eighteen years old men and four convicted nineteen years old men in Ankara juvenile prison. The life course theoretical framework developed by Sampson and Laub (1993) guided this research. I examined convicted juveniles’ narratives of the experiences that led up to their conviction. To address existing issues and contribute to the discourses about convicted juveniles and juvenile delinquency, this study developed an understanding of how and why juveniles end up in juvenile prison. The study findings can be used to recommend policies for prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency in a non-Western and developing country, such as Turkey. Since there are limited studies on convicted Turkish juveniles, this study would fill a gap in this area. Conducting a qualitative study with convicted juveniles generated rich description of youths’ experiences and thus shed light on the causes of juvenile delinquency. Theoretical Significance of the Study 14 Research on life course theory has been criticized for being applied almost exclusively in Western societies and for the lack of an adequate number of cross-national studies (Furstenberg, 2003). Thus, diverse patterns in different countries in particular non-Western countries were ignored (Dannefer, 2003). Moreover, due to ignoring different cultural contexts in life course studies, the theory could not be developed to show how the meaning of life course transitions in individuals’ lives varies in different cultural contexts (Hogan, 1991). Therefore, Laub and Lauritsen (1993) suggested consideration of cultural context in life course studies as a new direction of future research on life course theory. Similarly, Benson (2002) emphasized the importance of applying life course theory in other countries, because history, social structure, and values influence how people adapt their trajectories. He also recommended identifying specific turning points in adolescence for future research in life course research. In this respect, this study helped to advance the life course theory because it was applied in Turkey for the first time. Interviews with thirty incarcerated 18 years old juveniles allowed for study of youth who had penetrated deeply into the justice system and thus who were of particular importance to study. 15 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW The Life Course Perspective Different Types of Life Course Theories What is called life course theory is a multidisciplinary movement which encompasses ideas and empirical observations from a variety of disciplines such as psychology, history, biology, and sociology; therefore it is not an explicit theory of anything, and the term actually refers to several different specific theoretical frameworks. The life-course theories that have become an emergent paradigm have been used to study human lives and development as well as continuity and change over the life course of individuals (Elder, 1998). Although life course researchers work with basic principles and use similar concepts, such as trajectory or transitions, their theoretical constructs and perspectives vary in important ways. In criminology, there are major differences between Moffitt’s dual taxonomy theory (1993), Sampson and Laub’s age-graded theory of informal social control (1993), and Thornberry’s (1997) interactional theoretical models (Livingston et al., 2008). Different life course researchers emphasize different causal factors. For instance, Moffitt (1993) explains variation in criminal trajectories as a result of temperamental differences. In contrast, Sampson and Laub (1993), Laub and Sampson (2003), and Thornberry (1997) focus on the nature and balance of informal social controls over the life course. Informal social controls that result from bonds to other people have been identified as influential in delinquency theory (Hirschi, 1969) 16 that preceded the application of life course theory in criminology. Therefore, there is not one single life course theory relevant to delinquency, though they all suggest the need to explore change or continuity in individuals’ lives over time. To clarify the differences between life course theories, Sampson and Laub (1993) categorized developmental and life course frameworks as either “ontogenetic” or “sociogenetic” models of crime. In ontogenetic models, the propensity to engage in crime is present in a person’s early years and is stable and unaffected by life events over time. This model attributes deviant behavior to constitutional factors such as temperament, intelligence (Wilson & Hernstein, 1985), and self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Thus, antisocial behavior in children is highly predictive of antisocial behaviors in adulthood. The ontogenetic model of crime can be tied to the criminal career perspective in criminology, which was influenced by developmental psychology (Blumstein et al., 1988; Moffitt, 1993; Thornberry, 1997). In the sociogenetic model, life course events like employment, marriage, and college attendance have profound effects on criminal careers. Its proponents rejected the implication that later adult factors had little relevance and criticized the assumption that childhood propensities always influence later delinquency. For example, Dannefer (1984) faulted the ontogenetic model of crime by contending that there was an interaction between individuals and their social environments in terms of explanation of continuity and change. That is, humans are open to change and can adjust to the environment even after childhood. Life Course Theory and Age-Graded Theory of Informal Social Control In my study, I used the age-graded theory of informal social control which was developed by Sampson and Laub (1993) within the life course paradigm. As Laub and Sampson (2003) stated, the “life course perspective offers the most compelling and unifying framework for 17 understanding the processes underlying continuity (persistence) and change (desistence) in criminal behavior over the life span” (p. 296). Life course theory captures the richness of human lives and pathways of offending and allows researchers to study individuals’ lives in context (Thornberry, 1997). Transitions and trajectories are the two main concepts of the theory, and because transitions are hypothesized to affect offending, there is need to study important transitions in an individual’s life. Sampson and Laub (1993) proposed that structural context such as poverty, family crowding, family disruption, and residential mobility are mediated by informal social processes of family, school, and peers, which in turn explain delinquency in childhood and adolescence. Thus, Sampson and Laub integrated both structural and process variables to explain the onset of deviance and crime. Although their own research showed that structural characteristics had just a weak direct influence on delinquency, they had significant influence on crime and deviance in childhood and adolescence through their effect on informal family and school social controls. This theory has not been applied before in Turkey for studies of either juvenile delinquency or convicted juveniles, but it holds potential for considering context, families, and peers as they influence youths’ pathways into prison. In the version of life course theory that guided this dissertation (referred to in the remainder of this dissertation as Sampson and Laub’s life course theory), individuals follow pathways through their life spans, during which there are culturally-defined, age-graded roles and social transitions. Life course theory “provides a framework for studying phenomena at the nexus of social pathways, developmental trajectories, and social change” (Elder et al., 2003, p. 10). Social change refers to the historical context during a person’s life course. This approach to studying human lives and development within a broad multidisciplinary framework most differentiates it from other criminological theories (Elder, 1985, 1998). 18 Sampson and Laub’s life course theory examines not only the life of individuals but also the social context in which the person lived and the social structure that affected their lives (Sampson & Laub, 1993). In this regard, individual and community level influences can be studied together. Jarrett (1997) argued that while social disorganization studies mostly focused on the link between impoverished neighborhoods and delinquency of children and adolescents, they could not explain why children and adolescents living in the same impoverished neighborhood were not delinquent. The author explained this fact by stating that these theories failed to identify the influences of family processes. Sampson and Laub (1993) emphasized age differentiation as important in life course theory and defined the life course as a “course of events that give shape to life stages, transitions, and turning points” (p. 7). They developed a framework which explained childhood anti-social behavior, adolescent delinquency, and crime in adulthood. Difficult temperament, persistent tantrums, and early conduct disorder were influential individual characteristics in childhood. Additionally, family and school processes of informal social control provided the key causal explanation of delinquency in childhood and adolescence. Although Sampson and Laub did not find a strong influence of delinquent peers in their own study, they recommended examining the role of peer influences more carefully in future studies. They also recommended analysis of the influence of structural conditions on peer influences and the study of whether or not peer influence can neutralize informal social controls resulting from bonds with family and school. The theory also accounted for crime and delinquency in adolescence. Sampson and Laub (1993) differentiated the life course of individuals on the basis of age and argued that the important institutions of both formal and informal social control which would reduce illegal behavior varied across the life span. They proposed that informal social controls were manifested 19 differently as people age. In childhood and adolescence, informal social controls depended most on parenting styles such as discipline, supervision, emotional attachment and warmth of parents and on school attachment and peers. In adulthood, informal social controls for males depended on marriage, military service, and employment (Sampson and Laub, 1993, 2003, 2005). Sampson and Laub (1993) used conceptual tools from Elder’s (1985) life course perspective and etiological principles from Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory. They differentiated stages in the life course of individuals on the basis of age and emphasized the importance of institutions of informal and formal social control which varied across the life span. They called their new version of life course theory the age-graded informal social control theory because individuals had ties to society, one another, and wider institutions (Laub & Sampson, 1993). The authors contended that family, school, and peers were the dominant sources of social control during childhood and adolescence because when ties to those processes weakened, adolescents were more likely to commit delinquent acts (Simons et al., 2002). To further explain the theory that underlies the dissertation research, first I explain the conceptual tools that Sampson and Laub take from Elder’s study (trajectory and transitions). Then I explain other concepts, such as turning points, cumulative continuity, human agency, and routine activities that were used in the theory. Finally, I more fully explain the informal social control processes. Trajectories Trajectories are described as pathways, lines of development throughout life, and longterm, age graded patterns of development in major social institutions such as education, employment, marriage, parenthood, self-esteem, and criminal behavior (Sampson & Laub, 1992; Thornberry, 1997). The life course of individuals consists of interconnected trajectories as people 20 age. Because people live in multiple spheres, their lives include multiple, intersecting trajectories such as the education trajectory, family life trajectory, work trajectory, the family’s economic trajectory, and a delinquency and crime trajectory (Elder, 1985, 1998). Trajectories allow researchers to understand the development of normative or non-normative behavior over the life course (Livingstone et al., 2008). They can be modified by triggering life events and social institutions which include school, work, marriage, military, and parenthood (Sampson & Laub, 1992). There can be multiple, interlocking trajectories in one’s life course such as work, school, marriage, and parenthood and “no trajectory can be fully understood apart from its relation to other trajectories” (Elder, 1985, p. 73). In a similar vein, Macmillan and Eliason (2003) argued that life course trajectories were interdependent phenomena. Each trajectory is partly influenced by the shape of other trajectories. For example, marriage often occurs after full completion of school. In addition, occurrences in one trajectory may also affect another trajectory. For instance, problems starting or completing higher education may influence anticipated marriage. Trajectories are sequences of linked states within a conceptually defined behavior or experience and may be of different types. For instance, in many countries, a person’s educational trajectory consists of an educational process from elementary school to the cessation of the formal educational trajectory in college around age 22 or 23. When people are on an educational trajectory, they graduate from one level of schooling to another (Elder, 1998). Sometimes structural factors influence trajectories. For instance, Crosnoe and Cooper (2010) explained how economically disadvantaged children will get fewer degrees due to having less cognitive skills than their peers, lower level course work, and lower grades and test scores; based on a literature review, they concluded that, “economic disadvantage can derail the trajectories of educational 21 attainment” (p. 259). Residential trajectories may also affect other trajectories, as they entail the correlated dynamics of income and mobility processes (Elder, 1985). In order to understand the crime trajectory better, it should be viewed within the total context of the person’s life and development. Trajectories of crime can be understood within the life course perspective because this perspective allows researchers to examine criminal offending across the span of the life course (Sampson & Laub, 2005). Understanding a drug trajectory similarly requires identifying critical events and factors contributing to the persistence or change in drug use over the life course. Trajectories of drug use such as cocaine/crack, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine can be different in terms of onset, relapse, cessation, and factors contributing to these changes or lack of changes. Those issues are demarcated by major changes in drug use trajectories (Hser et al., 2007). In a similar vein, there can be different trajectories in crime because some offenders commit crimes earlier and desist later than normal or some offenders may commit more serious crimes or crimes at much higher rates than normal. For instance, Wolfgang et al. (1972) identified non-offenders, one-time offenders, multiple offenders, and chronic offenders as different crime trajectories whereas Chung, Hill, Hawkins, Gilchrist, and Nagin (2002) found the five offense trajectories, non-offenders, late on-setters, desisters, escalators, and chronic offenders. Benson (2002) stated that each crime trajectory might have unique causes, although some causal mechanisms might overlap and operate across trajectories. According to Thornberry (1997), there are three important dimensions of trajectories in life course research: entrance, success, and timing. For example, not everybody has children so that not everybody enters the parenting trajectory. Thus, for some trajectories, some people enter and some do not enter. When people enter a trajectory, they may have different levels of success 22 in completing different tasks. For instance, when people enter an educational trajectory, some of them do well in school and some may drop out of school and never get to college. In every society, there are correct times for people to enter or leave certain trajectories or make transitions within these trajectories (Thornberry, 1997). For instance, in the U.S. it is age appropriate for children to leave their parental houses when they are about 20 years old. If they leave much earlier or in their 30s, they make this transition at off-age times that can have harmful consequences such as failing to complete school due to leaving the parental home early and ending up homeless and living on the street (Hagan & McCarthy, 1997). In their revised life course theory, Laub and Sampson (2003) recommended learning about the mechanisms underlying turning points in the life course. Transitions Transitions include leaving school, beginning work, leaving home, establishing an independent residence, getting married, dropping out of school, being incarcerated, divorce, committing the first crime, or becoming a parent. Unlike trajectories, transitions are short-term events or changes within trajectories which can also deflect the trajectory; for example being incarcerated can interrupt starting a job (Thornberry, 1997; Elder, 1985). As Elder (1985) stated, “transitions are always embedded in trajectories that give them distinctive form and meaning” (p. 32). Leaving high school early is considered to be a precarious transition and its relation to delinquency is assumed to be strong (Jarjoura, 1993). In terms of the education trajectory mentioned above, graduating from one level of schooling to another, which is a change in state, is called a transition and can only exist within an education trajectory (Elder, 1998). Leaving the natal home at an early age is another transition. It is associated with deviance, especially drug 23 and alcohol use, due to decreased parental monitoring and social support that occurs when individuals escape from their families in order to gain freedom from parental control (Krohn et al., 1997). Turning Points Transitional events within trajectories may generate turning points in the life course (Elder, 1985). A turning point is a point that represents substantial and lasting change in the life course which is not just a temporary detour (Elder, 1998; Rutter, 1996). Two of the objectives of life course theory are to link past events and experiences to the present and to explain continuity and change in behavior over time. It is important to learn more about turning points as they are relevant to deviance and crime in the life course. It is important to take turning points into account, since they can modify life trajectories in unexpected ways. Turning points are used to understand stability and change in human behavior over the life course and are closely linked to role transitions. They can be defined as movements into new environments that entail significant alterations of the life course. Moreover, they have been conceptualized as an alteration or deflection in a long-term pathway or trajectory which was initiated at an earlier time (Sampson & Laub, 1993, 2005). For example, if someone is addicted to alcohol, he/she may continue his/her life using that substance unless he/she has some event which becomes a turning point for recovery (Schulenberg et al., 2003). Sampson and Laub (1993, 2003, 2005) emphasized marriage, meaningful work, school, residential change, and serving in the military as key positive turning points and heavy drinking, prolonged incarceration, drug use, or subsequent job instability as negative turning points in an individual’s life course. They found that these events have a significant influence on people’s lives because they change the living environment and friends, and therefore reshape trajectories 24 of criminal offending. They also found that some missed opportunities, such as a chance at a good education, were turning points for persistent offenders. Laub and Sampson (2003) described the importance of turning points as they knife off the past from the present; provide not only supervision and monitoring but also opportunities for social support and growth; bring structure and change to routine activities; and provide an opportunity for identity transformation (pp. 148-149). Melde and Esbensen (2011) adapted these four turning points in a framework in their study. They found that gang membership was a turning point for youth in their sample because it knifed off prosocial attachments, which means that it weakened informal social control which in turn promoted delinquency. Elder (1985) stated that some transitions, such as first marriage and childbearing, are age-graded. However, he warned that other transitions are unrelated to age and generally are unexpected. Individuals may get caught in those transitions with inadequate preparation and social support. In this regard, this dissertation explored those transitional events which were unexpected but that influenced illegal activity to provide clues for interventions in adolescents’ lives. Although Sampson and Laub (1993) repeatedly used the turning points concept to explain the adult period in the life span, they did not emphasize what kinds of turning points affect trajectories in adolescence. Laub and Sampson (2001) stated that triggering events for turning points in adulthood such as marriage, employment, and military service might be quite distinct from triggering points for adolescents. Consistent with this suggestion, Benson (2002) stated that onset of offending and desistence from offending were two important turning points in the teenage years, and he recommended identifying specific turning points in adolescence for future research in life course studies. 25 Cumulative Continuity Cumulative continuity is another important concept in life course studies. As Sampson and Laub (1997) mentioned, cumulative continuity is related to Lemert’s labeling theory. Although they mostly emphasized negative outcomes of cumulative continuity in adulthood, this phenomenon may also affect juveniles. For instance, if a young boy is arrested early in life, he may be labeled as a troublemaker by people such as teachers, police, and other adults in the neighborhood. Due to being labeled as a troublemaker, he may be prevented from associating with neighborhood youth who avoid lawbreaking and may be forced to have friends who engage in illegal behavior, which in turn leads to more trouble and subsequent arrests (Benson, 2002). Symbolic interactionist theory is also related to the cumulative continuity concept. That theoretical perspective is not interested why people commit crime. Instead, it focuses on the reaction of the society to crime and criminals. Therefore, this perspective helps to understand how criminals are affected by social reactions, because social reactions may shape persons’ identities. Societal interaction may alter the self-concept of the labeled person. People can think about themselves, specifically about whether they are good or bad, by considering what other people think about them and may shape themselves according to the societal reaction. In this perspective, according to Mead, (1934) people know themselves mostly as a consequence of social interactions. If they perceive negative reactions to themselves, they may see themselves as worthless and they may develop a negative identity. In this respect, people are vulnerable to negative reactions of the society. Over time, these people may embrace the idea that they are in fact ‘criminals.’ Social interaction not only transform a person’s identity, but also his or her conventional social relationships which would have constrained the person from pursuit of a 26 criminal life style. That is, we become or we are what we think others think we are (Akers, 2000; Cullen & Agnew, 2003; Paternoster & Iovanni, 1989). When Matsueda (1992) revitalized this perspective, he found that when youth perceive that other people in particular who are close to them, such as family members, view them as delinquent, this view becomes a key proximate cause of delinquent behavior. Then, they act upon this conception of themselves which can be defined as cyclical, a ‘self fulfilling prophecy.’ Due to reflected appraisal of others, juveniles perceive themselves as delinquent, which creates a ‘delinquent self’ and that prompts illegal conduct. Sampson and Laub (1997) extended their theory by considering cumulative disadvantage. They linked the process of cumulative disadvantage to four key institutions of social control. For the first institution, the family, difficult children affect their parents’ discipline and may end up being harshly physically punished, which may be linked to later violent offending or antisocial behavior. In schools, the second institution, if teachers are sensitive to an unruly and difficult child, it may lead to rejection of the child, which may undermine the child’s performance in the school. When a child is aggressive in the school, he/she will also be rejected by his peers, the third institution. Peer rejection will contribute to involvement with deviant peers. The result may be contact with a fourth key institution, the justice system. When a child is arrested, he/she will be officially labeled, which may lead to negative outcomes in the future, such as lack of education and employment opportunities. Sampson and Laub (1993) proposed integrating their theory with developmental labeling theory. Cumulative disadvantage refers to deviant labeling that leads to increasing marginalization from conventionally structured opportunities. As Lemert (1951) wrote, official reactions to primary deviance may create problems, such as unemployment, that foster additional 27 crime in the form of secondary deviance. Sampson and Laub (1997) theorized cumulative continuity and the causal role of salient life experiences in their study primarily by examining the literature. Cumulative continuity is defined as delinquent behavior at one point in life that has consequences that increase the likelihood of continued delinquent behavior at later points in time. Sampson and Laub stated that much early childhood delinquency is met with repressive efforts that increase incrementally over time to produce developmental effects. In this respect, their theory incorporated the role of prior delinquency in facilitating adult crime through a process of cumulative disadvantage linked to the key institutions of social control. The cumulative continuity of disadvantage not only results from prior delinquency, but is also part of a dynamic process in which childhood social behavior and adolescent delinquency foster adult criminality through disrupted opportunities to develop adult social bonds. Sampson and Laub (1993) recommended that future life course theory research consider the effects of institutionalization experiences on delinquency. Institutionalization experiences may affect cumulative continuity. In addition, institutionalization was identified as a transitional event, which can substantially alter the life course by reducing future conventional opportunities (Sampson and Laub, 1997). Institutionalization is related to dropping out of school (Hirschfield, 2009). It also may impede educational opportunities for students labeled for being incarcerated, thereby reducing future employment opportunities (Bodwitch, 1993; Bernburg & Krohn, 2003). Human Agency When Sampson and Laub (1993) developed the age-graded theory of informal social control, the role of human agency had not been full incorporated into their theory and associated empirical assessments (Laub et al., 1998). Human agency was used in the revised version of the theory and was considered as a first-order challenge for future theoretical development (Sampson 28 & Laub, 2005). Specifically, Laub and Sampson (2003) modified their theory and suggested that human choice was one of the causal elements in explanation of persistent offending and desistance from crime in adulthood. Elder et al. (2003) similarly contended that children and adolescents were not passively acted upon by structural constraints or social influence. Like adults, the youths made choices by considering alternatives before them. For instance, Clausen argued that when adolescents make choices and plans within their limited world, their “planful competence” furthered their educational attainment (as cited in Elder et al., 2003, p. 11). However, planfulness depended on the context and its constraints. Human agency refers to individual choices constrained by structural conditions and context. That is, individuals may be intentional in their decisions, but their actions are subject to structural constraints which are defined by the concept of “situated choice.” For instance, a crime desistance decision alone may be insufficient if structural context is not taken into account (Laub & Sampson, 2003). Therefore, in order to understand behavior, interaction of choice and structure should be considered together because they produce behavior together (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Wikstrom, 2004). Sampson and Laub (2005) stated that people could conclude mistakenly from their first book that persistent crime was nothing more than a weakening of social bonds and desistance was nothing more than the presence of social bonds. Instead, institutional and structural context, turning points, and opportunities were incomplete explanations if the effect of human agency was not taken into account. They concluded that individuals who desisted from and persisted in crime accepted responsibility for their actions and for the most part did not offer excuses. They viewed human agency as the ability to construct or discover one’s new preferences, sometimes jointly with others. In a similar vein, Elder (1998) emphasized the importance of human agency 29 as one of the key principles of the life course perspective and stated that, “individuals construct their own life course through the choices and actions they take within the opportunities and constraints of history and social circumstances” (p. 4). Laub and Sampson (2003) interviewed study participants when they were almost seventy years old. Participants retrospectively recalled their past persistence and desistence from crime. Questions were designed to reveal human agency and the context within which deviant and criminal acts occurred. Analysis of the narratives revealed that the men participated actively in deciding to give up crime. Laub, Sampson, & Sweeten (2006) contended that further research on human agency would be beneficial to understand life-course trajectories of crime. Routine Activities In the revised version of age graded informal social control theory of crime, Laub and Sampson (2003) examined routine activities defined as proximal causes to criminal and noncriminal behavior across the life course. They emphasized the importance of routine activities or situational contexts in modifying life course trajectories of offending due to an interaction between routine activities and social controls. They found that individuals with structured routine activities offended less than others. Persistent offenders were more likely to have chaotic and unstructured lives across multiple dimensions such as work, family, and living arrangements. Any routine activities for these men presented opportunities for crime and relationships with like-minded offenders. For instance, if alcohol became a major part of an individual’s life, his/her lifestyle activities involved frequenting bars, clubs, or parties with similarly situated others. Therefore, it is important to consider situational variation in lifestyle activities to understand persistence in and desistence from crime. 30 Laub and Sampson (2003) stated that peer relations are crucial in structuring routine activities and opportunities for crime over the life course. Human agency was also considered in its interaction with routine activities. The authors continued to emphasize the mediating effects of informal social control processes of family, school, and peers. In the revised version of the theory, individuals with structured routine activities would be less likely to offend than individuals lacking in structured routines. In their study, marriage, work, and military service were turning points for adults because, for example, wives limited the number of nights men could spend “hanging out with the guys” and cut off ex-offenders from criminal associates. Work also regulated ex-offenders’ time and disassociated them from criminal friends and involved them with friends at work. Therefore, it is important to determine possible turning points for adolescents that would alter their routine activities in ways that influence their delinquency. In their revised theory, Laub and Sampson (2003) stressed the importance of local contexts, especially neighborhood conditions, in fostering changes in criminal activity. They found that neighborhoods affected parenting styles, individual self-control, and criminal activity. In agreement, Fagan and Wexler (1987) emphasized the importance of neighborhoods which shaped and influenced the family’s efficacy as a socializing institution. Neighborhoods with weak formal and informal social controls affect social institutions such as family and school, causing them to fail in providing social controls against criminal behaviors. From a more general perspective, Kornhauser (1978) stated that social bonds either inhibit or promote delinquent and violent behavior in the adolescent years, and those bonds were shaped and influenced by social environments. 31 Social Control Theory Sampson and Laub (1993) adopted etiological principles of social control theory and integrated the life course perspective with social control theory. Therefore, the next section explains social control theory and how Sampson and Laub (1993) used the theory in a unique way. Unlike most other theories, which focused on explaining why some adolescents break the law, social control theory focused on why some people do not break the law. Hirschi (1969) stated that when individuals’ bond to conventional society is weak or broken, they would be more likely to commit delinquent acts. Therefore, according to Hirschi’s social control theory, there are four basic bonds which prevent people from engaging in delinquency. Hirschi (1969) stated that when those bonds were weak, given the appropriate motivation, people were free to engage in delinquency. Hirschi (1969) stated that attachment, the first and the most important bond, refers to affection and respect that people hold toward significant others such as parents, school, and peers. When people have strong attachment, they are less likely to engage in delinquency because they will not want to harm or incur disapproval of people they care about. Hirschi stated that, “the more strongly a child is attached to his parents, the more strongly he is bound to their expectations, and therefore the stronger he is bound to conformity with the legal norms of the larger system (pp. 89-90).Communication between parents and children was a strong indicator of determination of the degree of attachment (Hirschi, 1969). The second bond is commitment, which refers to people’s actual and anticipated investments in conventional activities such as good education. People who have invested heavily in conventional activities were expected to engage in delinquency less since they have too much 32 to lose. When individuals intend to engage in deviant behavior, they must consider the costs (Hirschi, 1969). A third bond is involvement, which refers to amount of time that is spent in conventional activities. Activities such as reading or doing homework are expected to limit one’s time and reduce the opportunity to commit delinquent behaviors. The last bond, belief, involves people’s commitment to a central value system. For example, people who believe that they should obey the conventional rules will be less likely to engage in delinquency. In prior research, beliefs were reflected by questions about such topics as respect for police and the law (Hirschi, 1969). While social control theory explained some differences in delinquency, it was criticized for not being able to predict why certain adolescents exhibited particular patterns of delinquency, or why some youth became chronic offenders while some did not, or how bonds were developed for some and not for others (Trojanowicz et al., 2001). Sampson and Laub’s use of social control theory differed from and broadened Hirschi’s explanation by recognizing that social control resulting from bonds varies over the life course (Laub et al., 2006). Moreover, Sampson and Laub (1993) conceptualized the family differently from Hirschi (1969), who emphasized indirect controls in the form of child’s emotional bond or attachment to parents. Sampson and Laub borrowed from Patterson’s (1980, 1982) research that highlighted direct parental control. According to Patterson (1980, 1982), it was crucial to know what a child was doing, monitor him/her over long periods, model social skills, state house rules clearly, consistently provide reasonable punishments for transgressions, provide reinforcements for conformity, and negotiate disagreements before conflict escalates. They defined this conceptualization of family as “coercion theory” and contended that less skilled parents would inadvertently reinforce children’s antisocial behavior and fail to provide effective punishments 33 for transgressions. In other words, families of delinquents do not track and punish unacceptable behavior and they do not care what their children do. Sampson and Laub (1993) also used the notion of reintegrative shaming. According to Braithwaite (1989), effective parents use reintegrative shaming. They punish their children in a consistent manner within the context of love, respect, and acceptance of the child. Braithwaite stated that if parents were cold, authoritarian, and enacted harsh punishment, it would lead to stigmatization and constitute unsuccessful childrearing. Persons in their childhood and adolescence are tied to social institutions like family, school, and peers whereas adults are tied to marriage/parenthood, employment, and higher education. Changing ties to these different institutions over the life course will consequently produce trajectories that are marked by turning points from conventional to criminal behavior or vice versa (Warr, 2002). Sampson and Laub (1993) used ideas from social control theory regarding the influence of informal and formal social institutions on people. They asserted that they strengthened social control theory by adopting a general conceptualization of social control as the capacity of the social group to make norms and values effective by regulating itself according to desired goals and principles. Prevalent Influences in the Sampson and Laub’s Life Course Theory This dissertation was guided by Sampson and Laub’s (1993, p. 7) key life course theory proposition that “structural context mediated by informal family and school social controls explains delinquency in childhood and adolescence.” While it did not examine their second key proposition, that “there is continuity in antisocial behavior from childhood through adulthood in a variety of life domains” (p. 7), it considered whether at the end of adolescence youth have bonds that can potentially change their criminal trajectories. It did not consider their final key 34 proposition that “informal social bonds in adulthood to family and employment explain changes in criminality over the life span despite early childhood propensities” (p. 7). Sampson and Laub (1993) stated that criminologist should strengthen theory by combining structural and process influences to explain crime and delinquency. Their earlier studies failed to account for the influence of social structural context on delinquency through family social processes (Laub et al., 2006). Their multi-level approach strengthens theory by linking structural factors to the unfolding of human lives. In the next sections, I draw on research not only by Sampson and Laub, but also of other researchers and theorists to show the specific dimensions of structure and process that are well supported by research evidence. Structure Sampson and Laub (1993) postulated an indirect effect of the structural background factors (also called social structural factors and micro-level structural context) on delinquency. Neighborhood disadvantage is negatively related to parental warmth (attachment) and consistent discipline and positively related to harsh and unpredictable parenting. Consequently, children and adolescents living in disadvantaged neighborhoods internalize problems due to having more negative interactions with their parents than children and adolescents in better neighborhoods. Family processes mediate the connection of neighborhood disadvantage to delinquency (Deng et al., 2006). Nine family structural variables were defined as micro-level structural contexts by Katz, (1999), as social structural factors by Laub et al. (2006) and as family structural variables by Sampson and Laub (1993). These were: family size (i.e., number of the children at home), family disruption (i.e., being reared in a home where one or both parents are absent because of divorce, separation, desertion, or death), residential mobility (number of times the boy’s family moved 35 during his childhood), birthplace of parents (born outside the U.S. or not), socioeconomic status (i.e., whether living in comfortable circumstances or not), household crowding (i.e., child does not share a bedroom), criminality and drinking habits of parents, or maternal employment (housewives or working mothers). These indicators of structure are expected to affect family social control mechanisms, such as mother and father’s style of discipline, child-parent attachments, and parental supervision. Each of the indicators of structure was considered in the present dissertation, except for birthplace of parents, because foreign immigration is not common in Turkey. Family Sampson and Laub (1993) contended that pathways to crime or conformity were mediated by social bonds to institutions of social control; therefore, it was necessary to identify interrelationships among illegal activity and informal social control at all ages. They were the first to integrate three dimensions of family informal social control from prior theories. As noted above, their approach departed from Hirschi’s (1969) conceptualization, but used the conceptualizations of Patterson (1980, 1982) and Braithwaite (1989), who emphasized three dimensions: mothers and fathers’ discipline, parental supervision, and attachment to the family (parent to child and child to parent). The Gluecks’ research team, which collected the data that Sampson and Laub used, had not directly observed those intervening family process variables, so Sampson and Laub (1993) inferred them from interview materials. Children whose parents reject them, use harsh and erratic discipline, and do not monitor children’s activities are more likely to engage in delinquency than those whose parents do not reject them, use gentle and more consistent discipline, and monitor children’s activities (Demuth & Brown, 2004). 36 Many studies outside of the life course perspective either show direct effects of some of these family process variables on delinquency, or the effects as mediated by selected family process variables. Numerous studies reveal the connection of negative parental discipline or delinquency (Bartol, 1980; Church et al., 2009; Demuth & Brown, 2004; Larzelere and Patterson, 1990; McCord et al., 1969; Simons et al., 1994; Smith & Paternoster, 1987; Uhlenberg & Mueller, 2003; Walters & Grusec, 1977; Wells & Rankin, 1988). Lack of parental supervision is consistently related to delinquency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Demuth & Brown, 2004; Fagan et al., 1983; Jarrett, 1997; Larzelere and Patterson, 1990; Laub & Sampson, 1988; Leiber et al., 2009; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Montemayor, 2001; Rankin, 1983; Simons et al., 1994; Wadsworth, 2000;) as is lack of attachment (Benson, 2002; Demuth & Brown, 2004; Dembo et al., 1986; Kempf, 1993; Leiber et al., 2009; Patterson et al., 1989; Wadsworth, 2000; Warr, 1993b; Zuker, 1976). Focusing on how structure influences family processes, Sampson and Laub (1993) pointed out that poverty, residential mobility, and family disruption were significantly related to children’s attachment to their parents and parental rejection of their children. That is, children born into families that were disrupted or poor, or that moved often, were more likely to experience emotional rejection from their parents and less likely to develop strong emotional bonds to their parents. Regarding discipline, Sampson and Laub found disruptive effects of low SES, family size, and residential mobility on parental discipline, which contributed to erratic use of harsh punitive discipline. In particular, they stated that both mothers and fathers exercised harsh and erratic discipline in large, overcrowded and poor families. Moreover, they found that excessive parental drinking and parental criminality affected delinquency by diminishing social control. 37 That is, parents who drink excessively and commit crimes are more likely to use harsh discipline in an inconsistent manner or be lax in disciplining their children. In those families, children tended to have weak bonds to their parents (Dembo et al., 1986; Zuker, 1976). For supervision, Sampson and Laub concluded that low SES, family disruption, household crowding, family size, foreign-born status, residential mobility, and mother’s employment increased difficulties in supervising and monitoring children, which may negatively affect bonds of attachment (Sampson & Laub, 1993). They recommended studying domestic violence’s consequences for developing strong ties in families. Other researchers found that children and adolescents exposed to domestic violence at home were more likely to drop out of school and engage in delinquency (Widom, 2000). Substance abuse and criminal history of parents were prevalent factors in families where domestic violence occurred. Due to these findings and recommendation of Sampson and Laub (1993), I considered domestic violence as a potentially explanatory concept in this study. School Researchers have studied the effects of school processes on delinquency as well as the effects of structural variables on social processes. They document disruptive effects on school attachment (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Chung et al., 2002; Franke, 2000; Jenkins, 1995; Katz, 1997; Liska & Reed, 1985; Rutter & Giller, 1983; Simons et al., 1998; Uhlenberg & Mueller, 2003). Sampson and Laub (1993) criticized the Gluecks’ study for a lack of strong empirical justification about the influence of school over the life-course of children and adolescence. They found that among the dimensions of informal social control processes, school was another highly important process. They used weak attachment to school (boy’s attitude toward school and boy’s academic ambition) and poor school performance (the number of times 38 that boy was not promoted to the next grade and last year’s grades) as school process variables to figure out the extent to which school processes mediated the effect of structural background factors on delinquency and how those processes influence delinquency directly. Sampson and Laub (1993) found that weak ties to the community, economic disadvantage, large families, and parental deviance weakened a boy’s attachment to the school. They found almost the same structural effects on school performance and concluded that structural variables, in particular family size, had important effects on schooling and educational process. Katz’s (1997) study provided further information about weak school attachment. She stated that Latino youth received the message that they belonged at the bottom of the social order. Therefore, there was no use trying, because they would never succeed within the school system. This issue may be relevant to juveniles in Turkey. Though there is no race issue in Turkey, lower class youth may feel that attending school would not benefit them in their future, which in turn may weaken their school attachment and commitment. Peers/Siblings Extensive research focuses on the effects of peer processes on delinquency and the relationship of structural variables to peer processes (Akers, 1998; Crosnoe, 2000; Lotz & Lee, 1999; Matsueda & Heimer, 1987; McGloin, 2009; Waizenhofer, 2004; Warr, 1993, 2001, 2002, 2005). Sampson and Laub (1993) stated that although the Gluecks found that most delinquents had delinquent peers, they failed to examine the role of peers in generating delinquent behavior. The Gluecks interpreted this finding by stating that “birds of a feather flock together” (as cited in Sampson & Laub, 1993, p. 100). Sampson and Laub (1993) hypothesized that delinquent peer attachment mediated the effects of structural variables on delinquency and also had direct effects on delinquency. Compared to other factors, Sampson and Laub did not put as much emphasis on 39 the role of delinquent peers. Additionally, in the revised version of Sampson and Laub’s life course theory, Laub and Sampson (2003) did not present any information on patterns of cooffending over the full life course. This omission can be considered a weakness of the theory. Their lack of attention to peers contradicts a growing literature on the effects of delinquent peers on delinquency. It is important to identify the causal process through which delinquent peers affect individual delinquent behavior (Lotz & Lee, 1999; Warr, 2001), including possible social mechanisms of peer influence, such as fear of ridicule, loyalty, and status (Warr, 2002). Sampson and Laub (1993) corrected the prior neglect of siblings in criminological research. They found that structural variables, such as having large families and parental deviance, increased delinquent sibling attachment (e.g., positive feelings towards delinquent siblings). However, in their research, neither having been nor being attached to delinquent siblings increased the likelihood of delinquency when structural variables and peer delinquency were controlled. Laub and Sampson (2003) did not examine three other potentially important influences. Perhaps because the data had no information on drug use, they studied just alcohol use. My study considered parental substance use and drinking habits. Sampson and Laub (1993) also ignored possible exits from low SES, though they recommended this study focus. Although the dissertation focused on institutionalized youth, and thus could not determine whether they improved their social location during confinement in some way that affects later criminality, it did consider whether programming appears to equip youth to change their structural conditions (e.g., poverty). Finally, Sampson and Laub did not emphasize parents’ religiosity. Using life course theory to understand the influence of religion on delinquency trajectories, Petts (2009) noted that, since Sampson and Laub identified religion as a source of social control, religion 40 might reduce delinquency by increasing parent-child bonds or by compensating for other sources of social control (Elder, 1998; Sampson & Laub, 2005). Petts (2009) found that religion enhanced the effect of parental influences on inhibiting delinquent behavior and mitigated the increased risk of delinquent behavior in single-parent families. Therefore, it is important to consider religiosity of parents and youth in order to fully explore delinquency in Turkey. Bronfenbrenner’s Human Ecology Theory Sampson and Laub’s life course theory (1993) has several consistencies with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, especially concerning the role of the family, the school, structure, and peers and siblings. Human ecological theory seeks to explain human development by emphasizing environmental rather than individualistic factors. It recognizes humans as both biological organisms and social beings who interact with their environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model is a contextualized theory of human development. It explains various influential spheres of a child’s development that simultaneously interact. It posits that individual human development does not occur in isolation, but within multiple, embedded ecological systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1989). It provides a clearer and more complete conceptualization of development such that all levels affect one another in a bidirectional and dynamic fashion. That is, the context impacts individuals, and individuals impact their context. One of the major tenets of this model is that “individuals and their environment are continually interacting and exerting mutual influence, and as a result, are constantly changing” (McWhirter et al., 2007, p. 19). Therefore, in order to understand behavior, we must know personal and environmental factors, which may contribute to the behavior. Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1988) proposed a conceptualization of contexts of development in terms 41 of hierarchy. In addition to the individual, there are five systems: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. The microsystem represents the people and communities with whom an individual comes into direct contact, for instance, family, classroom, neighbors, and other people that affect the child in daily activity (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, 1988). However, Bronfenbrenner (1989) extended this concept by considering the potential importance for development of the personal characteristics (temperament, personality, or beliefs) of significant others in the immediate environment. According to Bronfenbrenner, family is the most intense microsystem for the child because emotional, psychological, and other statutes of the family influence the child. Negative characteristics of family microsystems include such things as poor parental adjustment, lower income, low education, certain ethnic backgrounds, and single parenthood, and the family microsystem is a gateway to the world for children (Garbarino, 1992). This multi-level conceptualization is consistent with the life course theory’s incorporation of structural background factors and family processes into explanations of children’s development. The mesosystem represents interconnections between the different microsystems that contain the developing person. An example is communication between a teacher and parent. The ecological model, therefore, is consistent with the life course theory view that one trajectory (e.g., the school trajectory) is related to other trajectories (e.g., living with the family trajectory). The exosystem includes social and institutional structures that do not directly involve but that influence the individual. Examples are financial, emotional, or physical situations of their parents. For example, unemployment may affect children indirectly through its effects on parents. Individuals in other exosystems may influence children’s microsystems through their decisions, including decisions that affect public policies. Bronfenbrenner (1979) defined 42 exosystem as settings which have an impact on youth but in which youth do not themselves have a role. In life course theory, similarly the family’s socioeconomic status and the historical and other contextual conditions have an influence on youth’s life course. The macrosystem represents such things as cultural values, beliefs systems, societal norms, and race relations. The macrosystem may be thought of a social blueprint for a particular culture, subculture, or other broader social context. Highly consistent with Sampson and Laub’s life course theory, ecological theory emphasized the impact of contextual variables on family processes and children’s development. For instance, Gorman-Smith et al. (2000) used Bronfenbrenner’s ecology theory to examine how the relation of community characteristics, social processes, and organization within the neighborhood increased children’s risk. They examined family processes identified in Sampson and Laub’s life course theory, specifically parenting practices such as discipline and monitoring, and family relationship characteristics such as cohesion and beliefs. Showing the importance of context, they found that although functioning families had a protective effect for children, poverty and crime rates of the neighborhoods might reduce this effect, with the result that sometimes good parenting may not be enough in bad neighborhoods. Bronfenbrenner conceptualized the chronosystem as the development of interconnections among individuals and their environments that, over time, is likely to change. Each system in ecological theory may have different risk or protective factors in it. Moreover, consistent with life-course theory, Bronfenbrenner emphasized the chronosystem, a concept that embodies the idea of life transitions. Development is influenced over time in the environments in which a person lives. Bronfenbrenner (1986) identified transitions which were normative (school entry, marriage, employment, retirement) and non-normative (divorce, death or severe illness in the 43 family, moving). These transitions both affect a person’s development and also indirectly affect family processes. For example, consistent with the interconnection of trajectories concept of life course theory, divorce of the parents may affect the mother-child relationship and the child’s behavior in the school. Adapting Sampson and Laub’s Life Course Theory to Turkey In their revised theory, Laub and Sampson (2003) stated that concepts such as agency, choice, crime, and informal social control need to be contextualized because their importance and significance varies by context. Therefore, there may be differences when using the theory’s concepts in a different cultural context. As observed by Kağıtçıbaşı (1984) in an examination of comparative social psychology, there will be challenges and also opportunities in this dissertation study when applying a Western theory in a non-Western country. Kağıtçıbaşı examined socialization in a traditional society, such as Turkey, and how such research may be a challenge to Western oriented social psychological studies. Motivations for childbearing were studied in nine countries including both Western and non-Western countries in a comparative psychological study, called Value of Children (VOC). This study revealed how Western and non-Western countries differ. For instance, opposite the pattern for the United States, obedience to parents was most valued while being independent and self-reliant was least valued in Turkey. In applying Sampson and Laub’s life course theory, I considered different aspects of family processes in Turkey such as obedience or “terbiye.” For instance, terbiye includes decency, discipline, good manners and morality as reflected in the behavior of children, adolescence, and even adults. It is very important for families to raise their children in a way that is consistent with this concept. Therefore, when thinking about family discipline, attachment, and supervision as identified in life course theory, I considered the cultural context that supports a different process 44 in Turkey, and thus would have more meaning for families and institutions trying to influence youth behavior. In Turkey, families may have different expectations about their children as they grow up and marry, because some parents perceive their children as providing security in the parents’ old age. Thus, the family values closely-knit interpersonal ties and interdependence rather than independence. This may affect family processes. The interdependence would take the form of the juvenile’s dependence on parents and, then when parents become old, the parents’ dependence on the grown-up offspring. In contrast, in Western societies there is a rejection of future dependence on others. In Western culture youth are emancipated from parental authority both abruptly and at an early age, but in Turkey, emancipation of youth from parental authority takes a longer time. Parents in Turkey would want their children to be close, loyal, and faithful to them (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1984). Additionally, Edwards, Knoche, Aukrust, Kumru, and Kim (2006) conducted a four-culture study of Young Children’s Close Relations Outside of the Family in Oslo, Norway; Lincoln, Nebraska; Seoul, South Korea; and Ankara, Turkey. They found that unlike families in Norway and the U.S., families in Turkey valued familism and a socialrelational continuity with extended kin. Success in Turkish society was so dependent on educational achievement that parents favored skills necessary for getting along in school. The authors also discovered different types of social organization in the preschools and schools in Norway, the U.S., South Korea, and Turkey. In the U.S. and South Korea, preschool and school systems were oriented toward change so that it was usual for students to be placed with new teachers and classmates. However, in Turkey, children stayed with the same teachers and classmates for several years. This difference is relevant to the concept of school attachment in life course theory. 45 Edwards et al.’s (2006) study findings are congruent with what Kağıtçıbaşı (1984) pointed out. That is, parenting practices can be culturally regulated routines of child-care and child training. Additionally, parents hold cultural belief systems or folk theories regarding their children, families, and themselves that affect their interaction with children. Cultural differences may be strong and thus may even persist among immigrants in foreign countries. For instance, Yağmurlu and Sanson (as cited in Yağmurlu, Çıtlak, Dost, and Leyendecker, 2009) compared Turkish migrant mothers and native Australian mothers in terms of their parenting practices. As mentioned also by Kağıtçıbaşı (1984), the authors found that Turkish mothers mostly emphasized obedience and wanted their children to follow their suggestions. Yağmurlu et al. (2009) stated that the low socioeconomic status of families affected Turkish parents’ expectations that children would be obedient and contribute to family income. In low-income families, children are viewed as insurance for parents for their contribution to family; therefore, autonomy of children is perceived as a threat to unity of families and an undesired attribute by parents. Parental informal social control is a key concept in Sampson and Laub’s life course theory. In Turkey, lack of individualism, culturally-regulated routines of child care, and economic dependence until college graduation or even until marriage may be relevant to understanding expectations that families would exert strict control over their children, how interdependence might serve as a transition, or how juveniles’ trajectories are influenced by culturally accepted family practices. Migration from rural areas to urban areas is another factor which leads to spatial segregation or inequalities. Öğel and colleagues (2004) interviewed 194 juvenile offenders who also were street children in Istanbul. They stated that almost half of the families of these children migrated. Spatial inequalities are an obvious problem in Turkey, where people who live in 46 disadvantaged places are described as squatters. These squatters are called ‘gecekondu’ which means ‘landed overnight.’ They can be seen most often at the outskirts of big cities and they are illegally built on a state property (Baslevent & Dayioglu, 2005). The lack of a public housing program and Turkey’s poor inspection system are the root causes of these squatter areas. Squatter settlements have been a gradually increasing problem since the 1950s, when economic growth triggered migration from villages into cities. People living in these squatter settlements were defined differently over time. For example, they were defined as ‘rural other’ in the 1950s; ‘disadvantaged others’ in the 1970s and early in the 1980s; ‘urban poor others’ and ‘culturally inferior others’ in the mid 1980s and the 1990s. Finally, they were defined as ‘threatening other’ due to increasing crime problems in squatter areas. In the 1950s, there was a rapid urbanization in Turkey, and people started to migrate to big cities. Due to lack of housing for newcomers, these people built their own homes around the cities on undesirable sites that were close to their jobs but not to the city. When their other family members and friends joined them, these places became small towns and they were tolerated by the government because private sector residents hired the residents as cheap labor. Turkish elitists who sought modernization from the top to bottom expected assimilation of these people in the 1950s, when they were called “the rural other.” With growing numbers of these towns, governments perceived them as a source of potential voters, and therefore they tolerated them. In the 1970s, they were defined as disadvantaged because leftist ideology was increasing and conditions of these places were severely criticized by leftist people. In the 1980s and 1990s, in particular after the military coup in 1980, there was increasing official ideology which ignored some ethnic groups. The majority of gecekondus residents were Kurdish people who, experiencing discrimination by the mainstream, were sometimes drawn into criminal activities to 47 survive and in reaction to oppression (Baslevent & Dayioglu, 2005). Youth were living in poverty, had limited school opportunities, and were more often forced to work by their families when compared to people who were in the middle class (Erman, 2001). When Baslevent and Dayioglu (2005) were studying the effect of income distribution on home ownership in Turkey, they found that substantial numbers of low-income families were living in squatter settlements. Migration was not the only reason to live in these squatter settlements. Instead, people in these places had to live in those squatter settlements due to their low income. Child labor also has relevance to youth’s context in Turkey. According to the assumptions of conflict theory, historically the effects of economic marginalization heavily impacted families; therefore, in certain groups, children as well as their parents had to work to contribute to the family income. Children worked at ages when they were in need of supervision, moral education and preparation for the future. However, they had to enter adults’ “violent world” where they often were exposed to negative conditions. If they surrendered to the streets, generations were lost due to those circumstances (Bonger, 1916). In Turkey, the situation is not different. Child labor has been most prevalent in rural areas, where children are typically considered as a part of the labor force. Fathers may have many offspring because they see them as potential workers who will contribute to the family in the future. When families started to move to big cities after the 1950s, they had problems related to housing, unemployment, and adequate income. According to the Child Labor Survey, which was conducted in 1994, out of 11. 9 million children between six and fourteen years old, 1. 07 million were working (Degirmencioglu et al., 2008). 48 Conclusion The review of the literature on life course theory suggests several key connections that I expected to find. For example, having more brothers or sisters might affect the quality of parents’ supervision and monitoring. Moving all the time might affect attachment to the school. Family low SES might have negative impacts on school attachment and academic achievement due to lack of educational needs such as school expenses or pressure of parents on their children to work. Moreover, the theory highlighted the importance of looking for trajectories and transitions relevant to areas such as education, drug use, and crime. For each trajectory, a research goal would be to discover transitions, like parents’ physical punishment, which might precipitate a youth’s running away, which then might start another trajectory. Because trajectories are assumed to be interdependent, the employment trajectory might affect the education trajectory because juveniles may choose to contribute income to their families instead of obtaining an education. The life course theoretical framework suggested several key research questions. Research Questions  What are the pathways of incarcerated juveniles that led them into delinquency?  How are different trajectories interrelated?  What are the transitional events within trajectories? What are the meanings of those transitions for juveniles in terms of identifying subjective transitions? How do transitions within one trajectory affect other trajectories?  What are the turning points or lack of turning points within trajectories that facilitated continued involvement in crime? 49  What is the role of human agency in youth’s involvement in delinquency and crime? What key decisions did youth make that reflected their agency within constraints?  Is there a cumulative continuity that led youth into delinquency? How does contact with the juvenile justice system, including incarceration experiences, affect juveniles’ lives?  What is the role of family, school, and peers/siblings within trajectories?  What is the role of family structural variables within trajectories? How do these structural factors affect parenting practices?  What are the routine activities of juveniles during their different life phases?  How do structure, family, school, and peer processes shape routine activities of juveniles? 50 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the research design and methodology used in this study. It includes information on the overall strategy, development of the interview guide, procedures to select and recruit participants and collect data, and techniques to analyze the data. Overall Strategy Qualitative Inquiry Qualitative research allows the researcher to present the experiences of study participants in sufficient depth and with compelling enough detail to deepen understanding of their lives. It examines the meaning of people’s lives and their real world conditions; represents their views and perspectives; covers the contextual conditions within which people live; and contributes insights into existing or emerging concepts. Qualitative studies are most appropriate when a problem or issue needs to be explored within contexts or settings (Creswell, 2007; Seidman, 1998; Yin, 2011). They also allow individuals to “provide detailed information on individual’s perceptions of their own experiences and settings, their reasoning, and their motivations” (Morash, 2006, p. 238). In qualitative designs, theories play an important role. They help to assess goals and develop realistic research questions and methods (Maxwell, 2009). Qualitative research is particularly appropriate for research guided by life-course theory as developed by Sampson and Laub (1993). Since some social transitions (e.g., work, parenthood, and marriage) may not have the same meaning for everyone, qualitative data would be useful to understand how participants conceive of transitions (Rutter, 1989). Qualitative inquiry recognizes the importance of relying on subjects’ own interpretations of experiences; therefore, it is consistent with the life course 51 theory, which recognizes the importance of change and transitions as they are experienced over the life span. Additionally, Creswell (2007) indicated that theoretical explanations are unique for certain populations and samples. Therefore, he recommended conducting qualitative research to further and advance the application of theories to new settings, which was one of the goals of this dissertation. Overall, qualitative methods are consistent with the recognition that pathways through which Turkish youth move towards prison may be uniquely affected by their cultural and contextual conditions that have not previously been studied. Therefore, the qualitative research strategy of life history interviewing was most appropriate for this dissertation. Retrospective Design and Life Course Theory Life course studies must be carried out using longitudinal research designs because they need to examine past events and experiences. There are two basic types of longitudinal research designs that often have been used in life course research: prospective and retrospective. I used the retrospective longitudinal design, which can be defined as “working backward in time” (Scott & Alwin, p. 104). Retrospective designs are appropriate to collect information about past experiences and events (Scott & Alwin, 1998). They also provide flexibility because one can draw samples that are suited to addressing the research question (Benson, 2002). One can gather data relevant to subjects’ past experiences, such as their education, family, work, or involvement in crime when they were younger. Scott and Alwin (1998) noted that the life history of individuals was more than the sum of events because it included subjective feelings and cumulative experiences. They defined retrospective designs as relying on people’s present remembrance about their past. They contended that retrospective designs are better for viewing experiences inward and backward; because they permitted review of a longer period even though they might be flawed by potential 52 forgetting and distortion. Data gathered by retrospective designs make possible the representation of events, experiences, and meanings for the individual. Scott and Alvin’s contention is relevant to Sampson and Laub’s (1993) recommendation that future life course research identify subjective transitions. Scott and Alwin (1998) recommend retrospective study for its practicality. That is, practical considerations of time and money weigh heavily on determining the choice of longitudinal designs. Retrospective designs are more practical and less costly than prospective longitudinal designs. For this study, because of the budget and time limitation, the retrospective study design was more appropriate than a prospective study design. Additionally, I did not know the identity of the study participants due to human subjects’ protection concerns about my role as a police officer in Turkey, so that it was impossible for me to follow these juveniles in a prospective longitudinal study design. (A) Weaknesses of Retrospective Designs Though the use of a retrospective design is practical in this study, it has some weaknesses such as problems of forgetfulness and reinterpretation of events. Given that the data will not be collected prospectively, subjects may forget their past experiences and may have a tendency to distort or selectively reinterpret past events in order to make sense of their current situation. In addition, recollection of the sequencing of the events may make it difficult to determine temporal ordering. Moreover, responses about an individual’s past might be influenced by an individual’s present personal beliefs (Benson, 2002; Freedman et al., 1988; Scott and Alwin, 1998). However, cross-sectional and prospective panel study designs have also been criticized for these same weaknesses. For instance, cross-sectional studies often contain questions of a retrospective nature about topics such as employment, marriage, and divorce dates. Moreover, 53 most prospective panel studies collect some retrospective information about events and changes between the points of data collection or information on the respondent before the beginning of the panel survey (Brückner & Mayer, 1998). Although these two different research designs may be prone to recall bias, they are less commonly recognized as affected by recall bias than are retrospective research designs. There are some ways to counter criticisms of retrospective research designs. For forgetfulness, Habermas and Bluck (2000) stated that most adolescents were adept at assessing the causal ordering of important events in their lives, because adolescence is a period assumed to be characterized by important developments in a person’s life stories. They found that adolescents were able and eager to construct stories about the past and about the self, and these stories showed thematic, biographical, and temporal coherence. My sample consisted of 18-yearold male juveniles, so the period of recall would not be very long. Therefore, my sample may be less affected by recall error, since Scott and Alwin (1998) stated, “the longer the recall period, the greater the concerns about the reliability of retrospective data” (p. 118). The use of life history calendars during interviews is useful for prompting study participants to sequence events and recall the past. The life history calendar improves the quality of retrospective data because respondents can relate the timing of events both visually and mentally (Freedman et al., 1988). One can learn the number of events, their timing, sequence, and duration from life history calendars. It also contextualizes objective events in an individual’s life (Laub & Sampson, 2003). Morris and Slocum (2010) assessed the validity of life history calendars. They concluded that using life history calendars in retrospective studies was a promising methodology for eliciting accurate retrospective data on the timing of events. Moreover, they recommended expanding the types of landmarks to increase the validity of life 54 history calendars so that interviewees can more accurately identify life events. Therefore, I used life calendars to increase recall of the participants. Data Collection The Role of the Researcher and Research Team I played a different role than most primary investigators play in completing a dissertation; the differences occurred in choosing the sample and protecting confidentiality of the participants. I am a policeman in Turkey. When I met with a staff member from the IRB and explained my job, she told me that the IRB would not want me to have any contact with any of the study participants. Moreover, she advised that I should not know anything about the identity of the study participants, who were convicted juveniles. Therefore, I trained and supervised interviewers who would be in charge of drawing the sample and maintaining confidentiality. As a principle investigator, I am in the United States. Therefore, interviewers in Turkey interviewed participants in this study. The research team, two female interviewers, was selected on the basis of their level of education and previous experience in conducting interviews with juveniles. The first interviewer was an experienced social worker who worked in one of the Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that supported juvenile rights. The name of the NGO was “Agenda: Children!” and it focused on application and monitoring the protection of children’s rights. She had participated as an interviewer in many research projects on juveniles. The second interviewer was a doctoral student in the Sociology Department in Middle East Technical University, which was one of the best universities in Turkey. She had also participated in several research projects in which she conducted interviews. Training the research team is one of the most critical elements for successful data collection in qualitative studies (Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003). Prior to interviews, I gave 55 interviewers extensive training. Fowler and Mangione (1990) stated that there are four general parts of the interviewer’s job. These are contacting respondents, establishing a relationship, handling the question-and-answer process, and recording the answers. They recommended that interviewers should be trained in a program which covers these issues. Moreover, Seidman (1998) recommended training researchers about the theory that will be used in the study. I provided the interviewers key articles and summaries of Sampson and Laub’s life course theory. Moreover, as a part of training, I sent them the literature review of this proposal, discussed the articles and that chapter with them, and asked them to ask me questions. Thus, they became familiar with the key concepts and propositions of the theory and they had better knowledge of the study’s research goals. At the end of the training, they had a good understanding of the study’s goals, which was needed so they could ask appropriate follow up questions. Because interviewers were in Turkey, I trained the research team about interviewing skills and techniques, and the theory through Skype. Key training topics recommended by Seidman (1998) and Yin (2011) are: interviewers should listen more, talk less and ask real questions; follow up on what participants say; encourage participants to ask questions when they do not understand; ask to hear more about a subject; explore and probe; avoid leading questions; ask open-ended questions; follow-up but do not interrupt; ask participants to talk to you as if they were someone else; ask participants to tell a story; keep participants focused and ask for concrete details; not take the ebbs and flows of interviewing too personally; share experiences on occasion; ask participants to reconstruct, not to remember, for example asking “what your elementary school experience was like” instead of “do you remember what was your elementary school experience like;” avoid reinforcing participant’s responses; explore laughter; follow their hunches and trust their instincts; use the interview guide cautiously; tolerate silence; care about 56 the data; and know about the topic of study. After discussing these topics, interviewers practiced the interviews with me through Skype, so I provided feedback and suggestions. Unit of Analysis I analyzed individual life histories of convicted male juveniles who were eighteen years old and were in juvenile prisons; therefore, those individuals were the unit of analysis. Choosing individuals as the unit of analysis would offer, “a more comprehensive view of personenvironment interactions, developmental change, and individual transformations over time” (Magnusson & Bergman, 1988, p. 47). Research Site The site for this study was a juvenile prison in one of the highly populated cities in Turkey. This prison was housed in three modern buildings outside the city center. This prison can hold up to 324 juvenile inmates. The interviews were held in a private room in the juvenile prison. Access to Participants The research team conducted interviews in the juvenile prison because this was the only setting where youth were accessible. It was mandatory to obtain permission to enter and interview juveniles in prison. Therefore, the prison administration served as formal gatekeepers in this study. I had approval from the Justice Department in Turkey obtained on 14 of July 2010, and that approval allowed the research team access to study participants. The research team met the director of the juvenile prison and, for each youth, arranged a time to explain the study, review human subjects’ rights, and ask for consent to an interview. Interviews were scheduled in coordination with a person from the prison administration. In cases where consent was given, the 57 first part of interview proceeded. The prison administration was not told whether or not youth consented to a full interview. Building Rapport with Participants Maintaining rapport with respondents is important in interviewing (Yin, 2011). In particular, Seidman (1998) emphasized the importance of multiple contacts with participants and described the purpose of the contact visit as at least threefold. To begin with, it builds mutual respect between interviewer and the participant, which is important in the interview process. Through multiple visits, interviewers send an implicit message that participants are important and that interviewers take them seriously. Secondly, interviewers are most effective when they are familiar with the setting in which participants live. Finally, the contact visit initiates the process of informed consent, which is necessary in all interviewing research. Therefore, the research team conducted two interviews with each participant, which built a rapport between interviewers and the incarcerated juveniles. Additionally, the first questions were about demographics and family background factors, which helped to build rapport because they were relatively easy to talk about. Moreover, both interviewers had experience working with juveniles similar to those included in the study. The interviewers were chosen because their experience would help to develop a good rapport with the juvenile respondents, thus facilitating the interview process. Sampling Strategy Maxwell (2009) stated that purposive sampling can be used to achieve representativeness or typicality of individuals or events. I used a purposive sampling strategy to explore the pathways leading to juvenile males becoming convicted residents of the prison. The participants were recruited based on the following criteria: (1) being convicted, (2) committed assault which 58 is a typical offense type for juveniles and (3) being at least eighteen years old. I chose convicted juveniles because studying juveniles who have penetrated deeply into the justice system was a focus of the study. The most common crime type for juveniles was assault; therefore, I chose juveniles who had an offense history of assault to fulfill requirements for typical case sampling (Lewis, 2003), which is a purposive sampling strategy. Lastly, I chose juveniles who were at least eighteen years old, because at that age they could provide more information about their life events. In addition, a purposive sample was taken of six social workers, psychologists, and prison guardians who were knowledgeable about experiences of convicted juveniles. They were selected based on their professional work in juvenile prison. They had been actively involved in counseling of juveniles. There were also two guardians in this group who spent most of their time with convicted juveniles. They were chosen to obtain general information about convicted juveniles in prison and their activities such as attending workshops. The initial research plan was to obtain a list of convicted juveniles at the juvenile prison. Then, the primary interviewer would purposively select juveniles that were convicted for assault who were at least eighteen years old. Finally, she would randomly select thirty convicted juveniles from the list. However, at the time of the research, there were only twenty-six juveniles who were eighteen years old and who had committed assault. Therefore, I included four nineteen year old juveniles with a conviction for assault. The sampled juveniles’ ages ranged from eighteen to nineteen years old. The average age was 18.1 and the median age was 18. There were twenty-five juveniles who had criminal history of assault or extortion , the most commonly committed crimes by juveniles in the prison. Of twenty-five juveniles who had committed extortion or assault, three of them were convicted for homicide. Five juveniles had criminal history of robbery, mugging, or theft. 59 Juvenile prison management informed the youth that they could meet with a researcher who would tell them about a study that they could decide to take part in or not take part in. Juveniles who agreed to meet with a researcher received an explanation from the interviewer about the study and the consent process. When the juvenile volunteered to participate in the study, then the interviewers carried out the first part of the interview in a private office within the juvenile prison, and scheduled subsequent interviews. Only one convicted juvenile did not want to participate in this study. (A) Sample Characteristics Thirty juveniles participated in the study. One third of the juveniles (11) studied until the ninth grade. Eight youth (26.6%) studied until the eighth grade; two (6.6%) studied until the seventh grade; five (16.6%) studied until the sixth grade; two (6.6%) studied until the fourth grade; one (3.3%) studied until the first grade; and one (3.3%) never went to school. Of twentynine juveniles who went to school, twenty-four (80%) dropped out of school. In addition, eight youth (26.6%) were expelled from school; four (13.3%) were suspended from school; nine (30%) had to repeat grades; and eleven (36.6%) were truant to the point that they had limited or no school contact. Although their school trajectory was interrupted due to multiple reasons, eleven (36.6%) continued their education through distance education in the prison. Most of the juveniles had parents with limited education. Only three (10%) had fathers who graduated from high school. Seven (23.3%) had fathers who studied until the eighth grade. Ten (33.3%) fathers studied until the fifth grade. Three of the fathers studied until the first, third, or fourth grades. Four fathers never went to school; and three youth’s fathers’ education levels were not known. Mothers had less education than fathers. Four mothers (13.3%) graduated from high school. Three mothers (10%) studied until the eighth grade. Ten mothers (33.3%) studied 60 until the fifth grade. One mother studied until the first grade; and ten mothers (33.3%) never went to school. Most of the mothers who never attended school were illiterate. Two mothers’ educational level was not known. In terms of family situation, twenty-five juveniles (83.3%) had both parents at home. Thus, they came from non-disrupted families, and five juveniles (16.6%) came from disrupted families where at least one of parents was absent due to several reasons such as death or divorce. Youth in the study had many siblings. Thirteen juveniles had four or more siblings whereas seventeen juveniles had up to three siblings. It was difficult to determine household income because juveniles lacked this information. Half of the juveniles stated that they came from poor families. The determinant factor for their low socioeconomic status was failure to meet youth’s basic needs or not being able to pay rent. The juvenile prison was in the Central Anatolian region; therefore most of the juveniles (20 or 66.6%) lived in this region; two juveniles (6.6%) lived in the Black Sea Region; five juveniles (16.6%) lived in the Mediterranean Region; two juveniles (6.6%) lived in the South East Anatolian Region; and one juvenile (3.3%) lived in the Marmara Region. With regard to marital status, only two juveniles were married. They had lived with their spouses and natal families in the same house. Eighteen juveniles (60%) lived in squatter areas. As noted in Chapter 2, these areas are known as neighborhoods which are populated by poor people due to cheapness of the houses where poor families can easily afford to pay rent. Overall, juveniles had low education levels, as did their parent. Half of the juveniles had poor families where their basic needs were not met. Therefore, their households tended to be 61 economically disadvantaged. Most of the juveniles lived in squatter areas or other low-resource and crime ridden neighborhoods. (B) Sample Size My sample included thirty convicted male juveniles. Sample size is the most discussed issue in qualitative studies, because there is a not common criterion to determine size of the sample. Seidman (1998) stated that the average sample size in qualitative studies is twenty-five. Moreover, Lewis (2003, p. 84) stated that, “as a very general rule of thumb, qualitative samples for a single study involving individual interviews often lie under 50”. There are three basic criteria for determining the number of participants. First is sufficiency, which refers to having enough participants to reflect the research interest. A sample is sufficient, when increasing the sample size no longer contributes new evidence (Lewis, 2003; Seidman, 1998). The second criterion is saturation, which refers to reaching a point in the study at which the interviewer begins to hear the same information reported (Seidman, 1998). The third criterion is the practical exigencies of time, money, and other resources that play a role in the study. Because qualitative research is highly intensive in terms of research resources, it is difficult to conduct and analyze hundreds of interviews (Lewis, 2003; Seidman, 1998). Based on prior research similar to this dissertation, thirty was estimated to be an appropriately sized sample that could be feasibly interviewed. Life History In-depth Interview I used the life history approach when conducting in-depth interviews. Laub and Sampson (2003) identified several advantages of the life history approach. First, the life history method can capture persistence in and desistance from crime and antisocial behavior. The second advantage is that it includes complex patterns of both continuity and change in individual 62 behavior over time. The third advantage of the life history method is that, it can give detailed information about events as they were experienced. The fourth advantage of this method is that it considers social contexts where events take place; and the fifth advantage is that the life history method shows the human side of offenders. Because all of the youth participating in the research remain incarcerated, desistance cannot be studied in this dissertation. However, it is possible to examine youths’ current bonds as well as their anticipated bonds after release, which are relevant to desistance. The purpose of the in-depth interview is not to test hypotheses or to evaluate interventions. Instead, understanding the experiences of people and meaning they make of that experience both is at the root of in-depth interviewing (Seidman, 1998) and is relevant to life course studies. As Laub and Sampson (2003) stated “qualitative interviews are useful for unpacking and understanding “mechanisms that connect salient life events [including crime] across the life course, especially regarding personal choice and situational context” (p. 10). The research team conducted two interviews per respondent and used the life calendar during each interview and to organize the responses after the interview. Conducting two interviews with juveniles in the prison reduced the impact of idiosyncratic interviews. That is, participants may feel sick, be having a terrible day, or be distracted in a way that might affect the quality of a particular interview (Seidman, 1998). In-depth interviews with thirty male juvenile participants were guided by both closed and open-ended questions. Closed-ended questions were used to collect demographic information and to determine family background and structure factors. Open-ended questions elicited information related to the concepts relevant to the theoretical framework, for instance, ties to school and family, peer processes, and juveniles’ experiences and life events. After obtaining 63 basic demographic and factual information, interviewers started with a set of broad questions in order to elicit detailed retrospective histories relating to the childhood and adolescent years of the respondents. Retrospective histories were gathered in face-to-face interviews; and therefore required recall of events dating back as far as early childhood. The interviews were conducted between May 2011 and August 2011. The last interview was conducted at the end of August 2011. All interviews were conducted in the Turkish language. Because of the sensitivity of the topic and the regulations of the prison, tape-recording was prohibited by the Turkish Justice Department; therefore, during the interviews, the research team recorded interviews through note taking. During the first couple of interviews, they had difficulty matching responses with questions; therefore, we decided to number each question and that helped them when transcribing the data. When one interviewer asked questions, the other interviewer took notes. That process provided sufficient notes to support the later analytic and compositional needs. This also did not stunt the interview and the interviewer did not lose eye contact, which was important during the interview. When taking notes, the research team was careful to avoid using their own paraphrasing (Yin, 2011). They wrote reflective passages in notes (Huberman & Miles, 1994). Then, they transcribed those notes into full narratives, which ensured that information was not edited out. The research team typed question responses as close to verbatim as possible into a Microsoft Word document. The transcriptions existed in full. Due to participating in many studies in prisons, the research team was experienced in the note taking method. The note taking method may have an advantage when compared with tape recording. For instance, juvenile inmates may feel more comfortable in speaking and expressing their views while notes are taken, because they will not be recorded by any device, and thus will not fear that their words will be used to harm them in the future. 64 The translation process before the interview is important in this study. A bilingual (English and Turkish) graduate assistant and an MSU graduate assisted me. There were two steps for the translation process before the interview. First, I translated interview items in English into Turkish. Second, once these items were translated, the two people assisting me translated another person’s translation back to English. To increase the accuracy and reliability of the translation of the interview items, final modifications to the Turkish language were made after discussion among all people involved in translation and Dr. Morash. All of the consent forms and questions are included in Appendix A through D. After the research team completed and transcribed the interviews, I translated these transcripts into English for data processing. I put both Turkish and English versions of transcripts into NVivo and when analyzing the English part of the transcripts, I also checked the Turkish version of transcripts at the same time I coded and interpreted English text to be sure I had an accurate understanding of what the youth were saying. Interview Guide Seidman (1998) mentioned the role of theory in conducting qualitative studies. He said that theory served as a context and it is important to conduct interviews with this context in mind. However, researchers also should be genuinely open to what the participants are saying. The study’s interview questions incorporated key concepts from Sampson and Laub’s life course theory. In the interview instrument, interview questions were divided into analytic categories. Topics addressed in the interview included: childhood and family background factors; living situations; residency and neighborhood conditions; school experiences; family attachment; family discipline; family supervision; criminal history; cumulative continuity; peer and sibling influence; drugs; work history; religion; girlfriends; transitions; turning points; human agency; 65 identity; and future goals. The interview guide was semi-structured and included open-ended questions that allowed for considerable requests for further explanation. These questions also allow researchers to explore what participants were saying regardless of the researcher’s intentions. That is, when additional issues arise in the course of the interview, the research team deviated from the guideline and pursued them. Maxwell (2009) provided advice to qualitative researchers when preparing interview questions. He stated that interview questions are not only judged by whether they can be logically derived from research questions, but they are also judged by whether they provide the data which will contribute to answering research questions. Therefore, interview questions require pilot testing to see whether they actually work in practice. Additionally, Seidman (1998) urged interviewing researchers to test their interviewing design to learn whether their research structure and questions are appropriate for the study they envision. Therefore, the research team pre-tested the draft interview instrument with two incarcerated juveniles to observe the time it took to complete and to identify questions that might cause discomfort. They used retrospective probing interviewing which allowed them to eliminate comprehension errors, problems in the questions, and recalling of specific information; they conducted cognitive interviewing which was helpful in revising the questions so they could be understood and interpreted easily and thus they would be relevant to the intent of the researcher (Biemer & Lyberg, 2003). After pre-testing of questions, we changed some of the questions, which were not understood clearly by the juveniles. I translated the responses, and prepared word documents with both the Turkish and English versions. These were read into NVivo8, which is software for qualitative data analysis. 66 Incentives When I first contacted prison administrators, they stated that money could not be given to participants. Therefore, as an incentive for participating, I proposed to give youth handcraft tools valued at $20, because most of the youth in the prison were involved in handcraft courses as a hobby, and prison administration was providing them handcraft tools. However, when interviewers spoke with prison administration, they learned that each juvenile had an account in the prison and their families deposited money to these accounts. They allowed us to deposit money to juveniles’ accounts. Thus, $20 was changed by interviewers into Turkish currency and deposited into participating juveniles’ accounts and the official documents and receipts were taken by interviewers. Therefore, instead of handcraft tools, all participants received a 30 Turkish Liras ($20) at the end of interview. That amount of money was not so much that it would create too much pressure on youth to agree to participate in the study, since all needs of juveniles are provided by prison. Protection of the Rights of Informants Ethical issues considered in this study included informed consent, IRB approval, confidentiality, and protecting participants from harm (Lewis, 2003; Seidman, 1998; Yin, 2011). For informed consent, researchers must be explicit about the range and purpose of their study and they must be clear about what they are doing. Participants must be informed about any risks they might be taking by participating in the research; about their rights during the process of the study such as reviewing the material or withdrawing from the process; how much time is required; that their names will not be used in order to protect confidentiality; how the results of the study will be disseminated; and the consent form should allow the participant to indicate clearly his/her agreement to releasing the interview material to be disseminated as indicated and 67 so on (Lewis, 2003; Seidman, 1998). The consent form should indicate that the participation is voluntary. All participants were provided written consent forms. Before the interview, the research team explained the consent form and provided an oral explanation of the study. They obtained a marked informed consent form at the beginning of each interview as mandated by the Institutional Review Board protocol. If juveniles signed consent forms, it would endanger their confidentiality; therefore, we wanted juveniles to mark (X) into consent forms to indicate that they understood what has been written on it. Only one juvenile refused to participate in the study; therefore, the research team replaced him with another convicted juvenile in the sample population who met the sample criteria. Every study with human participants required an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval before doing research. Therefore, I applied for IRB approval before conducting the research in Turkey and it was approved on April 18, 2011. For anonymity, due to face-to-face interviews, the participants’ identities will be known by the research team. Therefore, although the research team did not provide me identifiable information about participants, I did not have anonymous data. Therefore, I carefully protected confidentiality of the participants. Studies should provide confidentiality to their subjects. Berg (2001) recommended that if there is a research team conducting the study, they might sign a statement of confidentiality, which indicates that the sensitive nature of the research and requires that they promise not to talk to anybody about information obtained during the study. At the onset of the study, both interviewers signed the statement of confidentiality in Appendix E. Confidentiality refers to avoiding the attribution of comments to identified participants. Subjects’ real names should be changed to pseudonyms when reporting data. Place names and 68 specific characteristics of participants make it possible to discover subjects’ identities. Therefore, those kinds of information should be excluded (Berg, 2001; Lewis, 2003). The interviewers were trained to follow these guidelines. Also, they were selected because they have academic and research training regarding maintaining the confidentiality of research subjects. The research team assured that interviewing would not become exploitation. During the interview, times, events, place, and physical descriptions were rearranged to conceal identity while preserving the integrity of the idea. The interview with each participant lasted from 1.5 hours to 4 hours. The research team interviewed the participants and transcribed interviews. They used numbers for each participant. They stayed after the interview to respond to possible anxieties about confidentiality. In that way, participants would not feel abandoned, which was important given vulnerability that might occur for incarcerated individuals (Creswell, 2007). After I received the narratives, I used pseudonyms during analysis for each juvenile. The transcriptions were e-mailed to me by the research team in an encrypted Zip file with a secure password. Once I received them, I transferred them to my secure computer. To reduce participant vulnerability, there were not any tape recordings so that I did not have any possibility to identify study participants. Transcribed documents were kept in a locked file cabinet at home. The word files and the NVivo file into which they were read were stored in my personal, password protected computer, and, also Dr. Morash’s password protected computer which is in a locked office. They were backed up on a flash drive in WINZIP password protected folders. The flash drive was stored in a locked file cabinet in the doctoral student’s home. After I verified receipt of an interview sent by interviewers and stored it on my computer, the interviewer destroyed the word file in her possession. 69 Data Analysis Maxwell (2009) criticized some qualitative researchers who separated data analysis from research design. Instead, he contended that data analysis should be a part of research design and every qualitative study required decisions about how the analysis will be done. He strongly recommended beginning data analysis immediately after finishing the first interview and continue to analyze the data as long as working on the research. That allows one to focus on interviews and to decide how to test emerging conclusions. Therefore, in this study, data analysis was conducted simultaneously with data collection. Coding After gathering life histories of participants, life histories were coded in the qualitative analysis program, NVivo8. This program helps to analyze, shape, and manage qualitative data. It is also good for studies where multiple languages are used. It is easy to search and manipulate the data, and it can display codes and categories graphically (Creswell, 2007; Richards, 1999). The research team cleaned the narratives after leaving the prison. Cleaned interviews were proofed by the research team. If some items were unclear or needed clarification, research team members added clarification in brackets at the end of the section. Most of the time, interviewers used brackets for specific jargon used by juveniles in prison or by people who break the law. Any words, phrases, nicknames, cities, or any kinds of identifiers were removed from the data to ensure confidentiality. Maxwell (2009) defined coding in qualitative research as rearranging the data into categories so that it allows comparison between things in the same category and between categories. Coding allows understanding of what is going on, and allows generation of themes and theoretical concepts and organizing the data to test and support these general ideas. During 70 the coding, I had to code the same narratives under different themes, referred to as nodes in NVivo8. For example, when juveniles mentioned parental misbehavior leading to running away, I coded that narrative under three different key themes: living with the family trajectory, role of family, and transition affecting another trajectory. I first coded interviews on the Word file by placing content under appropriate headings; then I imported them into NVivo and used the auto code function to create nodes. I started the analysis by coding the qualitative data on numerous dimensions relevant to juveniles’ context, past events and experiences which lead them to prison. I read the qualitative data repeatedly to identify emerging themes and subthemes. I examined the resulting coding scheme, and this examination allowed me to ensure that I had not omitted possible key themes of some types. Family experiences and peer and drug influences characterized the juveniles’ immediate context. Specific themes included the lack of attachment to parents, harsh discipline, and lack of supervision. The data also contained considerable information about the key concepts of Sampson and Laub’s life course theory such as stigmatization, interconnection of trajectories, transitional events, key trajectories, turning points, and human agency as well as information which was not proposed by the theory, such as identity transformation. After I coded these themes and subthemes, Dr. Morash examined the outline of themes in the NVivo8 software and examples of coded sections, and suggested areas for improvement. During the analysis, I systematically compared juveniles to see how different themes were connected. For this, I used the matrix function of NVivo8. For example, I ran a matrix of cases by negative trajectories of family attachment, family discipline, and family lack of supervision with their positive goals for the future to see how many juveniles went through all these negative family trajectories and how many of them had positive goals for their futures. 71 Writing Memos Writing memos frequently during the data analysis is important, because memos facilitate the researcher’s thinking about the relationships in the data and makes these ideas visible and retrievable (Maxwell, 2009). Throughout the analysis, I continually went back and forth between my initial ideas about how to disassemble the data and the actual data. That process could lead to modifications to my initial ideas (Yin, 2011). These kinds of thoughts were kept as memos throughout the analysis. They were short phrases, ideas, or key concepts that occur during reading the transcripts several times (Creswell, 2007). During the analysis, I used sensitizing concepts which provided starting points for building analysis and gives guidance in approaching empirical instances. Due to using Sampson and Laub’s life course theory, I used some concepts such as different kinds of trajectories, transitions and turning points within these trajectories, family/school/peer processes, and human agency and so on. Observed instances of phenomenon might fit within these conceptual categories so that sensitizing concepts may provide a framework for analyzing empirical data and understanding social phenomena (Bowen, 2006). Strategies for Validating Findings Silverman and Marvasti (2008) stated that in qualitative studies it is important to explain the procedures to ensure that methods are reliable and conclusions are valid. Validity of a study and its findings are the key quality control issues in qualitative studies. Yin (2011) stated that, “a valid study is one that has properly collected and interpreted its data, so that the conclusions accurately reflect and represent the real world (or laboratory) that was studied” (p. 78). Although Silverman and Marvasti (2008) stated, “qualitative researchers have no ‘golden key’ to validity” 72 (p. 258), Maxwell (2009) recommended several strategies for combating threats to validity in qualitative research. Comprehensive Data Treatment Maxwell (2009) identified comprehensive data treatment as one of the ways to validate data. In this study, in-depth interviews provided rich data that allowed for valid findings. Moreover, in order to maintain credibility of the qualitative data, researchers should examine the detailed case information before finalizing their conclusions. For instance, Morash (2010) mentioned that one-woman offender in her research said that Alcoholics Anonymous helped her the most, and when she was asked why it was helpful, the woman said that it was “noncommittal.” From this detail, Morash gathered crucial insights about the function of some programs that did not promote desistence from substance use and crime. In life course studies, identifying sequence of life events is important to understand pathways that juveniles followed into delinquency. Therefore, I examined each case to identify sequence of events which led juveniles into prison. Another way to improve the credibility of a qualitative study is to see whether findings are supported by other research on seriously delinquent and incarcerated juveniles. As I wrote about the study findings in Chapters 4 and 5 and in the concluding chapter, I noted other research that was similar or dissimilar to what I found from my data. A systematic comparison of these studies is displayed in Appendix F. Respondent Validation The second strategy is respondent validation in which interviewers obtain feedback from the people studied to lessen misinterpretation of their self-reported behaviors and views (Maxwell, 2009). After the first interview, the interviewer went over key points at the beginning 73 of the second interview; the interviewer was trained to ask for clarification of key statement at the end of both interviews. Using life calendars also helped in respondent validation. As participants and the interviewer looked at the life calendar, the interviewer asked the participant to identify other events and asked whether they were in time order and correct or not. Search for Negative Cases The third strategy is searching for discrepant evidence and negative cases (Silverman & Marvasti, 2008). Negative cases do not always lead to rejecting findings as invalid. Instead, they may serve for generating new findings in the form of fully developed explanation. In their revised life course theory, Laub and Sampson stated that, “negative cases can also be exploited to reassess theory and probe new ideas and directions (1988, p. 10). I assessed rival conclusions by identifying cases that did not fit with key findings from the rest of the data set (Yin, 2011). For example, most of the youth had problems with their parents and they stated that their experiences in their family led them to associate with delinquent peers. For the two juveniles with good relationships with their parents, I looked for what led these youth to commit crime. That process strengthened the validity of my research. Triangulation The fourth strategy for combating threats to validity is triangulation, which refers to collecting converging evidence from different sources (Silverman, 2006). This strategy is commonly used to increase confidence in the validity and reliability of qualitative analyses (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Upon completion of the interviews with juveniles and examination of the findings, the research team presented findings to key informants and asked whether, for incarcerated youth in general, the findings would be consistent. Those individuals were chosen based on their 74 knowledge of juvenile delinquents. They included six individuals in the prison who worked as social workers, psychologists, and guardians. Social workers and psychologists work in the prison to help juveniles with their problems. They counsel juveniles about their problems. Therefore, they were able to shed light on general problems of juveniles before they entered prison. They had information about families of juveniles from their official records. Therefore, I confirmed through social workers that many of juveniles came from poor families and they lived in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Guardians in the prison spent most of their time with the youth, so they were knowledgeable about the prison experience. In the present study, juveniles who stated that prison was a turning point for them had goals for finding a job when they got out of prison. However, when I looked at their statements about job-training workshops, I recognized that their goals for finding jobs were not related to workshops in the prison, although they attended some of those workshops. When asked about this, guardians stated that there were limited workshops and there were not enough for all juveniles who wanted to attend those workshops. Because of this limitation, some juveniles attended some workshops, which they did not like. Thus, although they had a certificate for some trainings, they did not plan to work in fields related to the training. Reliability refers to “the degree of consistency with which instances are assigned to the same category by different observers or by the same observer on different occasions (Silverman & Marvasti, 2008, p. 274). Reliability of the data is another component of credibility addressed through several strategies in this research. Repeated Interviews Intensive long-term involvement is the first strategy, which includes making repeated observations and interviewing. The research team conducted two interviews with each 75 participant. Two interviews in different times allowed checking for internal consistency. That is, the material in the second interview, which was related to detailed experiences and meanings, was examined for consistency with what juveniles said in the first interview, which was about focused life histories (Seidman, 1998). Transparency Silverman and Marvasti (2008) recommended that investigators in qualitative studies should document their procedures and demonstrate that categories have been used consistently. Therefore, each step taken during the data collection and analysis was documented in this study. Low Inference Descriptors Low inference descriptors refer to seeking to record interviews and observation as concretely as possible rather than the researchers’ reconstructions of the general sense of what a person said (Silverman, 2006). The research team typed question responses as close to verbatim as possible. Cleaned interviews were proofed by the research team. If some items were unclear or needed clarification, the research team added clarification in brackets at the end of the section. For example, sometimes juveniles used some street language which was common among them. Interviewers explained their comments in brackets, which helped me to understand what they talked about. Role of Interviewers Another way of providing internal consistency is through the role taken by the interviewer. That is, the interviewer has to be quiet, should not interrupt participants, and should not redirect their thinking while they are developing it. That allows seeing the thoughts of the participants, not the interviewers (Seidman, 1998). Therefore, interviewers were taught about this issue in training. 76 Inter-rater Reliability The chair of this dissertation, Dr. Merry Morash, checked the coding process for reliability on a sample of interviews. I met her frequently to review procedures, discussed categories, and consider emerging relationships in the data. She examined the outline of themes in the NVivo8 software and examples of coded sections, and suggested areas for improvement. Methodology defines how one plans and executes research, and the systematic sequence of procedural steps to be followed such as data collection, and analysis. To summarize, I used a qualitative research design to collect data relevant to Sampson and Laub’s life course theory. Thirty purposively selected convicted male juveniles mostly at the age 18 were retrospectively interviewed by the research team to explore pathways that lead them into prison. To improve the quality of the retrospective study, I used life history calendars, which helped study participants to sequence events and recall the past. This methodology allowed me to develop an especially detailed sequence of experiences that led the youth into prison. 77 CHAPTER FOUR: INFLUENCES OF BACKGROUND FACTORS, FAMILY AND SCHOOL This chapter starts with a description of the key effects of structural background factors on trajectories leading to juvenile delinquency; it also considers the informal social processes of family and school that influence juveniles’ trajectories. Each of these factors is highly relevant to understanding the sequence of events which led juveniles into crime and drug use trajectories. Influential Structural Background Factors Sampson and Laub (1993) identified nine structural background factors in their study of delinquents. These included household crowding, family disruption, family size, low family socioeconomic status, foreign born status, residential mobility, mother’s employment, father’s criminality/drinking, and mother’s criminality/drinking. Only two structural factors had substantial influence on the Turkish juveniles’ trajectories: low socioeconomic status of families and residential mobility. Family’s Low Socioeconomic Status Low socioeconomic status of the family is one of the most influential structural background factors that affected the Turkish juveniles’ trajectories. In the present study, eleven juveniles (36.6%) talked about their families’ low socioeconomic status. Low-income families have parents who are unemployed or who experience job instability (Church et al., 2009). Consistent with the literature on the family situation of juvenile delinquents in Turkey, fathers of most of the families had temporary jobs. Some had no job. There were only two working mothers among the families; the remaining mothers worked only as homemakers. The determinant factor indicating low socioeconomic status was lack of resources to meet the most 78 basic needs and inability to pay rent. For example, Bekir described what his family experienced due to poverty, I was eleven or twelve years old and all of our household items were confiscated by debt collectors due to my family’s debt. All household items were gone and we had to leave the house. They left only mattresses and quilts. Sometimes a transition in one trajectory creates another trajectory. Change in a family’s socioeconomic status could create the youth’s employment trajectory. Then, the employment trajectory would affect the education trajectory as will be discussed in the education trajectory section in this chapter. Because child labor is very prevalent in Turkey, due to low economic status of families, parents may insist that their children work or children may want to contribute to the family’s income. In poor families, children may be perceived of as potential workers who will contribute to the family’s income (Degirmencioglu et al., 2008). Consistent with the literature, one of the juveniles explained why his father wanted to have more children, When I was working, I was spending the money for myself. My father had told my mother that if he had more children, he would have lived more comfortably [when he got old] because they all would have worked for the family. However, none of us supported our family and he still complains about it. (Tuna) Of eleven juveniles who stated they came from poor families, seven (63.6%) indicated that they had to work, usually on the streets or in stores, to supplement their families’ incomes. Focusing on the United States, Sampson and Laub (1993) recommended studying possible exits from poverty among disadvantaged children as they became adults and had employment opportunities, community support networks, or marital partners. They considered employment as a turning point in adults’ lives, but not in relation to juveniles’ trajectories. 79 Specifically, Laub (1999) considered employment of adolescents who were involved in crime as a transitional event from adolescence to adulthood. He contended that adolescents who had problems in a variety of domains such as family or school were more likely to experience difficult transitions, because those problems would extend into their adulthood and produce outcomes such as unemployment, divorce, criminal activity, or drug use. For example, delinquent boys were at least three times more likely to have an unstable employment rate than non-delinquent boys when they were at ages 25-32. Overall, life course theory considered juvenile employment’s effect on employment in adulthood and desistance from crime. It did not focus on any negative effect of juvenile employment in the adolescent years. However, in the present study, the employment trajectory of juveniles was quite different from that in the original life course theory, because juveniles worked to supplement family income at a very early age. One of them identified the point when he started to contribute to his family’s income. We always had money problems. My father was sick for a while and could not work. My elder brothers were working but they were spending their money for their needs not for the family. Therefore, I was selling flowers on the streets to support my family. I was eleven or twelve years old. I was nine or ten years old when I first worked. (Emre) The application of life course theory to delinquency in countries such as Turkey requires attention to the early age at which children may begin working and the critical nature of their contributions to family income. Youth had to take responsibilities at an early age which disrupted their trajectories in other areas, such as education, which will be discussed at the end of this chapter. 80 Also writing primarily about the United States, Elder (1985) proposed that in order to understand the effect of family structure on juveniles’ lives, it is important to look at its relation to the family’s economic trajectory. He proposed that loss of economic resources would be related to marital disruptions. However, in the present study, the majority of the juveniles came from non-disrupted families. In the Turkish context, low economic status of the family did not appear to lead to marital disruptions. Instead, in addition to its influence on youth’s early employment, it was relevant to delinquency because it led families to move into highly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Family Moves (A) Poverty and Family Moves In the present study, families of twenty-nine juveniles (97%) had moved between neighborhoods. Nine of these families (31%) moved only once; six families (21%) moved twice; eight (28%) moved three times; three families (10%) moved four times; and three families (10%) moved five times. Only one family never moved. As a result of these moves, juveniles had to live in bad neighborhoods where living conditions were very poor but housing was affordable. Therefore, the economic situation of families shaped juveniles’ trajectories through family moves to disadvantaged neighborhoods. This pattern shows the clearest connection between low family income and family moves, which besides family poverty, is the next most common influential structural background factor in the life course of convicted juveniles. Of the eleven juveniles from poor families, five (45.4%) stated that their poverty was the main reason for their families’ move to a neighborhood that was worse than previous ones. Yunus was one of two boys who gave similar explanations of how poverty led families to move, 81 Most of the people who want to stay away from trouble would not want to reside in my neighborhood, but families like mine, which are large and cannot pay their rent, have to stay there despite its disadvantages. We had to move there from neighborhood A because the rent was cheap. Influence of the Neighborhood Context Although the literature review on life course theory did not highlight the influence of bad neighborhoods on juveniles, as evidenced in responses to questions about family moves, the effect of neighborhood stood out in my data as one of the strongest influences on juvenile delinquency. Most youth talked about their bad neighborhood conditions and how drug use and crime were evident in those neighborhoods. Hakan was one of those juveniles, who observed those situations in his neighborhood, That neighborhood was a really bad place because of drugs and theft... There were many drug and gun dealers in this neighborhood. I was sentenced to 32 years and it was because of that neighborhood. (A) Squatter Areas Of the bad neighborhoods, consistent with the literature on squatter areas in Turkey, squatter neighborhoods were the most common type where juveniles lived (Baslevent and Dayioglu, 2005). Eighteen juveniles (60%) lived in squatter neighborhoods. Of those juveniles who lived in squatter areas, sixteen (88.8%) stated that they committed crime, used drugs or had delinquent friends in those neighborhoods. For example, Cem described how he became involved in criminal activities through his delinquent friends in a squatter neighborhood, It was the first neighborhood when I got into trouble. Everything happened when I was living there. It was a squatter area and I had many bad friends. When you ask other 82 people about my neighborhood, they would say it is a bad place to live in... Because of my friends, I had to follow in their tracks. They were bullying, beating people and I was hanging out with them and doing what they were doing in that neighborhood (Cem). As seen from the above statements, squatter areas were perceived as bad places to reside. They had bad reputations due to drug use and criminals. When asked about other people’s perception about those places, seven juveniles (38.8%) stated that people saw those places as bad neighborhoods, where people would not want to live. Due to having such problems, those places had a bad reputation in other parts of the city. One of the juveniles explained why people would not want to live in squatter areas, If you go to my city and ask anyone about my neighborhood, they would all know it because of its bad reputation. They may even be scared because you can find any kind of person who is in trouble with the police there such as assailants, thieves, robbers. There were always fights on the streets. Most of the people who want to stay away from trouble would not want to reside in my neighborhood. (Yunus) Mert explained the difference between the past and current status of squatter places, and how things changed there, People liked to stay in the neighborhood before, but when drug users and fighting increased, they wanted to move. I know some neighbors who moved to another neighborhood due to the fact that they did not want to raise their children there. Despite the crime and drug use in squatter areas, most of the families did not move. People may live in squatter houses due to the low cost, or – even though it is illegal – because within a short time, they can even build their own houses there. Tolga’s statement provides a 83 clue to explain why people who did not have trouble with the law as well as those with illegal behavior did not want to leave squatter areas, People used to know this neighborhood as a nasty place. When our relatives asked us where we lived and learned that we lived in this neighborhood, they asked why we lived there and said that the neighborhood was not a safe place to live with a family. People in that neighborhood did not want to leave this neighborhood because they had their own houses. Squatter houses. (B) Why Juveniles Return to Squatter and Bad Neighborhoods When they found housing in better neighborhoods, some families moved from high-crime areas in order to detach their children from negative neighborhood conditions and delinquent friends. Other families moved to better areas to take advantage of opportunities to live in a government housing project. Sami described how his parents had to move to another neighborhood after their many attempts to detach him from his peers, I was 13 or 14 years old. When I returned to Black Sea Region 2, my father put me in chains. They locked me up in a room. They tried to control me in that way. My mother even did the same. However, I managed to run away. Those times I was away for one or two years. Then, my friends came back again. My family changed neighborhoods. We sold the squatter house and we bought a new squatter house in a different neighborhood. However, families did not change their supervision of or attachment to youth, and youth just returned to their delinquent peers in their previous bad neighborhoods, due to lack of friends in new neighborhoods or because they wanted to continue their drug trajectory. Sixteen juveniles moved from such areas and six of them (37.5%) described why they turned back to their bad neighborhoods. 84 The most common reason for returning to crime-ridden neighborhoods and squatter areas was desire to spend time with delinquent friends. For example, Halil’s family moved to a governmental housing project in a good neighborhood. However, after moving, he did not spend time in his new neighborhood. He said, The house, which was built by the government, was good and the people were kind. It was quite different than my first neighborhood. However, I was still seeing my friends in the previous neighborhood at that time. Likewise, Mehmet’s family moved into a better area, but he preferred to return to his previous high-crime neighborhood due to his delinquent friends, The second neighborhood was better than the first neighborhood, but I did not spend much time there, and mostly I used to go to my first neighborhood to hang out with my friends. The common reasons for spending time outside of a new neighborhood were lack of new friends, desire to hang out with delinquent friends in their previous neighborhoods, and desire to continue using drugs. This pattern is exemplified by Sinan’s situation. When Sinan’s father entered prison, his mother had to move into a new neighborhood where relatives provided the family with support. However, Sinan went to his previous bad neighborhood to spend time with his delinquent peers. He explained his motive, Then, when my father entered prison, my mother wanted to move and we moved to another neighborhood. However, I still hung out with my friends from my previous neighborhood because I did not find friends in the new neighborhood…The other neighborhood was like a heaven. There were nice guys. It had a park, swimming pool. However, I never stayed there much. Most of the time, I spent time with my friends in my 85 previous neighborhood. I found alcohol and marijuana there easily. I stayed in a bachelor’s house most of the time and I brought my girlfriends there. The findings for Turkey are consistent with the results of research on Moving to Opportunity for Fair Housing Demonstration (MTO), a program launched by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 1994 in five cities. That program targeted poor families who lived in poor and high crime neighborhoods. The purpose of that project was to provide better schools, city services or economic opportunities for those people who lived in neighborhoods lacking such opportunities. It was assumed that living in good neighborhoods would provide benefits for adolescents. However, five years later, researchers found that adolescent girls benefited from moving into new neighborhoods, but adolescent boys did not benefit at all (Popkin et al., 2010). Researchers contended that the reason for the boys’ continuing delinquency was their maintenance of ties to risky environments in old neighborhoods and difficulty of forming new social networks in new neighborhood. That is, some of boys who moved into new neighborhoods stayed in the same central-city school district that allowed them to keep the same friends. Boys did not benefit from MTO as girls benefited, because boys were more mobile, less supervised, and had more autonomy than girls. Therefore, they easily kept their risky contacts from their previous neighborhoods due to that freedom. Due to boredom in their new neighborhoods, boys sought excitement in their old neighborhoods where they associated with old friends and their extended family members who had criminal histories. Even for youth who did change schools, compared to girls, boys were less successful at forming positive new peer networks. In their new schools, boys were perceived as threats and oftentimes they encountered hostility and violence from local boys in the school. Therefore, they maintained their previous ties with their peers in their old neighborhoods. Moreover, moving to a 86 new low-income neighborhood neither provided job opportunities to families nor improved their parenting practices, such as supervision. Boys lacked role models in their lives, because only a few had fathers or stepfathers who served as role models, enforced rules, checked on grades, and encouraged them to do well in school. The U.S. families also did not lose their old ties with their old neighborhoods because they had difficulty forming new social ties in their new neighborhood. Sometimes parents took boys to their old neighborhoods (Briggs et al., 2010). (C) Squatter Relations Although juveniles talked about bad features of squatter areas, they also made it clear that relations among people were better than in other neighborhoods where they previously lived. Of the eighteen juveniles who lived in squatter areas, several (5 or 27.7%) talked about warm relations in their squatter neighborhoods; most often, they emphasized close relations between families. For example, Okan and Cem explained how relations were good in those places, It was a squatter area. Relations among people were very good and warm. People used to know each other. Neighbors used to visit each other. If something happened, everybody used to know immediately. (Okan) When you ask other people about my neighborhood, they would say it is a bad place to live in. However, the people were friendly in my neighborhood and we were closer with our neighbors than our relatives. Everybody used to know each other in my neighborhood. (Cem) The positive features of squatter neighborhoods most likely drew boys as well as their families back to the areas. Although youth were involved in criminal activities with friends in squatter areas which had bad reputations due to drug use and criminals, due to warm relations 87 among people, they did not hesitate to return to these areas even after they moved to better neighborhoods. As displayed in the Figure 1, family background factors have influence on the trajectories of juveniles such as education, employment, crime, and drug use. Figure 1. Influential Family Background Factors (For interpretation of the references to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this dissertation) 88 Living with the Family Family Attachment Sampson and Laub (1993) proposed that attachment to the parents, parental discipline, and parental supervision were three important dimensions of family process affecting juveniles’ lives, including their delinquency. In regards to family attachment, they proposed that children who were rejected by their parents were more likely to engage in crime. Moreover, by constructing measures of attachment in both directions -child to parent and parent to child- they allowed for a full specification of this concept. Examining differential effects of fathers and mothers allowed them to see the similar and different effects of fathers and mothers on their children. Applying these ideas in the present study, I focused on attachment to each parent and its affect on delinquency. (A) Lack of Attachment to Fathers Twenty-three juveniles (76.6%) described a lack of attachment with parents, most often with their fathers. Of those juveniles who mentioned lack of attachment to their parents, seven of them (36.8%) clearly stated that they did not like their fathers and did not have a positive bond with them. There were several reasons. The main reason for negative feelings was their fathers’ behavior or style of relating in an emotionally distant way. For example, Halil and Deniz described a practice of fathers not talking to their children, which characterizes a common type of Turkish family. I did not have good relations with my parents and I was not close to them... He [his father] was not a type of person who talks with family members a lot. I was coming home late and he was also coming home late due to working. I was feeling ashamed if I talked 89 with him. It was my failure to not be attached to my family. He was working for us. (Halil) I felt close to them. I felt closer to my mother. I shared every problem with her. I was close to my sister too. My father is a tough guy and gets angry easily. Therefore, I did not want to talk to him much. I have had the same feelings and attitudes towards him since my childhood. (Deniz) Due to lack of communication between fathers and children, juveniles felt distant from their fathers. They reflected on their lack of understanding of their fathers’ personalities and their fathers’ real feelings towards them. I always saw parents coming to school with their sons or daughters or taking them to parks or playgrounds. I did not have this chance. I felt terrible when I saw them. I was feeling as if I am an orphan because my parents were never with me…My father was good to me, but I did not have warm feelings to him. He liked me but I did not like him… He was telling me to come to him if I wanted to do something. He was like a stranger to me, and my mother was always saying that my father liked me too much, but it was like a lie to me. I was not close to him. (Egemen) Despite these negative feelings, of the seven juveniles who disliked their fathers, two of them also understood their father’s good intentions for them and family. Tuna described his relation with his father, I did not like my father since my childhood. When he entered the big living room at home, I was leaving the saloon. I was behaving towards him as if he was someone else. Then, I realized that his personality was cold, but he had good intentions for me. However, because of my friends, everything got worse. 90 Cold personality was not the only reason for lack of attachment. Some fathers just expressed no feelings towards their sons. Others disrupted the father-son relationship by being abusive. Serhat stated that, I was not close to my father and he was looking at me as if he never loved me. He beat me when I made mistakes. Those times, I did not speak to him. Sometimes excessive drinking of fathers weakened their relations with their children. When fathers were intoxicated, they seemed to feel free to beat their children. In the present study, six juveniles (20%) had fathers who drank excessively. The presence of a drinking father created a negative home atmosphere where juveniles felt uncomfortable. Although it did not directly affect juveniles’ delinquency, it weakened juveniles’ family bonds through leading them to stay away or run away from home, by leading to domestic violence, or by resulting in harsh family discipline. Four of the six youth with fathers who drank (66.6%) stated that their bonds to their parents weakened due to their father’s excessive drinking. Note the negative influence of drinking father and harsh punishment on family attachment in Mert’s comment, I love him very much, even so I would give my life for him. However, before I hated him. I hated his coming home when intoxicated…When my father beat me, he satisfied himself, he was always intoxicated. Perhaps, if he was not intoxicated, he would not beat me. He beat me very harshly when he learned that I smoked cigarette. When he learned about my friends in the neighborhood, he beat me. He did not know that my hate increased towards him whenever he beat me. Attachment to Mothers Although they stated that they did not like their fathers, of nineteen juveniles who lacked attachment to their parents, eight (42.1%) described positive bonds towards their mothers, who 91 were good listeners, more lenient than fathers, and less likely to have disputes with their children. Arda stated that his mother’s leniency was the reason for having good relations with her, I had a close relation with my mother but my relationship with my father was not good. My mother never said anything to me when I went outside without my father’s knowledge. In Turkey, there is a famous saying that “female bird makes the nest” which means that mothers have a major role in holding family members together. Mert expressed his positive feelings towards his mother because she was the person who held family members together despite negative circumstances at home, I felt closer to my mother than my father. If my mother was dead, our family would have been scattered a long time ago. She was the person who stuck us together. She worked and supported us. Youth felt they could not tell their problems to their fathers, who would yell at or punish them. Therefore, they could only talk with their mothers at home. For Serhat, his mother was like a friend, “Only with my mother. I shared my feelings and problems with her because she was silent and never told anybody”. Domestic Violence Although Sampson and Laub (1993) did not study the influence of domestic violence in their research, they recommended studying the influences of domestic violence on social ties in the family. Fourteen juveniles (46.6%) stated that they had encountered domestic violence at their homes, most often when their fathers beat their mothers. In the present study, the effect of domestic violence incidents on family ties is twofold. Those incidents not only weakened bonds between spouses, but also affected their relations with their children and prompted the youth to 92 stay away or run away from home. Volkan was one of four youth who described how they felt after witnessing domestic violence, in some cases in conjunction with their own victimization, They were always fighting. My mother was pushing my father and my father was hitting and beating my mother. Sometimes, I found myself in the middle of a fight between them. It happened once in two days. Sometimes it was hard to see their fighting, but sometimes I was feeling as if I was used to seeing their fighting. When my father was swearing at my mother, I was really getting angry at him. It affected me badly because I could not handle it by myself. I could not forget and erase my brain. Even though witnessing domestic violence disrupted family ties, for Halil, those were the times when family members interacted with each other more, I guess if my parents did not fight, perhaps we would never come together and talk or drink tea together. When I was intervening and making peace between them, we were talking and those were the few times when we talked more. When juveniles lacked attachment to their parents and when they experienced domestic violence incidents at home, they preferred to spend time with their delinquent peers. Of the fourteen juveniles who witnessed domestic violence at home, four (28.5%) mentioned how delinquent peers became more important when the violence occurred. Volkan, who described his father’s abuse of both himself and his mother and his father’s kicking them out of the home, explained how this led him to spend time with his friends, “Those times, I was not going home and my father was not looking for me. I mostly spent time with my friends on the streets since I was 7 till I was 18”. Taner described a similar response to witnessing domestic violence: “… I only wanted to be with my friends. When I was with them, I felt more comfortable. It was as if they were closer to me than my parents.” 93 Although the majority of juveniles had negative relations with their parents, in the present study, two felt that they had good relations, Yes. When I had problems, I shared them with my mother and father. Even my friends brought their girlfriends to my home to introduce them to my parents. (Adem) I always had good relations with my parents. There was no other way because they were always helpful to me and they always tried to do whatever I wanted. My elder brother and his wife were also not only good to me but also good to other people. I had good relations with my other brothers too. (Cem) However, Adem’s and Cem’s positive relationships with parents did not prevent them from engaging in crime with their delinquent peers. Adem hung out with older males and was addicted to drugs. Cem lived in squatter area, was truant most of the time and spent time with his friends. Before they were exposed to crime and drugs in their neighborhoods, they both dropped out of school after they changed their schools in the ninth grade. After they dropped out of school, they both started to spend more time with their delinquent peers. This sequence of events may explain why they broke the law even though they had positive relationships with their parents. Family Discipline Another family process is method of discipline. Parents can control their children in different ways, such as specifying certain rules, monitoring their behaviors, and exerting control by punishing them. Sampson and Laub (1993) operationalized negative discipline as physical punishment (beating, strapping, rough handling) which elicited fear and resentment; threatening/scolding behavior of parents which elicited fear; and erratic/negligent discipline by parents who were inconsistent in control and negligent or indifferent about disciplining their 94 children. In the present study, the most common type of parental discipline was beating; twentythree juveniles (76.6%) indicated that they were beaten, usually by their fathers. Parents, in particular fathers, disciplined boys after they used drugs or broke the law. Sometimes older brothers administered beatings. This is consistent with Turkish culture’s norm that older siblings are expected to assume responsibility for younger siblings. Older brothers are like representatives of fathers at home. When they beat their younger siblings, fathers do not do anything to them, because they believe that older brothers are beating to discipline their younger siblings, and only older brothers can control their younger siblings at home. Even mothers get help from their older sons to exert control over their younger siblings. Four youth (17.3%) mentioned their older brothers’ beating them. Sinan and Hakan were two of them, My relations with my mother and older brother worsened. My older brother started to beat me. He asked me why I did not stay at home when he was not staying home either. Because of their reaction, I did not want to stay at home and I hung out with my friends most of the time. (Sinan) Sometimes my older brother beat me. He beat me harshly. How can beating work when love and caring were not tried first? Sometimes he beat me with a stick or with his hands. (Hakan) In the present study, only one mother harshly disciplined her son, Once, I sniffed glue and then, I became addicted to sniffing glue. I was using one tube of glue daily for three or four months when I was thirteen years old. My mother beat me, but I continued. Instead of my father, my mother was beating me for sniffing glue, smoking cigarettes. (Volkan) 95 Families most often disciplined youth after the youth committed crime. Parents’ reaction to youths’ crime included sending juveniles to live with relatives outside the city, restricting computer use, withholding money, restricting youth to the house, locking them in a room, forcing juveniles to work, just talking, yelling, and beating. Despite this variation, beating was the most common type of discipline in response to crime. I was scared when committing crime. Therefore, when they were breaking into houses, I was like a watchman. When my father and uncle learned of my relationship with Abi B, they beat him harshly. They beat me harshly too. (Altan) Exemplifying the second most common type of parental discipline, seven juveniles indicated that their fathers locked them up in a room or even put them in chains or tied them with a rope. Sami went to another city with his friends to commit crime with them. He was the one who was locked up in a room in chains when he returned home, My friend’s older brothers learned about that [the illegal activity] and they brought him back. I was 13 or 14 years old. When I returned to Black Sea Region 2, my father put me in chains. They locked me up in a room. They tried to control me in that way. My mother even did the same. However, I managed to run away. Those times I was away for one or two years… While I was tied with a rope, he [my father] told my mother that I would be staying at home until I became a man. I managed to untie the rope and run away from home. Family Supervision Family supervision – the final family process considered – was characterized by its low levels. An extensive literature has focused on the influence of lack of supervision on delinquency. In Turkey as well as in many U.S. families (Bottcher, 2001), boys are less 96 controlled than girls outside the home, because they are allowed more freedom due to being male. In Turkey, girls tend to be controlled because of the view that they need protection to avoid bringing dishonor to the family if they engage in prohibited relations with boys. Consistent with the literature on child rearing in Turkey, eighteen juveniles (60%) mentioned lack of supervision when they left their homes. Although most boys lived with two parents, their parents did not care where they went or what they were doing. Due to fathers’ lack of presence at home, mothers and older brothers were the primary supervisors. Some mothers seemed to monitor their sons’ behaviors; however, due to being homemakers and staying at home most of the time, their supervision was limited to asking their sons what they were doing or where they were staying. Six juveniles described this sort of ineffective oversight, Only my mother was trying to control what I was doing, but it was too limited because she did not know my friends very well. Sometimes, she had followed me and I did not know that. When I learned that she was following me, I told her to stop following me and she stopped coming after me. Then, I became criminal. (Volkan) Okan mentioned how he deceived his mother by not telling the truth about his activities outside, My mother used to do that. She was curious about where I went, what I did. She used to ask me those questions when I came home. However, I never told her the truth. I never told her anything about my friends. I hang out with my friends in a car but she did not know that. Supervision includes recognizing deviance when it occurs and correcting misbehavior when it happens (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). However, parents of the study participants often 97 were unable to provide such oversight. Because parents were unaware of their children’s illegal activities, they did not take any actions to interrupt their patterns of delinquency. They naively thought that their sons would not break the law. … couple of times, I did not go home when I was 16 and 17 years old. I told my parents that I am not coming home that night and would spend the night in my friend’s family’s house. They were thinking of me as a good guy, because they did not know anything about extortions and glue sniffing. (Halil) Some parents seemed uninterested in their sons’ activities, My parents never worried about me and most of the time never asked me what I was doing. They did not know where I was when I was not at home. They asked a couple of times, and I did not say anything. Then, they gave up and did not ask again when I was 16 or 17 years old. (Mehmet) In patriarchal families, fathers are the most powerful authority figure. They exert strict control of other family members. However, in the present study, fathers usually came home late or they worked away from home for weeks. These patterns created supervision free homes for juveniles. Okan, who deceived his mother, explained how his father’s working allowed him to behave more freely, “My father used to go to work in the early morning and came home at evening. My parents did not know that I used drugs and drank alcohol. I started at 16 but they did not know”. Yunus was angry due to his mother’s coming to school with him, so she stopped doing this. He also mentioned the results of his father’s being away from home for months. Sometimes my father was travelling to other cities for work and I was feeling good at those times because he was away from home so I could do anything. I came home very 98 late oftentimes when he was not at home. If he were at home, he would yell at me for coming home late. These examples show how the absence of a father in patriarchal families promotes a lack of supervision, in part because mothers had limited control of their sons. Perhaps because of patriarchal power arrangements in families, older brothers seemed more effective than mothers in supervising boys’ activities. Of eighteen juveniles whose families did not supervise them, four (22.2%) mentioned that their older brothers tried to control where they were or what they were doing. They stressed that they were afraid of their older brothers, Usually, I was hanging out with my two friends. I was scared if some people in the neighborhood would tell my older brothers that I was hanging out with my friends who are known as drug users in that neighborhood. (Emre) Therefore, Emre hung out with his friends in other neighborhoods where his older brother could not learn anything about his whereabouts. Hakan was luckier than Emre because his older brother was in the prison. He was mostly beaten by his older brother as mentioned above. He explained what would happen if his older brother was home, I was in the prison when I was 12 and he [his older brother] was in the prison too. Being in the prison as two brothers is not good. If he had not been in the prison, I would not have committed crime because he was the only person who would have controlled me. I would not dare to commit crime if he was at home. The above statements illustrate that juveniles were not supervised or controlled effectively. Parental monitoring and supervision is, “the activity that allows parents to be knowledgeable about their adolescents’ whereabouts, activities, and companions” (Montemayor, 2001, p. 481). This definition suggests that if parents had better knowledge of their children’s 99 activities, it would decrease the likelihood of association with delinquent peers (Waizenhofer et al., 2004; Warr, 2005). However, in the present study, many parents did not know anything about their sons’ whereabouts and activities. Families most often increased controls and supervision of youth after the youth committed a crime. Parents’ reaction to youths’ crime included sending youth to other cities where relatives lived, chasing after juveniles, supervision in juveniles’ workplaces, taking sons to school every day to prevent truancy, and talking. For the boys in the present study, none of these supervision efforts appeared to be effective. For example, it is clear that bad neighborhood conditions provide safe haven for juveniles to start drug use and engage in delinquency and crime. Moving to another neighborhood was one of the ways parents tried to control their sons. The quotes below illustrate how families did not take any action except to move to other neighborhoods to detach their sons from delinquent peers and drug use. Tolga explained what his parents did after learning that he was hanging out with older males who were drug dealers, “My parents learned about that; therefore, we moved to another neighborhood because of that reason”. Mehmet said, “My family moved to that second neighborhood for me because they thought that if they moved to a new neighborhood, I would forget my friends in the first neighborhood who led me into trouble”. Typically, as already discussed, moving was in itself an ineffective parental strategy, because boys often returned to their former neighborhoods and maintained a pattern of delinquency with their peers. Interconnection of Family Attachment, Discipline, and Supervision For boys who followed a trajectory of continuing to live with their families, there appeared to be interconnections between the different negative family processes. Therefore, as 100 displayed in Figure 2, I systematically examined the interconnections of the youths’ lack of attachment, witnessing domestic violence, being beaten as harsh discipline and running away due to that reason, and their lack of supervision. Figure 2. Interconnection of Family Processes and Their Influences In the present study, twenty-three juveniles felt unattached to their parents, either because they felt no bonds with them and/or because of bad relations with parents that resulted from domestic violence in their homes. Nineteen (82.6%) of those twenty-three juveniles had parents who used beatings to discipline them. Of nineteen juveniles who lacked family attachment and were beaten by their parents, 11 (57.8%) indicated that there was nobody who controlled or supervised their activities outside of home. Of nineteen juveniles who lacked parental attachment and were beaten by their parents, nine (47.3%) stated that they ran away from home due to being beaten, feelings of detachment from parents, and/or domestic violence. These findings show that 101 thirty-seven percent of the sample experienced a combination of lack of attachment/domestic violence, being beaten, and lack of supervision at the same time in their lives. These juveniles experienced multiple negative family processes which promoted their crime and drug use trajectories. Improvement in these processes, and thus of their relationships with parents, would be an important way to influence the youth to have an optimistic outlook for their life after prison. This might occur if their families started to visit them, improved their relationships, and youth had a positive mindset about their future life after prison. However, at the time of the interviews, except for one juvenile (Altan), none of those juveniles had good relations which would tie them to their parents and they did not have an optimistic mindset for their life after prison. Running Away and Independent Living Trajectory Also relevant to the twenty-three juveniles who lacked attachment with their parents, when juveniles have strong attachment to their parents, they care about their parents’ opinions and feelings. They do not want to embarrass or disappoint their parents by doing wrong. Therefore, they are less likely to develop delinquent friendships, because they try to avoid parental disapproval. That kind of attachment serves as an internal monitor of children’s actions even when parents are not present (Benson, 2002; Warr, 1993). Patterson et al. (1989) found that when adolescents had poor relationships with their parents and their parents were poor role models for prosocial behaviors, adolescents were more likely to turn to deviant peer groups, which in turn influenced them to engage in delinquent behavior. As seen in the above quotes, juveniles did not have attachment to their fathers, which led them to associate with their delinquent peers. The influence of peers in turn weakened juveniles’ attachment to their parents. 102 Four youth explicitly stated that their peers were more important than their parents. Illustrating how peers could further weaken attachment to parents, Mehmet noted, I never get on well with any of my family members. I started to behave rudely to them when I was 12 or 13 years old. I was mostly hanging out with my friends at those times. I used to see how my friends were behaving to their parents and they were quite rude and did not care about anything. I only had good relations with my younger brother. My mother was trying to be nice to me to keep me at home but I was rude to her. I was swearing at her. A couple of times, I attempted to hit my mother and father but they did not do anything to me. They were just saying that they did not have a son like me [a kind of stigmatization by parents which is mostly expressed when parents cannot stop their children’s delinquency]…I did not have good relationships with any of my family members; therefore, I spent most of my time with my friends. When juveniles had weak bonds to their parents, delinquent peers made up for the lack of parental love. Several boys described this sequence of events, and Mert was one of them, I liked to be with them. It was exciting. They all had family problems. We found the happiness among ourselves, which we did not find at home. We were backing up ourselves. We protected each other. The most prevalent transition that created a new trajectory was problems in the family, which launched boys on a new trajectory, independent living. There are several transitions leading to this independent living trajectory: the weakening of attachment to the parents, witnessing domestic violence, drinking fathers, parental beating, and close ties with peers. The weakening of attachment to the parents is the most apparent disruption to youth’s trajectories of living with their families. It promoted running away. Of those twenty-three 103 juveniles whose attachment to the parents weakened, twelve (52.1%) indicated that they ran away or stayed away with their friends due to lacking attachment to their parents. For example, Murat went to another city when he ran away from home. He extorted a taxi driver with his friends and he was arrested after that offense. He ran away due to lacking attachment to his parents. He said, “The main reason was lack of love and compassion at home. Therefore, I always wanted to go away from home because I thought that if I was away from my parents, I would live in peace”. Another transition in the family life trajectory was domestic violence, which promoted an independent living trajectory. Domestic violence incidents created a negative atmosphere at home for juveniles and weakened their attachments to their parents. Thus, youth did not want to stay at home. In the present study, of fourteen juveniles who witnessed domestic violence at their home, six (42.8%) either stayed away or ran away from home when they saw their parents fighting. Two boys gave especially detailed explanations of how domestic violence led to their independent living trajectory, I could not handle it. I wanted to be away from home because of their fighting. I was feeling distant from both of them. I was affected and I was telling them not to argue or fight at home when we are at home too. However, they did not listen to me and did the same thing in front of our eyes. Being away from home was the best choice for me and I run away from home. (Murat) Drinking fathers is another factor which weakened family processes and launched two boys on an “independent living” trajectory. Mert stated that his first time running away from home was the most important point in his life, because he started to commit crime and use drugs after he first ran away. His first time running away was due to his father’s drinking, 104 When I first ran away from home, I was 14 or 15 years old. That night my father came home intoxicated. I told my brother we should run away from home together. Then, we went to Park K and he said he was hungry and thirsty. Then, I sent him home again. I tried to sleep on the chairs of the park but it was not safe enough. Therefore, I slept in a park just across from the police station because it was safe. In the morning, the police found me and took me home. My parents were going crazy. My mother was crying and the police were trying to calm down my father. He got very angry. When we left the police station, my father cursed me. My father told me that if a real man runs away from home, he does not come back again. Then, I continued running away from home and did not come back home. I could not stay at home because my father was always intoxicated. Running or staying away from home was closely connected not only to lack of attachment to parents, but also to close ties to peers. Veysel described how, after witnessing domestic violence at home, he felt comfortable after running away with his friends, I always run away from home. I was 12 or 13 years old and we were hanging out with my friends when I ran away from home. I can say, we were looking for trouble. I always used marijuana and drank alcohol with my 2 or 3 close friends in those times. Sometimes, we were standing across from the houses of our girlfriends. Because of the pressure in my home, staying at home was unbearable. I was telling my father and mother to shut up, but they never shut up and always were yelling at me. I was losing my control and leaving home immediately. I was staying away from home for 2 or 3 days, sometimes a week. Parental beating also promoted running away. When parents administered beatings, it led juveniles to run away or stay away from their families, which started their “independent living” trajectory. Five youth (21.7%) specifically identified beatings as precipitating their running 105 away, noting that if they stayed home, they would be beaten again. Hakan mostly stayed away or ran away from home due to his delinquent friends. When he was not at home, he stayed in his friends’ houses or they rented a house. They committed crime to support his living on his own. Although it was difficult for him to live away from home, he did not go back. He said, “I did not go home when they punished me. I run away from home at those times. If I turned back, they would beat me again”. Murat saw a direct connection of being beaten to his assaultive behavior, “It affected me. I was doing the same things to others. I was getting into fights and beating people. It was as if I was taking revenge on my father when I was beating other guys”. Mert also ran away from home due to parental beating. He could escape beatings by spending time with friends, with whom he was happier, He [his father] did not know that my hate increased towards him whenever he beat me. I run away from home or stayed away from home due to my father’s beatings because when I was at home, I was being beaten whereas when I was among my friends, I was happier. After those beatings, I saw my house as a restaurant where I eat, as a store where I take my clothes or as a Hamam where I take bath. Nothing else. Sometimes family beating promoted lack of attachment. When youth were exposed to family beatings, they did not feel attached to their parents, and the lack of attachment led to their running away. Being tied and put in chains created feelings that drove Sami away from his parents and disrupted his attachment to them. He said, “When they started to lock me up and beat me, I thought that they did not love me anymore. Therefore, I stayed out of the home more often. I did not go to school at that time”. 106 Sometimes the causal sequence was not that attachment to peers rather than to parents led to running away, but that running away with delinquent peers had its roots in moving into bad neighborhoods, which was followed by lack of attachment to parents. The second neighborhood was good, but everything started when we moved to that neighborhood. I felt distant from my family and had delinquent friends. Sometimes I stayed on the streets when we were together and had run away from our homes…When I was 12, I went to Marmara Region 2 with my friends and stayed there. (Sami) Youth felt close to their peers in part because being with friends after running away from home provided protection from dangers they may encounter on the streets. Of sixteen juveniles who described their living conditions when they had run away from home either with their friends or alone, six (37.5%) indicated that they were not scared to live on the streets or in abandoned houses because they stayed with friends in those places. When I was not coming home, I used to stay in abandoned houses in our neighborhood. I used to stay outside. I did not feel any fear or regret for staying there instead of staying at home. Me and my friends cleaned one room of this abandoned house and put carpet and an old sofa there. We had stolen that carpet and found the sofa near the garbage. It was like a normal room to stay in. I did not feel any problem staying there with my friends. We were altogether, so why should we have fear? (Altan) Veysel ran away with his friends and lived in abandoned shelters or went to resort cities on the Mediterranean Coast. Staying with his friends encouraged him to be away from his home. He explained how he felt at those times. I was feeling safe in those places, and we did not have fear because we were altogether. We felt stronger when we were altogether and were never scared of anything. People like 107 us who are in that path, never fear. We are not like other boys who stay with their parents comfortably. We stand on our feet. (Veysel) Education Trajectory School influences juveniles’ trajectories through youths’ lack of interest in school, truancy, drop out, repeating grades, and expulsion. The education level of juveniles varied from no education to ninth grade. One juvenile had no education, one studied until the first grade; two studied until the fourth grade; five studied until the sixth grade; two studied until the seventh grade; eight studied until the eighth grade; and eleven studied until the ninth grade. Twenty-four juveniles dropped out of school, and eight were expelled. When youth dropped out of school or were expelled, they sometimes continued their education in another school, but then they stopped again because they were expelled or dropped out again. The boys’ limited education is consistent with UNESCO’s report on Turkey’s educational situation. Turkey has a low level of primary and secondary school participation when compared to Central and Eastern European countries (UNESCO, 2011). In 2007, 640,000 children of primary school age did not go to school (UNESCO, 2010) despite compulsory education until the eighth grade in Turkey. Therefore, it is not surprising to see the low level of education in the sample. Although Jenkins (1995) suggested, “as an instrument of socialization…the school can play a major role in the prevention of delinquency by combating delinquency within the school setting and by strengthening the bond between students and the educational process” (p. 221), schools did not have a strong role in study participants’ lives because so many of them dropped out, were truant, or were expelled. Of twenty-nine juveniles who went to school at all, most (82.7%) dropped out for reasons such as no ties to school, high levels of truancy, or incarceration. Nine boys (31%) had to repeat grades, and eleven (37.9%) were chronically truant. 108 From the below examples, it is clear that many transitions affected youths’ education trajectory in different ways. There are several reasons for lack of attachment to school, which led to dropping out, truancy, expulsion, and suspension. The most common pathways to a disrupted education were shaped by harsh family discipline, effects of drug use, involvement in crime, corporal punishment in schools, changing schools due to the family’s move, adaptation problems in a new school, living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and the employment trajectory. The less common influences leading to a trajectory marked by a disrupted education were parental domestic violence, running away from home, family poverty, lack of friends in school, father’s drinking, and learning difficulties. Negative family discipline affected juveniles’ education trajectory. When juveniles were beaten by their parents, they lost their attachment to their parents and did not want to go to school. Therefore, we can see the interaction of two family processes: lack of attachment and harsh discipline. Consistent with the literature, when juveniles had positive attachment, it inhibited delinquency, which in turn promoted school attachment (Liska & Reed, 1985). In the present study, twenty-three juveniles were beaten by their parents and six of them (26%) stated that their parents’ beating made them truant or dampened their desire to study. Bekir described why he did not want to continue school, I was not thinking about continuing school at those times because I did not have good relations with my family members. Going to school did not have any meaning for me due to being beaten at home all the time. (Bekir) Murat, quoted above as saying being beaten at home led him to beating other people as revenge, explained the negative effects on his education trajectory, 109 I was being beaten at school and at home. Therefore, I hated school and hated being at home and I left both my school and home. For some boys, beating disrupted school attachment by making them embarrassed to attend school due to signs of having been beaten. Juveniles did not want their friends to see their faces covered with bruises; therefore, they did not go to school. Sinan and Arda had similar experiences. They stated, Yes it had an effect. Sometimes I had to go to school with a shiner. When my classmates saw that and asked about that, I could not tell them that my father beat me. I could not tell my girlfriend either. I did not want them to see me like this; therefore, I did not go to school like this when I was beaten by my father. (Sinan) When my father beat me, there was a very big bruise on my eye and it disappeared in two months. I did not go to school and did not come home for that reason. I stayed in cafes. (Arda) Family beatings also led to truancy. In the present study, truancy played a major role in juveniles’ education trajectory as it was related to repeating grades, expulsion, or dropping out. Neither school administration nor families took significant actions against truancy, which led juveniles to spend more time on the streets during school time. Due to truancy, six juveniles (54.5% of truants) were either expelled or they dropped out of school. Harsh discipline at home weakened their attachment to their parents, which in turn led to their staying away from home. Because they did not live at home, they did not go to school either, which contributed to truancy. Hakan explained this, 110 I did not go home when they punished me. I ran away from home those times. If I turned back, they would beat me again. When I did not go home due to fear of being beaten, I did not go to school either. Another very common factor leading to lack of school attachment was the negative effect of drug use. Drug use effects are the second most prevalent influence mentioned on youths’ education trajectory. Once addicted, juveniles were less likely to engage in conventional routines and were more likely to participate in illegal activities to make money to buy drugs. Therefore, drugs had a tremendous effect on juveniles’ lives. When juveniles were asked how drug use affected their health, ten (52.6%) out of nineteen drug users stated that their health worsened and they did not feel good mentally and physically after drug use. Of nineteen juveniles who stated that they used drugs, two of them were repeatedly truant, and five did not continue their studies due to the effect of drugs. Drug use dulled interest in studying, as exemplified by Nuri’s description of his periods of heavy drug use. When he became addicted to drug, he thought that the school was not an interesting place to be, In school days, my grades were very good at the beginning, but after a while, I started to get the lowest grades although I was a brilliant student. It was because of marijuana use and sniffing glue. Then, I lost my desire to continue to study. The drug use and educational trajectories were interconnected. Juveniles mostly used drugs with their delinquent peers, with whom they hung out for much of their time. When they used drugs, they could not concentrate on their courses or do their homework in time. That led to their loss of interest in and bonds with their schools. Eight juveniles (27.5%) stated that their drug use disrupted their education. For example, family beatings led Sinan to spend more time in his previous neighborhood and use drugs with old friends. Drug use as well as family beatings 111 disrupted Sinan’s education trajectory, “I hang out with my friends outside. We used drugs together. When you use drugs, you feel high and do not think anything else. I did not care about school when I used drugs”. Corporal punishment by teachers appeared to be another important influence on lack of interest to school. Eight youth (27.5%) explained how corporal punishment in their schools weakened their bonds towards the schools. For example, one youth said, My problem in the school was not related to my friends. There was corporal punishment in my school. I did not let my teachers beat me in the school but when a teacher hit me, I was feeling emotional pain and I was breaking windows and hitting doors. My parents were paying for the broken windows. I could not understand at that time why I was going to school, to be beaten or to study. The social sciences teacher had a very thick ruler and he was always standing in the corridors of the school and seeing what students were doing and beating them with that ruler. (Yunus) Being hit by a teacher was a negative turning point for Sami, “One day, I got into a fight in the school, and a teacher slapped me. After that incident, I never came to school again”. Involvement in crime also disrupted youth’s education trajectories. Four youth (13.7%) were suspended from school due to engaging in crime in school. Asked what happened after they engaged in crime in the school, Nuri said, “I was suspended from school for seven days when I was in the eighth grade. At that time, I stabbed my friends with a knife in a fight. Then, I returned to school”. Taner had similar experience with the school, I have been suspended from school for three days when I was 13 or 14 years old. I was suspended from school for three days when I was in the seventh or eighth grade due to getting into a fight. It was better not to go to school during those times. 112 Families’ moving was one of the influential structural background factors in this study. When families moved, children had to change their schools. Therefore, changing school was the second most common theme affecting the juveniles’ education trajectory. Fifteen youth (51.7%) changed school due to multiple reasons and with negative effects on their education. Three had to change school due to their family’s move to another neighborhood. One of them explained how coming to a new school affected his life, I started ninth grade in another school because we moved to another neighborhood. I did not go to school much. Often times, I was truant. Sometimes, I had a medical report from doctor and did not go to school. Everybody was different to me because I was new to the school (Nuri). Five juveniles dropped out of school after they experienced difficulty adapting to a new school. [For the second school] It was a bad place. There were many fights, or drug dealers around the school. I stayed only one year in this school; therefore, I did not have friends there. I did not have good relations with students. Other students stigmatized me because I was a newcomer. (Tolga) After secondary school, Adem remained at Industrial Occupation High School. His old classmates transferred to different schools. Therefore, he did not have friends in his new school, which led to his dropping out, I studied until the ninth grade. I did not continue the second semester. When I finished secondary school, I continued high school in Industrial Occupation High School. I did not have friends there because I was new there. My previous classmates all went to 113 different schools. None of them came to my school. In the morning, I left home for school but I did not go to school. (Adem) Sometimes a negative school environment marked by drug use and crime influenced youth’s education trajectory. Of fifteen juveniles who changed school, seven (46.6%) stated that before they entered prison, they dropped out of school in the ninth grade, just before high school completion. In Turkey, youth remain at the same school through eighth grade. Changing school for ninth grade caused adaptation problems in a high school environment where drug and crime problems are more prevalent. When Adem was asked about whether there were any problems with stealing, fighting, and drugs in his school, he described drug use. He was one of the seven juveniles (24.1%) who mentioned drug use in school. No not in my first school. [He continues with ninth grade]. There were some students in high school who used drugs. They used drug pills like ecstasy and they called them sugar. Not only male students, but also female students used those drug pills. They used those pills in restrooms in the school and did not enter classes. I did not spend more time in this high school. Living in disadvantaged neighborhoods also influenced juveniles’ education trajectories. Of sixteen juveniles affected by negative neighborhood conditions, three (18.7%) stated that they did not want to continue studying because most of their friends from these neighborhoods were not going to school. Most of the guys at my age were not going to school from my neighborhood and most of them had committed different crimes. They were bad guys. I was with them most of the time. Therefore, I did not want to go to school. (Egemen) 114 Difficulties balancing work and school and learning problems at school were additional reasons the young men disliked school. Poverty of the juveniles’ families disrupted their education trajectory because juveniles felt responsible to work in order to supplement their family income. When juveniles came from poor families, it was difficult for them to work and go to school at the same time because their priority was to contribute to their family’s income. Family poverty affected juveniles’ education trajectory through its influence on their employment trajectory. Erkan dropped out of school due to poverty; he explained that he would be hopeful about his education if he did not work, My mother was sad about my working. Instead, she wanted me to go to school. She neither encourage nor discourage me to work but I know that if I had not worked so often, I would have finished my school and I would have been in good positions. (Erkan) Sometimes working stopped a youth’s education trajectory suddenly due to his feelings of embarrassment. Recep had to work to support his family due to his family’s poor economic situation. He was also going to school and he was selling goods on the streets. One day, he dropped out of school due to the following incident, Once I was selling sticking plasters on the street and I saw a woman who was standing next to me. I could not see her because she was not facing me. I approached her and asked her whether she needed sticking plaster or not. When she turned back, I saw that she was my teacher in the school. I felt really embarrassed because she saw me selling things on the street and I never went to school again even though I wanted to continue school at that time. Family poverty also had direct negative effects on juveniles’ education trajectories. Of eleven juveniles who came from extremely poor families, three (27.2%) indicated that they had 115 to drop out of school or were expelled from school due to their family’s poverty. For instance, Sinan explained, I started high school. In my third day, the school administration expelled me for not having a school uniform. We did not have money; therefore we could not buy a school uniform. Then, I dropped out of school. Volkan’s running away from home and his family’s low economic situation both contributed to his lack of school attachment, My family always had money problem. My trousers were too big for me to wear. My shoes were very old. When my father kicked me out of my home, my clothes were dirty and I could not go to school with those dirty clothes. Therefore, I did not go to school at those times. When I had to stay on the streets or away from home, I did not go to school and did not fulfill the requirements for the class. Therefore, I did not feel going to school and studying were necessary. Consistent with the literature on life course theory, lower class families lacked resources and time to invest in their children (Uhlenberg & Mueller, 2003). In many different ways, socioeconomic disadvantage disrupted school attachment of adolescents, which led to their educational deficiencies (Rutter & Giller, 1983). Witnessing domestic violence was one of the less common direct influences on disruption of a youth’s education trajectory. Two juveniles stated that domestic violence affected their education trajectory by contributing to their truancy or repeating grades. Due to domestic violence at home, Murat and his mother were sometimes kicked out of their home, and Murat did not want to live at home for that reason. Then he ran away from home. His running away affected his education trajectory, 116 I was always in the same school. I finished eighth grade and I had a secondary school diploma. Then, I did not continue high school because most of my friends did not go and due to running away from home or being kicked out of home, I did not want to continue. Of six juveniles whose fathers drank heavily, only one (16.6%) stated that his father’s drinking directly led to his truancy, My stepfather used to drink alcohol a lot at home. He was losing his control when he was intoxicated. It was difficult and bad to live in that house at those times. I was 13 years old at that time, and I started to be truant. I could not study in the school within that home environment because whenever I come home, I saw him cursing, beating, and yelling. Once, I even hit him. (Erkan) Truancy, repeating grade, expulsion from school, changing school, dropping out of school, suspension from school, and corporal punishment are some of the transitional events in the education trajectory. In the life-course theory literature, it was stated that one transitional event might affect multiple trajectories, and that researchers had failed to emphasize how transitional events affect each other in the same trajectory. In the present study, interconnection of transitional events in the education trajectory was prevalent. For example, truancy led to repeating grades or dropping out of school; and changing schools led to dropping out of school. 117 CHAPTER FIVE: CRIME/DRUG TRAJECTORIES AND KEY IDEAS IN LIFE COURSE THEORY To advance understanding of culturally grounded milestones of what the life course should be, this chapter opens with a discussion of the youths’ perceptions of the timing of milestones along a typical life course. It also presents the perceptions of experts, who were professional who work with delinquent youth, regarding a typical life course for youth similarly situated (e.g., same social class) as the incarcerated youth, but who did not break the law. It continues with a detailed description of which pathways juveniles followed into crime and drug use trajectories, and how families reacted to drug use. It also considers key ideas revealed by the data analysis and related to life course theory. These ideas include the interconnection of trajectories, stigmatization of youth in several contexts after commission of crime and drug use, the influence of the juvenile justice system on youth’s lives, human agency, and turning points. Perceived Typical Life Course Youth were asked to describe the ideal life course for individuals of their age. Moreover, some experts who worked with youth were asked what the typical life course should be for youth who did not commit crime but lived in similar conditions as the study participants. Table 4. Perceptions of Youth and Experts on Age for Ideal Life Course Milestones for Turkish Youth Youth's Think School Completion Supplement Family Income Marry Support Self Live Apart from Family Mean Median Mode StdDev Min Max Experts' View 18 18 18 1.44 16 22 17 18.6 24.8 19.2 19 25 18 18 25 18 4 3 4 10 19 11 26 30 30 11 26 25 23.3 22 22 4.75 15 30 26 118 As displayed in Table 4, there are some differences between youth and experts. When juveniles were asked about which age was ideal for a Turkish youth to complete school, the mean age response was eighteen, which was close to what experts thought. Youth are expected to finish high school at age eighteen, after twelve years of education. Compulsory education is until the eighth grade; therefore, some juveniles may not want to continue their education after the eighth grade. In Turkey, repeating grades is very rare in the new system of education, and now school books are free of charge. Therefore, youth do not have difficulty affording school expenses as they did in the past. However, in this study, twenty four percent of the youth dropped out of the school in different grades, and their education trajectories were disrupted due to various circumstances, showing that in everyone’s opinion, youth were not “on track” for achieving culturally and nationally accepted milestones for education. Asked at what age they should contribute to family income, youth noted ages ranging from 10 to 26, with the mean of 18.6. Juveniles who responded that youth should contribute to their families’ income in early ages themselves followed employment trajectories in which they worked for their families. Experts stated that youth who did not commit any crime start to work at early ages only during summer holidays at about the end of elementary school, at ages eleven or twelve. According to the experts, if youth come from really poor families, they start to work during elementary school after or before school hours; this pattern was viewed as more prevalent in big cities, where youth took jobs like selling tissues or flowers, or as bootblacks. The acceptance of early work was consistent with the current study findings, that juveniles started to work as young as age seven. For example, Bekir, who came from poor family, stated that he started to work when he was seven years old and continued working until age twelve by selling bagels on the streets. 119 In terms of making enough money to support themselves, youth identified an age ranging from eleven to thirty, with the mean of 19.2. Like the low ages at which youth expected to begin supplementing their families’ incomes, the higher ages at which they expected to be selfsupporting suggest that some youth saw themselves as severely constrained by poverty, which would prevent them from supporting themselves. Experts contended that juveniles who did not commit crime depended on their families’ income until they found jobs. In their view, males typically begin military service when they are eighteen or twenty years old, and stay sixteen months at the rank of private. When they leave the military, they have to find jobs so that they can support themselves. Therefore, for experts, twenty-five is the most appropriate age to be selfsupporting. Therefore, the experts’ view was not consistent with the view of the youth of this study. For youth, the age range for living apart from the natal family was between fifteen and thirty with the mean of 23.3. Other youth, who did not note a particular age for living separately (9 or 30%), indicated that living apart from their parents should occur after marriage or that it was not necessary. They felt that youth remain dependent on their families until marriage or even after the marriage. Experts stated that youth who did not commit crime, but who lived in similar conditions to the study participants, had to live with their families due to not being able to support themselves. The norm was for them to contribute to the family income until marriage, at which point relatives and friends would provide financial resources so they could move to their own homes. However, the experts recognized that some youth without financial resources continued to stay in their parents’ houses with their wives, as occurred for one youth in the present study. Therefore, experts and youth agreed on the appropriate timing for young men to live apart from their families and to get married. In contrast to these expectations, the youth in 120 the present study who followed a crime trajectory were more likely to live apart from their families at an early age due to family problems. However, experts pointed out that there was no reason for typical nondelinquent youth who lived in similar circumstances to live apart from their families until they married, found a stable job, or studied in another geographic area. If they found a stable job in the same city, they often continued to live with their families. As noted in the previous chapter, youth experienced structural disadvantages and family problems which promoted their delinquency and drug use. Their education trajectory was disrupted due to several reasons, whereas typical youth living in the same conditions would complete more grades of school. Therefore, in terms of an education trajectory, youth in the study did not make the expected progress and achieve expected milestones. For supplementing family income, youth’s experiences were almost the same as the experiences of their counterparts, who did not commit any crime. However, some boys started to work earlier than the typical milestone for working. Juveniles supported themselves through illegal means, or when they worked, they worked for their families. Most study participants ran away from their home and lived apart from their families when they were still adolescents. In contrast, experts felt that typical non-delinquent youth would become self supporting at a later age after completing their military service, and often would remain living with their parents into their twenties. Clearly, the youth interviewed for this dissertation had a life course that was inconsistent with expectations for typical juveniles in Turkey. Their responses revealed their cognitive descriptions or predictions rather than normative accounts. Crime and Drug Use Trajectory Several factors promoted juveniles’ crime and drug use trajectories. In this study, running away from home, peers, the effect of cousins, neighborhood effects, and older males influenced 121 youth’s crime trajectory. These same factors along with fathers and siblings also influenced youth’s movement along the drug use trajectory. Running Away In life course studies, it is crucial to look at how transitions in one trajectory can affect another trajectory. Therefore, transitions should be considered in relation to their possible effects on other trajectories. In this study, the most common effect of a transition in one trajectory on other trajectory was the impact of running away from home, which was a major transition in the living with the family trajectory. In the previous chapter, I examined the influential structural background factors; lack of attachment, harsh discipline, and lack of supervision of parents; running away and the independent living trajectory; and education trajectories. Of these influences, running away and its connection to launching youth on an independent living trajectory had the greatest impact on youth’s crime and drug use trajectories. As noted in the previous chapter, lack of attachment to fathers and fathers’ beating their sons promoted juveniles’ running away from home. Therefore, fathers strongly affected youth’s crime and drug use trajectories through their approaches to parenting. Their actions led juveniles to run away and then to engage in crime and drugs use with delinquent peers. Consistent with the literature (Krohn et al., 1997), leaving the natal home in early ages was associated with juvenile delinquency and drug use. Running away is the most common gateway through which youth embarked on a pattern of delinquency. Running away with delinquent peers not only resulted in staying away from parents, but it also led juveniles to commit crime with their delinquent peers. Twelve juveniles stated that they ran away and stayed with their delinquent peers, and six of those juveniles (50%) indicated that they either committed crime or used drugs with peers while run away from homes. 122 My two friends suggested running away from home for a while and we ran away. We were hanging out together and most of the time we were staying in abandoned houses or garages of the big apartments at night. We broke into houses at those times. (Mehmet) When I was hanging out with my friends after I ran away from home, they were coming home at night and offering me marijuana or beer. I started using marijuana and drinking alcohol at that time. (Volkan) Drug use alleviated juveniles’ discomfort from living on the streets or in abandoned houses when they ran away from their homes. Asked where he stayed when he was away from home, Bekir explained that he stayed on the streets with his friends and sniffed glue with them. He said, “Because of the effect of drugs, I was not feeling cold at nights when it is cold outside.” Peer Influence The second greatest influence on study participants’ delinquency appeared to be peers. Peer influences affected most trajectories and eventually it affected juveniles’ crime and drug use trajectories. Children begin life with very close attachment to their parents. However, as they grow up, they form closer attachments to their friends. Friends have a great influence on juveniles’ behaviors, including their delinquency (Warr, 1998). Therefore, for many adolescents, friends become more important than parents. Tuna described his strong bond with his peers and how his parents were ineffective in stopping his crime trajectory, My family did not want me to commit crime and be with my friends because they believed that if I did not have those friends, I would not commit any crime. I was with them all the time, and when I was working and earning money, I was spending it with my friends. Then, I was not going to school and I was hanging out with my friends. After a while, my family said they would no longer stay with me if I continued committing crime, and I said 123 [to my parents] go away. I thought that they did not want me to be good at that time. I always used to say to them, those were my friends, close friends, the most valuable things in my life. The literature reveals that when one has delinquent peers, he will more likely to be a delinquent (Warr & Stafford, 1991). In the present study, twenty-six juveniles (86.6%) indicated that they committed crime with their delinquent friends. Similarly, the majority of convicted juveniles discussed how their association with their delinquent peers influenced their entry into drug activity. Of nineteen young men who used drugs with their peers, thirteen (68.4%) stated that they first started drug use due to their peers. Taner experienced the negative influence of delinquent peers in multiple neighborhoods where he lived, “[For the second neighborhood] My friends in that neighborhood were the same as before. My friends always led me to trouble. Do friends always lead you to trouble?” Peers influenced juveniles’ crime trajectory through the following mechanisms: establishing bachelor houses and living in those houses with peers, fear of ridicule, loyalty to peers, and interrupting employment and sports involvement trajectories. For the drug use trajectory, older males establishing bachelor houses and interacting with the older males affected youth in the same way as did interacting with same-aged peers. Moreover, peers affected drug use by offering various substances to each other. (A) Establishing Bachelor Houses and Continued Delinquency Establishing so-called bachelor houses with peers promoted continued illegal behavior and running away. The boys grew close to each other when they lived in bachelor houses. They could get support from each other that they did not experience at home, and they could get relief from the negative experiences at home. Thus, the houses not only supported the crime and drug 124 use trajectories but they also supported separation from and replacement of the family. Of the twenty-six juveniles with delinquent peers, several (11 or 42.3%) stayed with friends in bachelor houses. Some families knew about those houses, but some did not. The houses became safe havens for juveniles due to lack of both parental and police control and because they served as safe places for drug use, hiding after committing crimes, and staying away from home. Hakan was afraid of his older brother; therefore, he stayed in bachelor house with his delinquent friends. His older brother could not find him because it was a safe place to stay. I was always with my same friends. When we broke into houses, we were not crowded. We were only one or two guys. We had rented a house, and when we committed crime, we did not go home and we were staying in that house. Drug use disrupted Nuri’s education trajectory and staying in bachelor house promoted his drug use, We were usually staying in a bachelor’s house. We rented that small house. We were five friends. It was away from my house but my parents knew about that house. We were drinking alcohol or sniffing glue there. I was only with my friends there. The bachelor’s houses were also like a shelter for juveniles who had problems with their parents. When they ran away from home or stayed away from their parents, they resided in those houses. Mert, who ran away because his father beat him, was happier among his friends. Living in bachelor house substituted for living at home. When asked whether there were supportive people to talk to where he lived, Mert stated, No, there was not anyone. However, all of my friends were behind me. Sometimes we rented a house and we stayed together in that house. We stayed out of our homes during those times… When I stayed in bachelor’s house, I did not come home. 125 (B) Fear of Ridicule, Loyalty, and Status For most of the juveniles, friends did not necessarily force them to engage in crime with them. Although there was not an explicit peer pressure, some juveniles felt compelled to accompany peers when they broke the law in order to be accepted. When studying peer effects on delinquency, it is crucial to consider social mechanisms of peer influence such as fear of ridicule, feelings of loyalty, and desires for status. Those mechanisms explain peers’ influence as operating in ways other than just promoting youths’ development of an excess of definitions favoring violations of crime, which is the process emphasized by social learning theories. Loyalty was one of those social mechanisms of peer influence. Three youth were imprisoned for their first involvement in crime. Two of them committed crime with their friends. One of them killed the victim accidentally after arguing about his friend’s fight. Reflecting a commonly held norm, in Turkey, when one’s friend is beaten, others gather and go for revenge. Yunus described this understanding by saying, “We were close friends. If one of us did not go home, none of us went home either. We used to help each other in every way. For instance, if one of us got into a fight, all of us were going to fight with him.” Likewise, Nuri explained the same understanding within his group. When he was asked about living conditions when he ran away from home, he said, Yes, it was safe because I was with my friends and nobody could do anything to us. I believed that I would stand on my feet by living away from home. I was not scared of getting into fights. If one of us got into fights, others were immediately coming to help. Deniz, who accidentally killed someone in a fight, regretted his involvement, but it was too late for him. 126 One of my friends was beaten harshly. Then, we went to talk to those guys who beat our friends. I went there with my friends. Then, people leaving a coffee house attacked us. I saw one guy coming towards me with a big knife. I had a knife too and I protected myself. And I stabbed him with a knife. He was in a coma for a long time. And he died. Adolescents may engage in delinquent and dangerous behaviors in order to avoid ridicule and being expelled, abandoned or rejected by peers. Separation from the group may result in losing identity and consequently losing prestige as well as sense of belonging (Warr, 2002). Therefore, adolescents may become involved in delinquent acts due to fearing ridicule, such as being labeled as “wimps” by the others (Trojanowicz et al., 2001). Of the twenty-six juveniles who committed crime with their delinquent peers, several (5 or 19.2%) stated that they felt obliged to commit crime to avoid humiliation or to be one of the group members. Of those five juveniles, three indicated that they could not reject their delinquent friends’ instigation of illegal activity in order to be accepted by them. For instance, when the interviewer asked Tuna to tell her about his delinquent friends, he explained why he committed crime with them, Whenever my friends wanted me to do something, I could not refuse them. Sometimes they were saying, "Let us go and steal something” and I could not say no to them because otherwise, I would not be a part of their group. Murat ran away from home due to lack of attachment to his parents and witnessing domestic violence at home. Being beaten also disrupted his education trajectory. Only his delinquent peers were around him. When he was asked whether his peers had influence on his crime involvement, he said, “Yes, in the theft and wounding the taxi driver, they provoked me, saying that I could not do such things, and I did it because I wanted to show that I was one of them”. 127 However, only one juvenile stated that he felt as if he had to follow his delinquent peers’ tracks because otherwise, he could have been humiliated, The second school was a secondary school, and I went there after we moved to a new neighborhood. It was the place where everything started. My friends...I started to get into fights and use marijuana in this school. If your friends do something, then you imitate them and start to do the same. I was doing what they had done because otherwise, they could call me a coward. (Nuri) Work and participation in sports are two kinds of structured routines that may separate youth from delinquent peers. However, two juveniles stated that they had to quit their jobs and sports due to their delinquent associations. Spending time with delinquent peers changed a trajectory of consistent work and interrupted Egemen’s long history of working. He quit a job in a furniture store to spend time with delinquent peers. Prior to working in the furniture store, he had worked in several other jobs. I was working in a furniture store and I met some guys who were doing really bad stuff. I quit my job there and started to hang out with those friends. I started to do things what they did because I was thinking about joining them. Then, after doing some small crimes, I found myself in big crimes because of my friends. Spending time with delinquent peers led Taner to drinking, which in turn influenced him to stop wrestling. Once I started wrestling and I was very good at wrestling. It changed my life in a different way. Everything was better. I had good friends there. I was 13 years old. We were training after school time in the evenings after 8 pm. Then, I started drinking alcohol and I could not continue training constantly. I was hanging out with my friends. 128 When my two of friends were drinking alcohol, I was joining them. I had a good trainer at that time and I wanted to be a professional wrestler. In order to be a good wrestler, I quit smoking. However, due to my friends, I could not continue. (Taner) (C) Curiosity about Drugs There were a few different ways that youth began using drugs. Curiosity about drugs and peers offering drugs were the main starting points for drug use. Thirteen juveniles used drugs due to their delinquent peers. Six of them (46.1%) in the study stated that they initiated drug use out of curiosity, and four (30.7%) indicated that they first used drugs because peers offered them. Sometimes a combination of being offered a drug and curiosity led to the first time using. For example, Taner explained how he started using drugs, Some of my friends were using marijuana in that neighborhood, and I used marijuana with them for the first time. I was curious about the effects of marijuana and when my friends offered it to me and told me that it was not harmful, I started using marijuana when I was 10 years old. (Taner) Besides curiosity and being offered drugs by friend, the desire to forget problems provided another reason for drug use. Although he hung out with his drug using friends, Tuna had not started using. But when he had negative life events such as having problems with his girlfriend, he wanted to forget his problems, so he called his friend to bring him drugs. Using drugs became his coping mechanism, Once I had argued with my girlfriend and I was really upset. Those times, I had very strong curiosity to try marijuana, because my friends were using that. Then, I called my friend and he brought marijuana with his motorcycle. I was in the fifth or sixth grade. My 129 friend was saying, if I used marijuana, I would not be addicted to it. He said I could quit using marijuana any time I wanted. (Tuna) Similarly, although family poverty’s influence on juveniles’ employment trajectory and their families’ mobility was common, only one juvenile noted that he started to use drugs in order to forget the family poverty, I guess our low economic situation had a huge effect on what I lived through so far. My mother had four surgeries and we did not have money. We were always in debt. She was working after the surgeries although she should not. However, my mother wanted to work to contribute to our income. We were not able to buy food due to lack of money and therefore I always hung out with my friends to forget everything. Using marijuana and drinking alcohol made me forget everything and I felt relaxed. (Veysel) As discussed in the section on peers, youth engaged in crime mostly after associating with delinquent peers. It is important to identify the causal process linking delinquent peers and delinquency. Lotz and Lee (1999) provided four competing interpretations of the peer and delinquency nexus. One of these perspectives, that bad friends lead to delinquency, would be contradicted if individuals become delinquent first and then find delinquent peers later. However, in the present study, most of the juveniles became delinquents after associating with peers who broke the law. Just one juvenile followed a crime trajectory that differed from the pattern of others, because he started crime with his older brother before he met his delinquent peers. When his older brother entered prison, he continued crime with his friends in the squatter area, I used to hang out with my friends more often to steal at those times especially when my elder brother entered prison. There was no other way for me to have money…I always 130 had friends like me. I had three close friends since I was twelve. We met in my neighborhood. Two of them are going to the military soon and one is running his father’s bakkal [small market]. I entered prison with one of them after we committed burglary together. (Ali) Effect of Cousins Commonly in Turkey, if cousins about the same age as a youth live nearby, youth spend more time with them than with siblings and peers, and the relationships are especially close. Three juveniles indicated that they committed crime with their cousins; Yunus explained how his uncle’s son led him to delinquency, [My cousin and I] were going to stores and extorting money from store owners. Sometimes we stole golden bracelets, rings, and earrings…Most of the time I was with my uncle’s son and sometimes with my friends from the neighborhood when I committed crime…Then; I continued offenses such as burglary, and extortion. I did not remember what I stole or why I extorted people because I was under the influence of glue. It was all because of my uncle’s son. He made me start breaking the laws…I started committing offenses with my uncle’s son; therefore, if I had not hung out with him, I would be in better situation. Two youth had cousins, who influenced their drug use. Mert explained how his cousin influenced his marijuana use, My aunt’s son hung out with one Abi [older male] in neighborhood Y, and I warned him a couple of times not to hang out with that Abi. I even yelled at him not to see him. Then, I found myself with them. I first used marijuana with them when I was 13 or 14 years old. I was going to eighth grade. (Mert) 131 Fathers’ Effect Of six juveniles who had fathers who drank excessively, two of them (33.3%) noted that they started to drink alcohol due to their fathers’ drinking habits. In Turkey, some individuals view drinking alcohol as a sign of being a man, and fathers may offer their sons alcohol. Bekir explained how he started to drink alcohol when he was eleven or twelve years old, My father’s drinking may be related because I wanted to drink alcohol after seeing him drinking at home. When I was eleven or twelve years old, my father put raki [very strong traditional alcoholic drink] before me to drink. Then, I started to drink alcohol outside and I was coming home around 5 or 6 am. My father advised me to drink alcohol but not to use drugs. Sibling Effect Sampson and Laub (1993) proposed that attachment to delinquent siblings might lead juveniles into crime. In the present study, only six (20%) of youth had delinquent siblings, only one committed crime with his sibling, and only two used drugs with their siblings. Sinan was one of those who used marijuana because of his older brother. He eventually was using more marijuana than his older brother, My father always sent me outside to follow my elder brother. Then, he and his friends offered me marijuana. I thought that nothing could happen from using marijuana once. Then, I started using marijuana with my elder brother and his friends. I used more marijuana than my brother. After running away from the Children’s Home with his older brother, Ali started to live in a squatter area with him. Due to poverty, they committed crime together. He said, 132 When I lived with my elder brother, he broke into the houses, not too often, but sometimes. He was breaking into houses either at night or during daylight. I was going with him and breaking into houses with him. We were stealing together. Older Males’ Influence When looking at the influence of delinquent peers in juveniles’ lives, it was interesting to see the influence of older males on juveniles’ drug use and crime trajectories. In Turkey, age is respected, and if a male is older than oneself, he is called “Abi,” which means older brother. “Abi” is also an expression of respect. Regardless of whether a person knows someone well, if the person is older he should be called Abi. Older males in bad neighborhoods affected juveniles’ lives in multiple ways that increased their delinquency. In contrast, sometimes they had the positive effect of interrupting a youth’s use of drugs. Of the fifteen juveniles who spoke about older males in their lives, nine (60%) stated that they either committed crime together with them or they assisted them in their lawbreaking. The older males played an important role in promoting juveniles’ crime trajectories. When I was 14 or 15 years old, I became more engaged in a criminal lifestyle after meeting with Abi. We sold small knives and prayer beads on the street stand. However, we were selling unlicensed CDs and small guns with him. We were always together with him after the age of 14 or 15. (Veysel) Sometimes, Abis instigated youth’s criminal activity, Most of the time, Abi B was instigating us to commit more crime. He was usually telling us, you can do this, you can do that. I was getting excited when he was telling those sorts of things. Once, Abi B suggested stealing pigeons, and I did my first theft with him. He sold those pigeons, and he bought marijuana with that money. He also bought some gas 133 for his car. We used to hang out with him and spend that money. He was sharing money equally among us. (Altan) Lacking attachment to parents, Sinan fell under the influence of older males, When I did not feel close to my family and started to run away from home, I started to hang out with Abis and my other friends. Those Abis had entered and been released from prison, and they told me to hang out with them. There were no other people around me; therefore, I started to hang out with them to drink alcohol. I was around 13 at that time. Then, I committed crimes with them. I did burglaries, extortions. Drug use, noted by eight juveniles (53.3%), was the second most often mentioned influence of older males. Adem described an episode in a bachelor’s house, “One of my friends had rented a house. We called it bachelor’s home. We shared the rent. Abis from other neighborhood used to come to this house and we used marijuana with them in this house”. Sometimes, older males provided shelter for youth and some juveniles used those houses for drug use, Abis in our neighborhood stayed in their bachelor’s house. We mostly stayed there when we did not go home…On the weekends, I hung out with my other friends from the neighborhood and stayed in Abis’ bachelor’s house. We cleaned the house all the time and used marijuana there. Sometimes, Abis took us somewhere to get into fights. Sometimes we went to play billiards. I enjoyed staying in this house because we drank alcohol, used marijuana and listened music. There was a heater in the house and in the winters the house was very warm. Most of the time, in winters, my friends came to the house to use marijuana or drink alcohol. (Sinan) 134 Sometimes Abis provided much needed shelter to the boys trying to escape problems with their parents. Altan noted, “My parents asked me where I found the money and asked whether I stole or not. I got bored and left home and did not go home for two days. I stayed with Abi B in his house”. When older males engaged in crime with juveniles, they behaved as superiors and leaders due to their age. Some chose youth as their representatives in the youth’s school. Four juveniles (26.6%) described how older males were superior to them and used them in engaging in crime. Those guys who stayed in the bachelor’s house were not good. I left my school friends and I did not go to school for a long time for them. However, I did not want to stay away from my school friends and lessons. I was like their representative for the secondary school. They had one guy in the school who was in high school. They were taking people’s money and he was collecting the money at the high school. I was responsible for collecting money from secondary school. They were selling cigarette, drugs…I was so blind that I did not know what they did for a long time. They had sold marijuana and heroin in that house [bachelor house]. I did not know that. Abis stayed in big rooms and we cleaned the house. We bought cigarettes or beer for them or cleaned their cars. There was Abi A who had entered prison for major crimes. Everybody called him Abi at home. When other Abis robbed stores, they gave all the money to him. He was 28 or 30 years old. He was like a leader. (Sinan) Abi from our neighborhood told us to take money from a couple of nightclubs and we took money from them. If they did not want to give us the money, we took money from them by using force. Sometimes we got 5000TL sometimes 10.000TL [approximately between $2700-$5400]. We spent some of this money and gave the rest to 135 Abi…Sometimes Abis gave us shotguns and wanted us to shoot around nightclubs before extorting them to scare them. Sometimes he gave us half of the money and sometimes he gave us all the money. (Arda) The influences of older youth combined with the influences of peers to promote delinquency among youth, especially when they were running or staying away from home. Some of the boys viewed hanging out with older males as different than hanging out with same-aged peers. Hanging out with older males was attractive, because they seemed smarter and more talkative than peers. Veysel committed crime with older males and he said that, I was at the same age with some of them. Some were one or two years elder or younger than me. However, my Abis from the neighborhood were more than ten years older than me. I liked to be with those Abis because they were mature, and talking with my friends was not interesting because they were talking about trivial things and they were like a child. What my Abis tell was advice for me all the time, and I take their advice. Admiration was not the only reason to hang out with Abis. They provided protection in the neighborhood and in the schools. Of fifteen juveniles who had hung out with older males, four (26.6%) stated that they felt safe because older males who were seen as having power due to having bad reputations and could back them up. Juveniles felt that they were important and unbeatable in the school, because their Abis were behind them. They were bullying and threatening students. Nobody could say anything to me because Abis were behind me. When a teacher beat me, Abis set his car on fire. (Sinan) There were not enough of us to deal with the Gypsies; therefore, we got help from Ulku Ocaklari [a youth group of an ultra-nationalist political party]. They chose me. They were choosing people among their members who were eager to fight and were not 136 scared. We had Abi B. He used to give me a car. We used to drive the car and in the night, we returned the car to him. We were just paying for the gas and sometimes we used the car as a taxi and earned some money. Abi B always stood behind us in each fight. (Altan) Altan’s narrative also includes evidence of Ulku Ocaklari in juveniles’ lives. Ulku Ocaklari is a youth fraction of one of the Turkish political parties known to be ultra-nationalist. Juveniles or young adults gather in neighborhoods, schools, or other settings and obey the person from this group who is the head of that place. These persons, called “reis” [leader], want to show their presence in many settings, where they can select representatives of the group. They easily get into fights to protect like-minded people or people attracted to the group for other reasons. Older criminal males may belong to that organization, as seen in Altan’s example, or they can be non-criminals who scare people due to the power of the organization. Mert explained how school staff feared punishing one of member of this organization, “Some of those guys, who were from Ulku Ocaklari beat the school principle. Teachers were scared of even slapping one of us”. Being a member of this organization became a privilege for Mert, because he was chosen as the reis of the school. Despite his frequent truancy, Mert was not punished, No but I do not understand how I did not repeat grade after 145 days truancy and not taking exams. Some older guys came to school from Ulku Ocaklari and they made the selection for a person who would be reis. They chose me. I carried a gun and a knife and during a search in the school, we gave those to our girlfriends because they were not searched. 137 Taner did not have a problem with Ulku Ocaklari, but his younger brother was a member. When his brother started to get into trouble due to the reis of this organization, Taner wanted to intervene, I helped my brother. He was going to Ulku Ocaklari. Young boys in schools sometimes go to Ulku Ocaklari. There used to be an elderly guy there and people respected him. Boys usually do not listen to their families, but they listen to that guy. Most of the guys had trouble because of him because they were getting into fights because he sent them. One day, I chased my brother and I saw that that elderly guy was taking boys from school and did not let them to go home. I persuaded my brother not to go there again and he did not go. Older males not only influenced youth’s trajectories towards negative outcomes, but they also exerted some positive influence to interrupt delinquency. They had encouraged the younger boys to begin drug use and had committed crimes with them. However, when the older males quit using drugs or stopped committing crime, they either directly stopped juveniles from drug use or advised them to stop breaking the law. Of fifteen juveniles who talked about the effects of older males, six (40%) stated that the older males played important positive roles in their lives despite previously being negative influences. For example, Halil described how he started and then quit sniffing glue in his neighborhood, Then, I had to quit sniffing glue because Abis in my neighborhood started to beat us when they saw us sniffing glue. They were the guys who introduced sniffing glue to us, but now they were not sniffing glue anymore and did not want us to sniff glue either. They were right for beating us because if I saw children sniffing glue, I would beat them too. 138 Sometimes families wanted those older males who were active drug users or criminals in the neighborhood to stop their sons’ drug use. They [his parents] told Abis in the neighborhood who were in trouble about my drug use. My father had known one of them from his childhood and wanted him to stop my glue sniffing. He called me to a park. I did not know anything. Then, a couple of other Abis came to the park and wanted me to stand before him. He said that someone called him who loved me and asked why I sniffed glue and he slapped me. Then Abi Y who was standing by him slapped me too. I was very angry but I could not say anything. My mouth and nose were bleeding. In the evening, Abi D came and he beat me too. Then, I thought that I should quit sniffing glue or I had to leave the neighborhood because there was no way for me to stay in the neighborhood due to those Abis who warned me not to sniff glue. Then, I stopped sniffing glue. (Mert) Fikret described how an ex-criminal Abis advised him to stop crime. When he was asked whether he had supportive people around him, he said, “Yes, there were. I had couple of friends who were nice guys and did not do anything bad. Apart from them, there was an Abi who used to warn me and tried to direct me in good way. He was an ex-criminal”. Mert had mentioned how an older male from Ulku Ocaklari affected his life by giving him responsibilities in the school. After a while, the person who chose Mert as a representative started a new life free from crime and he did not forget to warn Mert to quit what he has done so far, I admired Abi D from Ulku Ocaklari and I always wanted to be like him. Everybody was scared of him in our neighborhood. He had a good reputation. Then, he stopped 139 committing crime or getting into fights. He did not do anything related to crime and got married and had children. He had a job now. He wanted me to stop committing crime. Family’s Reaction to Drug Use As noted in chapter 4, drug use had important effects on juveniles’ trajectories. Peers played a key role in drug onset in youth’s lives and families were ineffective in stopping their children’s drug use trajectory. Now, I will examine how families reacted when they were aware of their sons’ drug use. Nineteen juveniles admitted to using drugs and four of them (21%) stated that when their families learned about their drug use, parents simply talked to them about stopping. That approach seemed to be ineffective, as the youth did not listen to them. Adem said, “[After parents’ learning about his drug use] Most of the time, they tried to talk to me and gave me advices but I never listened them because I was really addicted to drugs”. Possibly drug use interfered with youths’ acceptance of parental advice. Okan explained this by saying, Both [parents] knew that I used drugs and they always told me to stop using drugs. Those times, I was a different person and I felt different than others. I did not even listen to my parents those times, so they were not important for me to listen. Now, I realized that they were right. Consistent with official information about youth in Amatem [a drug treatment facility] (Amatem, 2011), of nineteen juveniles who stated that they used drugs, seven (36.8%) indicated that their parents did not know about their substance abuse. Egemen noted that his parents thought that a color change in his eyes was due to drinking alcohol, 140 When they looked into my eyes, they saw they turned red. They assumed that it was due to drinking alcohol, and therefore, they were telling me not to drink alcohol too much. I did not want them to know about my drug use. They still do not know about my past drug use. Of nineteen juveniles who used drugs, six (31.5%) said that when their parents learned about their drug use, they sent them to Amatem for treatment. Sending juveniles to the drug treatment facility (Amatem) is the preferred approach of families when they learn of their children’s drug use. Amatem, founded in 2004, is a governmental treatment institution for drug users. The two Amatems in Turkey are located in Ankara and Istanbul. Recent research on people who received treatment in these facilities indicated that in 2010, twenty percent of patients were under eighteen years old, and the mean age of those juveniles was 16.5. Additionally, the average stay was thirteen and a half days; most youth left before completing treatment. None of the study participants felt they benefited from Amatem. Five of them (83.3%) did not use the medicine they received or used it once, but stopped due to its heavy effect on them. For example, Tolga said, My mother wanted me to go to treatment. Therefore, I went to Amatem. I was given a medicine to use daily. I used that pill for the first time and went outside. I sat at the bus station and I had a severe headache. Then, I fell asleep. It was noon and when I opened my eyes, it was evening. Then, I did not use that pill again. Adem had started using heroin just before his family sent him to Amatem. However, when he got there, he saw serious heroin users, got scared, and returned back home with medicine he did not use, 141 My family sent me to Amatem for drug treatment. However, when they left me at that clinic, I felt terrible because I had just started heroin but there were guys who had used heroin heavily. I was scared to see them. I took three packets of medicine and came home. I did not want to stay there. From the discourses of those juveniles, we can see that the functioning of this facility did not fulfill the expectations of families and juveniles. The institution’s failures extended beyond its inability to supervise youth who received medicine for treatment. It could not control youth within the facility. For example, Arda stated that “When I was in Amatem for treatment, my friends came to visit me and we used drugs in their car.” Then, he had called his friends to take him back to his neighborhood and he left the facility. “They [my parents] sent me to Amatem. However, I could not stay there because there were many crazy people. I called my friends and they took me to my neighborhood.” It seems that it is very easy to go and leave that facility and use drugs in the parking lot with friends. Tolga made another revealing statement about Amatem, I took treatment for heroin use in Amatem when I was on probation. They were taking my urine sample. However, I did not give my urine sample and instead I was taking my nephew’s urine sample and taking it to Amatem to be seen as clean. I continued using heroin when I was on probation. Interconnection of Trajectories In life course studies, it is important to look at how different trajectories are interrelated since there are many trajectories in juveniles’ lives. In order to understand one trajectory, we should look at how it is related to other trajectories (Elder, 1985). The drug use and crime trajectories were the most clearly connected. As explained in Chapter 4, drug use and education trajectories were the second most strongly connected. 142 Nineteen juveniles (63.3%) indicated their drug use and criminal engagement were related. This interconnection occurs for two reasons. First, drug use is an expensive habit. Youth needed money to buy drugs, and crime was the main way to obtain money. A large number of youth followed pathways into crime for the sole purpose of finding money for drugs. Drug use played a significant role in escalating involvement in different criminal activities such as extortion, because youth viewed offending as the only way to make money to support their drug use. Thirteen of nineteen juveniles (68.4%) who mentioned that their drug use and crime engagement were interrelated, described how they committed crimes to obtain money for drugs, for example, I did not want money from my parents. Then, we started to take money from other children our age or older to buy glue or ecstasy. We enjoyed taking others’ money. We were threatening them with a knife or we beat them and took their money. At that time, we were 12 or 13…We continued extortions because we needed money for drugs. (Halil) Because of drugs. I was so addicted to drugs that I always wanted to use it. Therefore, I had to find money. You cannot take 50-100Tl [between $30-$60] money from your family every day. Therefore, I was finding money to buy drugs. (Nuri) Sometimes juveniles who worked used the money they earned for drugs. However, they needed more money than they earned. Sinan explained that he first used his earnings to buy drugs that he shared with his friends. However, they committed crime when they needed more money for drugs, 143 When I worked, I saved my allowances and bought marijuana with that money. I bought marijuana for one day and my two or three friends and I used that marijuana in two or three hours. When we did not have money, we did extortions or burglaries. The effects of drugs further supported criminal activity. Drugs increased juveniles’ courage to stay on the streets or commit crime. Asked about the effect of drugs in their lives, four youth stated that they felt braver and had less fear. For example, one said, Yes, I was feeling safe because when you use marijuana, you become like a robot and you fear nothing. There was a building under construction [where they lived when they ran away] and if you see that building, you could get scared in the nights, but when you use marijuana, you are never scared. (Yunus) Of nineteen juveniles who mentioned that their drug and crime trajectories were interrelated, seven (36.8%) described how they committed crimes when they were under the influence of drugs. Yunus provided one example, My first crime was aggravated assault and I stabbed my school friend with a knife. We had argued before. I was in elementary school and about 11 years old. I was with my uncle’s son when I stabbed him with a knife. I was under the influence of glue and wounded him with a knife... I did not remember what I stole or why I extorted people because I was under the influence of glue. Tuna explained how he would not dare to extort a woman without being under influence of marijuana, When I was working in construction in Central Anatolia region, I was fired and I was hanging out with my friend. We did not have money and we saw a house. Its balcony door was open and we entered. We saw a woman and we threatened her with a knife and we 144 took her money. After 20 days, the police arrested us. I was using marijuana at that time and was under its influence. If I had not been under the influence of marijuana, I would have never entered that house. Marijuana was helping me get over my fear. It was making me a different man who was never afraid of anything. Drug use and family life trajectories were interconnected because drug use disrupted family ties. Mehmet explicitly stated that drug use disrupted relations with his family members. Using drugs did not affect my health. I am still OK. However, it affected my relations with my family badly because I was behaving very badly and rudely to them. I did not remember what I had done to them when I was under the influence of drugs. Drug use also influenced youth’s routine activities. Before using drugs, juveniles played soccer and frequented internet cafes to play computer games. However, after drug use, their main concern was finding and using drugs. They ignored other things happening around them. Adem stated that, “When I used drugs, I became very ignorant about what happened in my neighborhood. We were not aware of anything.” Likewise, Nuri described a similar effect of drug use on his daily life, “I was not interested in anything in my daily life when I was using drugs. The only thing that was important for me to think about how I was going to find money to buy drugs.” Sometimes, drug use led to doing nothing all day, We [with his friends] never stopped committing crime. When we woke up in the morning, we used drugs until afternoon and after sleeping for a while in the afternoon, we did everything in the late night. We did not do anything during the day. When I started using marijuana, everything followed my drug use. (Arda) Drug use and employment trajectories were also interconnected. Employment provided a structured routine for juveniles, because it sometimes prevented them from associating with 145 delinquent peers and using drugs with them. Volkan described the limiting influence of employment on his drug trajectory, When I was working, I did not have time to use drugs because I was very busy. I was working from mornings until evenings and when I came home, I had no energy to go outside to hang out with my friends. Alternatively, drug use prevented youth from working. Two of the juveniles noted that they lost their jobs due to drug use. One of them, Nuri, lost his job many times, “When I was working, I was usually coming to work late and leaving without permission to use drugs. Therefore, most of the time I was fired.” Finally, for some youth family poverty influenced progression along a crime trajectory. Eleven juveniles stated that they came from poor families and four of them (36.3%) gave having a poor family as one of the reasons for committing crime. For example, Erkan worked to supplement his family’s income. Due to his seriously ill mother’s treatment expenses and lack of money, he felt he needed to get money. He wanted his mother to live more comfortably. After he disclosed his situation to one of his friend, they extorted a taxi driver. He explained why he did this, My mother was telling me that my father did not send money for rent and the homeowner would kick us out of the home. I used to tell my mother not to be sad and I would somehow find money. It was not a burden for me but honor. However, everything was difficult. (Erkan) Stigmatization in Various Contexts When juveniles commit crime, they may be labeled as troublemakers and therefore stigmatized. The study participants felt stigmatized in various contexts, such as family, school, 146 peer groups, and the juvenile justice system. It was most common for the family to stigmatize a youth after his initiation of delinquency. Of eighteen juveniles who indicated that their families stigmatized them, the most common form (for 13 or 72.3% of youth) of stigmatization was the claim, “you are not going to be a man.” This phrase carries a great deal of meaning for Turkish males because it is very humiliating. Parents use that phrase when they are hopeless about their sons and when they believe their sons will not be good persons in their future lives. Juveniles may feel heavily stigmatized by this phrase because they know that their parents have lost faith in them. For example, Bekir said, “My family used to call me “useless.” My mother and father were saying that I was not going to be a man”. Sometimes parents wish for bad luck for their misbehaving children. When a parent wishes bad luck for a child, religious beliefs, which play an important role in Turkey, support the view that bad luck will occur. Therefore, wishing for bad luck stigmatizes the child. It is a kind of bad wish or indicator of stigma. If other people learn that a father is wishing bad luck for his children, it is thought that the children are not good. People may think that if a child does not listen to his/her father, then, he/she never listens to anyone. As a result, wishing children bad luck stigmatizes them in the eyes of other people who know them. That phrase may also disappoint children when they hear it from their parents. Mert, whose father drank, lacked attachment to his parents, ran away from home and lived with his friends in a bachelor’s house. When Mert was asked about his father’s wishing him bad luck, he agreed, “My father used to say this. He wished bad luck for me.” While in a low security prison, Sinan took leave and came home. When his mother’s neighbors came to visit her, his mother sternly warned him not to leave the room, thereby making him feel very bad, “When our neighbors came to our house to visit my mother, I did not 147 leave the room...My mother told them that I was in the university and I came from university to visit them”. When Taner was asked whether he experienced stigmatization by his family members, he said, “No, contrary to this, I had better relations with my father after I entered prison.” Taner was one of the several youth who indicated that being caught and punished for committing crime helped to improve his relations with family members. Entering prison can be perceived as an opportunity for a fresh start to relationships between juveniles and parents. Thus, stigmatization did not always occur. The second most common source of stigmatization occurred in neighborhoods. Due to living in a communal society, neighbors tend to know each other fairly well. Parents of youths friends’ families may want their children to stay away from youth labeled as delinquent. Eleven juveniles (36.6%) felt stigmatization by their neighbors. Mert described his stigmatization, When I was outside, I had some friends who did not use drugs. Therefore, I heard that their parents insisted on their children not hanging out with me because I was using drugs and they were scared for their children. When people saw a cut on my arm, they were staying away from me. Another place where stigmatization occurred was in schools, which are an important context in juveniles’ lives. School administrations are sensitive about their schools’ reputation, and they usually blamed or punished juveniles who broke the law in order to stop their lawbreaking or force them to stay away from their schools. Of twenty-nine boys who went to school, seven of them (24.1%) described school stigmatization, and three described how they dropped out of school due to such stigmatization. Cem stated, 148 When I went to school, I felt terrible because my friends and teachers had learned about my crime. They were coming and asking me about how I did extortions. I felt very embarrassed about this and I could not do my homework and I could not study. Therefore, I dropped out of school because of my bad reputation in the school. However, criminal reputation did not necessarily result in stigmatization by classmates. Instead, in the present study, having a criminal reputation provided status among peers for five study participants. They felt as if they were untouchables who had committed crime, dealt with police and courts, but did not enter prison. Other students feared and did not want to cross them. Five juveniles explained how having a criminal history provided status for them in the school, at least among some of their peers. Halil was one of these juveniles, I had like-minded friends at school, so that it did not affect my relationship in the school. They were not treating me as an outcast, but other students were. I had a good reputation for being in court and having trouble with police because I was still outside [not in prison] despite what I did. Students were scared of me, which was good at that time. (Halil) Influence of the Juvenile Justice System on Trajectories The justice system was another context where stigmatization occurred. Police often knew the youth, and therefore accused them of neighborhood crimes first. For example Mert said, “If extortion happens in my neighborhood, people would point to me as a suspect because they know me well. They blame me as suspect.” Prior research has identified contact with the juvenile justice system as a stigmatizing effect that influences juveniles’ future education and employment trajectories. When juveniles desire a conventional life, they need to find legitimate jobs and marry. However, incarceration 149 may stand in the way of these things occurring. Of twenty-five juveniles who were asked whether being incarcerated would affect their future employment opportunities, sixteen (64%) stated that due to being incarcerated, they would be less likely to find a job. They especially emphasized that they would not be able to work in government institutions due to criminal background checks. For example, Erkan stated that, “Now, I have a criminal history and have no opportunity to work as any kind of official.” Some juveniles indicated negative outcomes of being incarcerated in terms of disrupting their education or their work. For example, Murat was working and earning a good wage before he entered prison. When he entered prison, he lost his job and had no opportunity to advance his skills. He felt it would be too difficult for him to start from the beginning, “Most probably it [prison] will affect me. If I was not in the prison, I would be a professional in a job. Now, it will be difficult to learn something from the beginning for work.” Some youth indicated that incarceration disrupted their education, which in turn would disrupt their future employment opportunities. It affects me. You cannot be an official. I am trying to finish high school here through distance education. If it had not happened, I would have continued studying. However, what happened has happened. Nothing can be done about it. (Okan) Although the majority of youth expected limited employment opportunities in the future, eleven (44%) stated that being incarcerated would not affect their future employment opportunities. Some felt that plans to work on their own assured their employment. Halil and Kaan stated this very concisely. Halil said, “I will run my own business so there is no problem.” Kaan said, “No, it [prison] will not affect me. [Why?] Because I know how to repair car engines. It will not affect me. I will run my own business.” Other young men relied on their families and 150 relatives to secure employment. For example, Yunus had concerns about his past criminal history, but still felt he could find a job: “I guess it would affect me. However, my relatives have some stores which sell dresses. I guess I can work there.” Likewise, Emre felt he could rely on his older brother to help him find a job where he worked: “My elder brother is working in an advertisement agency so I can work with him. Therefore, being convicted may not affect my life.” Taner felt he would find a job because of training in prison, “It will affect me in good way. I learned a lot about my profession here. I was doing the same job when I was outside.” Likewise, Recep indicated that the training courses in the prison would provide him a job. Regarding difficulties finding work, he said “I do not think so because I have many certificates here. I can use at least one of them.” The second most common theme relevant to the influence of the juvenile justice system on juveniles’ lives is its leniency. In 2005, the Turkish Penal Code and Turkish Criminal Procedure Code were changed. This change was criticized for reducing penalties. Although most criminal acts resulted in criminal proceedings, the length of time for the trial process and delays in the process led to periods of no response after youth were arrested. Juvenile offenders thought that nothing would happen to them due to their age; therefore, they continued committing crime and escalated in the seriousness of lawbreaking. Thirteen juveniles (43.3%) stated that when they were caught by police for a crime, they were released from either the police station or courts. Some expressed surprise at their release, Police took me to the court. They took my statement for the first time and then I was released by the judge. They only asked me about the crime and so on. It was surprising for me, because I had concerns and no idea what would happen in the court, but nothing happened. (Tuna) 151 Perceived leniency led juveniles to commit more crime because they did not experience any punishment. The lack of response promoted youths’ continuation on a trajectory of crime. Of thirteen juveniles who mentioned the leniency of the juvenile justice system, eleven (85%) indicated that they continued committing crime due to getting little or no punishment after being apprehended by the police or released from police station or courts. Halil and Yunus explained how they continued their crime trajectory due to leniency of the system, Here in the prison, you became more experienced and mature. For my first couple of offenses, I did not get punishment and was released from the police station or courts. At those times I felt that as if I would never enter prison. (Halil) I was in elementary school and about 11 years old. I was with my uncle’s son when I stabbed him with a knife. I was under the influence of glue and wounded him with a knife. Because I was 11 years old, nothing happened to me. Then, I continued offenses such as burglary, extortion. (Yunus) Serhat stated that when first apprehended by police, he went unpunished and continued regularly offending with his friends. When he was most recently apprehended, police identified twelve prior crimes he had done. Therefore, instead of being tried for one case, now he had twelve cases. We did larcenies almost every day because nothing happened to me after my first appearance in the court. We broke into houses and stores. When we broke into a house, we were caught by the police. I had twelve files and I was released in the first court. Then, when I was outside, I was sentenced for those files. The following example illustrates the juvenile justice system’s more lenient behavior towards juveniles than adults. After police apprehended Ali and his older brother for committing 152 burglaries, his older brother received a prison sentence, but Ali was released from court due to being a juvenile. That incident made him braver, which enabled him to commit more crimes, They released me because I was a child, but they sent my elder brother to prison because he was adult at that time. Then, I continued burglary to find money for him, because he needed money there. I was not afraid of getting caught at those times because every time I was being released by the court. The slow process of juvenile proceedings worsened youth’s crime trajectory. Thus, nine of the juveniles indicated that when they were in the prison, they had upcoming sentences from their previous crimes, which they never anticipated being held responsible for. For example, when Okan was apprehended for extortion, he was released by the court. Then, he desisted from crime and began working. However, three years later, he learned that he was sentenced for extortion. He was shocked and could not believe that, I entered prison in 2010. It was because of a crime that I did in 2006 or 2007. I had a friend and we needed money. He had a girlfriend. He needed to talk with his girlfriend and we found a young boy and took his cell phone. His parents complained about us. Then, police took us but that guy did not complain about us in the police station. However, we were charged for extortion. We did not get punishment for it at that time but I was sentenced for it three years later…My family does not like those kinds of things. They do not want to enter the police station. Unwillingly I made them sad. They asked me why I did this. My trial continued for 3 or 4 years. I even forgot about that during those times. I was working. Then, the high court had ruled for my sentence due to extortion. One Saturday, police came and took me to the prison. (Okan) 153 The slowness in processing also disrupted juveniles’ dreams for their future. Some juveniles decided not to commit crime again due to the effect of incarceration and they wanted to start a good life. However, due to upcoming punishments from their waiting cases, they stated that the only reason that could bring them to the prison was their waiting cases. For example, Veysel decided not to commit crime again when he was released from the prison. He had committed many crimes due to his delinquent peers and drug use. Then, the experience of nearly being shot changed his life. He regretted what he had done and decided to change himself and stop breaking the law. He even started drug treatment in Amatem. Then he appeared in court for a previous case. He said, “There are always obstacles. For example, I decided not to get into trouble again and I did not. Although I did not commit crime, I was sentenced because of my previous cases, which were processed later.” He remained hopeful for his future life, because he believed that he would never commit crime again. However, he still had some remaining cases and if he receives punishment for them, he felt he would lose all hope, If the court does not sentence me because of my previous crimes, I can continue a normal life without trouble. However, if the court sentences me because of my previous cases, there is nothing I can do. I will continue spending time in the prison. (Veysel) Likewise, for Tolga, being released seemed unimportant, because if punished by the high court, he will be staying in the prison for a long time: I have a file in high court. If they approve my sentence, it is not important whether I am released or not. Similarly Hakan thought he might return to court for prior cases, even if he did not break the law after release, “They can take me to prison again if I am sentenced for my previous files which are still in the court process. I will not come here in any other way”. 154 Juveniles Exercising Their Agency In Turkey, when experts talk about juvenile delinquency, they prefer to use the phrase, juveniles pushed into crime instead of juvenile delinquents, because they believe that delinquent acts result not from the exercise of agency, but solely from external influences. They assume juveniles who break the law are victims and passive actors in their lives. However, the present study did show that there were key decisions in juveniles’ lives, which reflected their agency, albeit within constraints. As noted in Chapter 4, the most common key decision in juveniles’ crime trajectories was returning to bad neighborhoods to hang out with delinquent peers although they had better living conditions in their current neighborhoods. When families moved to neighborhoods which were better than previous bad neighborhoods, juveniles chose to see their delinquent peers in their previous bad neighborhoods. In contrast to many of the youth in this study, who attributed their crime to drug use, Sami did not use drugs despite having peers who used. He said, When I saw my friends while they were under the influence of drugs, I did not like their behaviors. Even the police recommended I stop committing crime, because I had not started using drugs yet. They asked me why I had not started using drugs even though I hung out with my friends. Sami’s statement illustrates that even when there are pressures to use drugs or to break the law, youth make their own choices. In the present study, twenty-five youth answered questions related to human agency. The majority of the youth (19 or 76%) admitted that they were responsible for their criminal acts, whereas only nine juveniles (24%) did not admit any responsibility and attributed their delinquency to various causes out of their control. 155 The majority of the juveniles saw themselves as responsible for their criminal and deviant acts and did not blame others around them. They typically stated that they decided to commit crime, hang out with their delinquent peers, or use drugs. They did not see themselves as passive in their decision-making. For example, Veysel explained that he started his crime trajectory due to his delinquent friends, but he was the one who continued on this path. Those friends that I committed crime with were from neighborhood D, which was also called a squatter area. The first crime that I committed with my friends was because we bet on that. They told me that I was not brave enough to commit crime with them. Then, I had to prove myself to my friends, and I committed crime with them. I extorted a guy and took his money. Then, I used to commit crime. Therefore, I do not want to blame them because I was the one who continued committing crime. Sinan explains a different aspect of his agency by comparing his acts with other juveniles who did not commit any crime but who lived in the same neighborhood where he lived. Of course. It was my fault. There were many guys in my neighborhood who did not hang out with Abis and did not go to their bachelor’s house. However, I went there. I did not listen to what my older brother and father told me. I understood everything after I entered prison. I wish I had not hung out with my girlfriend and Abis or had not gone to their bachelor’s house. Mert takes the responsibility for himself and criticizes others who blame fate or other issues. [When he was asked what would prevent him from committing crime] I would have stopped myself, nothing else. God never forces you to do extortions or other things. You 156 are the person who chooses that way. People should not blame destiny. They should blame themselves. Maruna (2001) identified persisters and desisters in his research on offenders in Great Britain. Persisters mostly attributed their situations to adverse circumstances. They noted that those circumstances were out of their control. Due to drug use, poverty, or lack of employment opportunities, they had only way to live and that was to continue their deviant behavior. Consistent with Maruna’s work, in my study, nine juveniles (24%) took no responsibility for their deviant actions; they instead blamed their families’ poverty, parents’ attitude, delinquent peers, and drugs for their involvement in crime. Poverty was the most common reason juveniles gave for involvement in crime. Halil said, “If I lived in a rich family, I would not be in this situation. If I were rich, why would I be in prison, why would I ruin my life?” Parents failings were the second most common reason youth gave for breaking the law. Murat ran away from home, hung out with his friends, and used drugs. He blamed his behavior on his parents’ attitude towards him, If my parents showed respect and if they loved me, if they did not beat me, everything would be different now. I only wanted a little bit of respect, love, tolerance. If they approached me with compassion, I would not be here. I left home because of their aggressive attitude towards me. Some youth excused their behavior as resulting from drug use or the influence of their delinquent peers. For example, Erkan said, “[After the extortion incident] I was thinking about how my mother would react if I told her what happened recently. For me, I was innocent because I was under the influence of glue. Otherwise, I would not do it when I was normal”. Taner had 157 similar experience, “If I had not wanted to do anything, I would not do any bad things. However, my friends deceived me. If I had listened to my parents and girlfriend, I would not have been here”. Erkan did not take any responsibility for his illegal actions, and as mentioned above, he believed that he committed crime due to the influence of drugs that weakened his agency. The following very concise statement supplements above statements in which he blames people around him, My relatives, family members, friends used to ask me why I did such a thing and then I asked them; Where have you been at those times? These juveniles’ discourses were similar to what Maruna (2001) called a “condemnation script.” The youth made sense of their lives in terms of poverty, parents’ attitude, drug use, and association with delinquent peers, and they portrayed themselves as being in a vicious cycle where hopelessness is apparent. Consistent with the neutralization theory of deviance (Sykes & Matza, 1957), such reasoning can be thought of as a rationalization of deviant behaviors. However, Maruna (2001) is even hopeful about this type of rationalization, because “the use of rationalizations and excuses might be interpreted as adaptive, ego defense mechanisms that actually help to restore the speaker’s bond to society” (p. 144). In other words, Maruna viewed rationalizations not as a failure to take responsibility, but as a means of positive identity transformation. Turning Points In life course theory, turning points are different from transitions, because turning points make substantial changes in people’s lives. Both negative and positive turning points can change the direction of trajectories. I conceptualized acquiring delinquent peers and criminal older male associates as turning points in the lives of convicted juveniles. I examined four elements of 158 turning points which were emphasized by Sampson and Laub (2005, p. 17-18). Although most of the juveniles did not explicitly mention that having a delinquent peer and older males was a negative turning point in their lives, analysis revealed that the start of association with delinquent peers was a key turning point. The first element of turning points is that they knife off the past from the present. That is, juveniles detach from their parents, school, or convenient peers when they start to hang out with their delinquent peers. Having delinquent peers was consistent with this major process of a turning point because when juveniles started hanging out with their delinquent peers, they felt distant from their parents. Other people around youth become unimportant to them, and associating with delinquent peers weakened youth’s bond to conventional society. Associating with delinquent peers was also related to several negative life events such as running away from home, involvement in crime, drug use, being arrested, dropping out of school, and quitting jobs and sports activities. The second element of turning points is that they changed supervision patterns and monitoring and provide opportunities to establish new relationships in boys’ lives. As mentioned above, peer mechanisms included loyalty and fear of ridicule. Loyalty to the peer group was reinforced through engaging in crime with delinquent peers. Miller and Decker (2001) found that U.S. youth were willing to participate in a gang’s dangerous activities which would even endanger their lives. Similarly, youth in the present study did not care about the negative consequences of their association with delinquent peers and older males when engaging in crime with them. Tolga wanted to be with older males; therefore, he wanted to do something in which he would gain their trust and join them. 159 I started to hang out with Abis who were also drug dealers. They were giving us marijuana to conceal during the police search. They told us that nothing would happen to us if police found us with drugs because we were under 18... I was very curious about those Abis, how they were doing these things. Sometimes, I was telling my Abis who were drug dealers to leave marijuana bags with me and I could take care of them when they did something else. We went to commit theft together. Turning points change supervision patterns and monitoring. Therefore, I also examined the influence of association with peers on parental supervision. When juveniles spent more time with their delinquent peers, their parents were less likely to monitor and supervise them. For example, Mert had delinquent peers and his parents’ lack of supervision eased spending time with those peers. He stated that, My parents worked for me [they supported me with their earnings] but they did not control what I did, they did not keep track of what I did; therefore due to lack of control at home, I spent most of my time on the streets with my friends. The third element of turning points is that they bring change to the routine activities of people. Having delinquent peers substantially affected the routines of juveniles. When juveniles did not feel close to their parents and spent most of their time with their delinquent peers, it changed their routines and they spent their time in bachelor’s houses, used drugs together, and did not continue their schooling. Due to lack of parental supervision, which was prevalent in this study, youth spent most of their time with their delinquent friends which exacerbated their engaging in crime and drug use. From the below quotes, it is clear that having delinquent peers changed routine activities of juveniles by detaching them from their parents and school. They 160 spent most of their time free from supervision of their parents and in bachelor’s houses, which put them at high risk of using drugs. I did not run away from home but I stayed away from home. I started staying outside when I was 16 years old. I have never been kicked out of home. I did not go home because of my friends. Those times it was exciting not to go home and to stay outside with friends. It was funny. I wish it had never happened. Life seemed more simple and beautiful at those times when I stayed outside. We had alcohol on our table and drugs in our pockets. (Okan) We were usually staying in a bachelor’s house. We rented that small house. We were five friends. It was away from my house but my parents knew about that house. We were drinking alcohol or sniffing glue there. I was only with my friends there. (Nuri) The last element of turning points is identity transformation. Turning points can provide an opportunity for change in identity. Giordano, Schroeder, and Cernkovich (2007) proposed that if individuals have stronger “anger identity,” they will be more likely to continue in involvement in crime. People who have stronger anger identity view themselves as easily agitated and quickly resort to violence. In the present study, juveniles profiled an aggressive identity when they described themselves. Of twenty-nine juveniles who were asked to describe themselves, eighteen (62%) stated that they were aggressive and they could get easily angry. Taner said, “I am an aggressive person. I even stabbed my friend because of cigarettes. That time I got very angry. I was using alcohol not to harm others because I calmed down after drinking alcohol”. Being in a peer group promoted youth’s aggressive behavior. Moreover, they became more violent in school either because older males protected them or empowered them to commit 161 illegal acts. For example, Veysel’s narrative illustrates how he changed after associating with older males, I always felt that I was being stigmatized. I constantly asked myself why people behaved like this. I was feeling very uncomfortable at those times but later I did not care. I never cared then. I was also poor and for some people I was worthless. However, after the support of Abis, I became a person who is stronger and the guy who people were most scared of. It is not clear exactly how association with delinquent peers and older males supported youth’s aggressive and criminal behavior. Therefore, Sampson and Laub’s (2005) turning point framework was most applicable to the processes of peer associations affecting the knifing off process, changes in supervision processes, and identity transformations. Overall, consistent with the literature (Thornberry & Krohn, 1997), peers had considerable influence on adolescents’ conduct. Change in Identity Sampson and Laub’s life course theory was criticized for inadequately accounting for stability and change processes (Giordano, Schroeder, and Cernkovich, 2007). Critics claimed that life course theory put much emphasis on a few transitional events such as marriage and obtaining a stable job and ignored cognitive change in people. Although critics of Sampson and Laub examined transitions, they also looked at transformative experiences which they called “hooks for change.” Therefore, I examined whether youth changed in the prison and, if they did, the mechanisms behind it. Several youth stated that being in prison was a turning point for them and, unlike association with delinquent peers and older males, it turned them away from breaking the law. In the view of many youth, 162 being in the prison knifed off the past from the present, and detached them from their criminal lives. Maruna and Roy (2007) stated that knifing off is not complete if people do not develop scripts for the future. That is, in order to change, people must knife off the old roles, the past, delinquent associations and then, they must have a script for a new role. If a new script is not developed, knifing off alone would not stop preexisting criminal tendencies and it does not lead to desistance. Therefore, I examined the future goals of the juveniles in the prison. These goals can be considered as new scripts for the future. Due to the design of this research, it is impossible to know whether youth in the prison will be desisters from crime after release. However, looking at their discourses about their future goals may help us to anticipate their lives after prison. Twenty-three youth (76.6%) had projections into the future such as finding a job, getting married, or supporting their families when they got out of prison. They typically stated that they would do well after prison. Fifteen stated that they wanted to get married and have a good life. Two youth wanted to supplement their families’ incomes. For example, Mert stated that he did not have any goals before incarceration. However, when he was imprisoned, he said, If I get out of here, I will do military service, and find a steady job and save money. I want to get married and have children. I want to make my parents happy after this time. If I get out of here soon, I want to do those kinds of things. In this statement, we can see that Mert felt empowered to better his family’s situation. That is a good indication of his desire to reconstruct his life in a positive way after release. Similarly, Okan wanted to have a family in which he will be supervising and protecting his children in the future, 163 I want to open a clean sheet in my life and spend time with my family. I will go to military service one day and then get married. I want to have children. I will protect my children from bad things because I experienced those things in my life. From the above statements, it is clear that youth have positive expectations about their future life after prison. These narratives adapted the basic outline of a change and their discourses did not lack depth and definition whereas, according to Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph (2002), some narratives of the women they studied lacked depth and definition needed to actually live a different kind of life. Additional research has indicated that offenders were less likely to commit crime if they had an optimistic mindset about their future (LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, and Bushway, 2008). Moreover, Maruna (2001) found that desisters were more likely to have positive expectations about their future. Desisters reconstructed their sense of self and they felt empowered to do something that is good for them and for the society. According to that literature, youth in this study may do well after release, because they have an optimistic mindset about their future after prison. The next step in the analysis was to identify influences on youth’s positive views of the future. Five mechanisms promoted juveniles’ positive outlook: increased negative and diminution of positive emotions connected to criminal activity, increased skills in emotional management, religious faith, and prison effect. Recall that juveniles lack of attachment to their fathers promoted running away and association with delinquent peers, engaging in crime, and drug use. Lacking attachment to parents was at the root of their negative trajectories. Running away was their emotional reaction. However, despite negative family experiences, while in prison, some youth changed their 164 feelings towards their parents. Murat complained about his family’s aggressive attitude and behavior towards him; he said that if they had shown compassion and tolerance, he would not be in the prison. He was beaten by his father repeatedly and he did not like him. He even wanted to kill him when the beating escalated. However, in the prison, his attitude towards his father changed, “My father was an old school type person who grew up in village. It was his parenting style which was normal for him. Now, I love my father very much. I wish I had obeyed his rules.” Giordano, Rudolph, and Cernkovich (2007) identified the change in emotions as “the first developmental shift with implications for desistance process, namely, a diminution of the negative emotions originally connected to criminal activity” (p. 1623). It was the first out of three developmental changes which had implications for understanding desistance in the present study. Some youth understood in the prison that their parents were trying to control them with traditional parenting methods learned from their parents; therefore, they did not have negative feelings towards their parents and they changed their negative attitude that once prompted their delinquency. This emotional mellowing was consistent with other findings. Youth’s relationship with fathers improved for seven juveniles (23.3%) in the prison. That is, youth had positive goals for the period after release due to the bond to parents that grew during incarceration. Their desire to have better relationships with their parents after release may promote ties that allow them to achieve their future goals. Altan said, “My mother will come to see me today. I did a lighter holder for my father. With the God’s willing, I will give it to my father. I want to earn their trust again.” Interviews with prison guardians and social workers also confirmed that youth had positive goals for their future, because they felt more attached to their parents and they did not 165 want to disappoint their parents again. Improved relations with family members empowered youth to have more positive goals for their future lives after release because they relied on their families’ support in obtaining employment. Emre was one of them, “I am planning to open a shop with my older brother. I want to support my family. I am planning to get married. I spoke to my elder brother and he said he wanted it so.” Giordano, Rudolph, and Cernkovich (2007) used adults’ narratives to identify emotional change towards parents. They also stated that those developmental changes might be associated with overall age-related declines in criminality. However, my analysis of imprisoned youth’s narratives revealed that many of them changed substantially in the prison. These positive changes in emotions towards parents might be an important social dynamic for the desistance process (Giordano, Rudolph, & Cernkovich, 2007). As illustrated at the beginning of this chapter, delinquent peers had influence on youth’s crime and drug use trajectories. Excitement, curiosity, and thrill seeking promoted delinquency and drug use. Seventeen juveniles (56.6%) regretted involvement in crime, drug use, and association with delinquent peers. Some thought that they lacked maturity when they committed crime. Sami said, “Now I feel more positive than before. I will never commit crime again as before because those times I was not thinking wisely as now.” Some youth recognized negative effects of associating with delinquent peers. For example, Emre said, “Now, I realized that my friends were with me only for money and their interests.” Moreover, some youth believed that associating with older males was an important factor that led to their delinquency involvement. They reflected on how this came about. For instance, Sinan said, “It was like a prestige to have a girlfriend. Most Abis had girlfriends and I wanted to have one and be like them.” Overall, hanging out with older males was thrilling and seemed like a privilege for some youth in the 166 sample. As Giordano, Rudolph, and Cernkovich (2007) pointed out, “These social connections are important, as role taking with friends fosters crime-relevant emotions (the thrill, the rush, the fun of sitting around and giggling about it) as well as providing the social context for actually carrying out delinquent activity” (p. 1625). The above examples illustrated the second developmental shift in the desistance process, that is a diminution of positive emotions connected to crime (Giordano, Rudolph, & Cernkovich, 2007). Juveniles understood that older males and their delinquent peers led them into crime and drug use that was fun, exciting, and thrilling at the time; later, they changed their mindset. Along with the illegal activity presented in the above narratives, truancy followed by dropping out of school and spending time with friends was exciting for juveniles. Ten study participants (33.3%) continued their disrupted education in the prison. Continuing education through distance education can be considered an agentic move that connects directly to the decision-making process. For example, Halil said, “I was expelled from school due to being truant in the eighth grade and never went to school again. Now, I started studying eighth grade through distance education and want to get a diploma.” The refinement of Sampson and Laub’s life course theory to tie emotional and cognitive changes to major turning points in people’s lives led to consideration of prison’s effect on such changes, and therefore the potential for prison to be a positive turning point. Alternatively, these changes can be considered as gradual development process (Giordano, Rudolph, & Cernkovich, 2007). Diminution of negative and positive emotions illustrated change in youth’s emotions. In prison, juveniles felt more mature and had control over their emotions. They identified their increased skill in emotion management, a third developmental change needed for desistance. For example, when Tuna was asked about his strengths, he said, 167 When I had difficult times or when somebody irritated me, I stay patient and calm. If I do something to him, I know the bad consequences. My father always used to advise to be patient. The only thing that I learned here is patience. Similarly, Sinan’s narrative illustrated how he had control over his emotions now and therefore could more fully exercise his agency, I am better than before. I started to read books. I am more silent now. I behave more logically and I feel wiser now. Before, if I saw my friends get into fights, I would fight too. Now, I do not behave like this. Religious belief emerged as the fourth influential effect on youth’s positive mindset. Religious narratives can be indicators of positive identity transformation because they can empower youth positively for their future lives. The effect of religion was not considered in Sampson and Laub’s life course theory. However, contemporary studies suggested looking at the possible influence of religion in terms of its effect on enhancing parental influences on inhibiting delinquent behavior (Petts, 2009). Religion mattered for five juveniles (16.6%) in the present study. They stated that learning about religion in the prison changed their attitudes and mindsets. They started to pray in the prison and hoped to continue. That is, cognitive transformation was linked to religious thoughts stimulated during incarceration. For example, one youth said I understood the value of everything. When I was outside, I did not know anything about religion but when I came here, I learned a lot about religion. I started to pray five times in a day. My friend taught me. I will be a nice person and will not break people’s hearts…Neither my mother nor my father had anything with religion. I wish they had taught me my religious duties. İ learned everything here in the prison. I learned about Prophet Muhammad and his life. His life was fascinating. I wanted to be like him as kind 168 and generous. Life in prison changed my life in a good direction. I found myself. I hope it continues when I get out of here. (Mert) The above statement also indicates one way to cope with the shame and stigma of the imprisonment upon being released from the prison. In Turkey, if people regret their sinful acts, then they swear to God not to commit sinful acts again. Then, if they violated a person’s rights, for example by gossiping about them, they must tell that person about the gossip and ask for forgiveness. If he has done something to harm a person or stolen something from a person, he has to go those people, confess what he has done to them, and ask for forgiveness. These acts are widely recognized and respected as legitimate ways of showing real remorse in Turkey. When Sami was asked whether he felt responsible for what happened to him, he said, Yes, the biggest mistake was stealing. I will never do it again. I will not violate kull hakki [kul hakki means people’s rights which are violated-if someone harms another person in any way, he violates his right and needs to go him and ask for forgiveness]. If I get out of here, I will see three or four people because I broke into their houses and I stole many things from their houses. I will ask for forgiveness. I will try to pay back what I had stolen from them. Although they studied very different populations than Turkish youth, Maruna, Wilson, and Curran (2006) found that religious beliefs learned while incarcerated enabled prisoners to attain future goals and reconstruct their sense of self in positive ways. These religious narratives are similar to redemption scripts, except that redemption scripts are secular and nonreligious. Therefore, “religious narratives…provide widely accepted script for exiting a criminal identity” (p. 181). Religion can dominate one’s lifestyle; in turn, lifestyle becomes oriented around the religious faith (Giordano, Cernkovich, & Rudolph, 2002) as in Sami’s narrative, 169 With the God’s help. I will continue my job and after doing military service, I will start a new life with my wife. I want to have children and regulate my life according to religion. I want to raise children who will be good persons. Then, I will be more happy and will make God happy by raising a child. If there is a religious belief at home, there can be no problem in that house. (Sami) The effect of incarceration stood out for eleven juveniles who saw it as interrupting trajectories of crime and drug use. They described what would have happened to them if they were not incarcerated. For example, Veysel said, “If I was not arrested and put in the prison, I would be dead by now. Entering prison removed me from all troubles. I guess I could not stay out of trouble. There was no way for this”. Hakan stated positive influence of incarceration on his life, If I had not entered prison, I would have been dead by now. Good thing I entered prison because I am alive now. Before I did not like to work. Now, I like to work. My life has changed completely. When I am released, I want to start a new life. Training courses provided by the prison influenced the positive outlook of two juveniles who felt hopeful about life after release because of their job skills. Tolga said, Being in the prison is the most important event in my life. First, I quit using drugs. If I had been outside, I would not have stopped using it. Second, I learned to work here. I am working every weekday outside. I am working in the Aluminum Company. I did not like working when I was outside; therefore, I never worked. I will get certificate for this job. (Tolga) Some data were collected on whether the young men perceived themselves to be desisters, and on whether they felt that people around them saw them in this way. Having 170 significant others and self see one as having a prosocial identity would support desistence (Maruna 2001). These self perceptions and how the juveniles thought others reflected their perceptions in the prison not the time period when they were committing crimes. Therefore, I examined self perceptions along with how the young men thought others – specifically friends, guardians, families, and officials – saw them. The majority of youth saw themselves in a positive manner in the prison. For example, Murat said, “I am a naive person. I am a friendly person.” He stated that his parents had a positive perception of him, “No parent would say bad about their children. They would say naive and hardworking person for me.” He also described his friends’ perception of him, “They would say good person about me.” In terms of guardians’ perception of him he said, “All guardians would say good about me.” Diminution of negative/positive emotions connected to crime, increased skill in emotional management, and religious effect were four mechanisms which empowered youth’s positive outlook about their future. The majority of the youth who experienced those mechanisms stated that their parents, friends, and guardians had positive perceptions of them. They also expressed positive perceptions of themselves. In contrast to youth discussed so far, six youth connected their incarceration only to negative perceptions of themselves. Veysel was one of them, “I have already told everything. Nothing to say more about me. Do not ask me. Ask other guys in my room in the prison”. Five of the juveniles stated that their friends would describe them in negative manner, for example, “They would say that he lost his control over his life and eventually entered prison” (Emre). Seven study participants stated that their parents had negative perception of them. Veysel, who saw himself very negatively, described similar views of his parents, 171 My father first says that I am a good guy, and then he gets angry and swears at me. In short, he swears at me. I am constantly saying that my parents are not typical parents like in other families. They are psychopaths. However, of eleven juveniles who stated that entering prison was an important factor for them, nine felt that, prison guardians would describe them in more positive manner, perhaps because of prison rules and structure. Mehmet said, “I guess they may describe me in good way because I did not do anything wrong here. I did not swear anybody”. Halil was different from other youth. Although he wanted to get married and run his own store in the future, he did not seem to have cut himself off from illegal activity. He regretted being in prison for a trivial offense, “I do not regret being in the prison but I only regret being in the prison for a trivial offense which was stealing an auto cassette player. If I had stolen or extorted 30,000 or 40,000 liras, it would be worth to be in the prison.” This statement and the one that follows suggest that he did not close off the possibility of crime or change his identity, I will find money through other means to open a store. I will ask from my friends or elder friends who will want to help me. If they do not help me, they will know what will happen to them. It is my right and if they do not willing to give me money to help me to start a new life, it will have bad outcomes for them. I am thinking about being a bodyguard not in bars but taking money from bars for some people who lend money to those bar owners. From the narratives of youth, it is clear that they had different experiences which led them to crime and drug use trajectories. Most of them regretted involvement in crime, drug use, and association with delinquent peers. Despite their negative experiences and being in the prison, they still had positive outlook for their future. They started to restore their relationships with their parents, did not have any desire to associate with their delinquent peers, and had goals for 172 their future. However, it is not known what is in store for them after prison. Some of them may face the realities of life after prison such as difficulty of finding jobs or living on their own. They stated that they would mostly rely on their parents’ support both emotionally and financially to stand on their feet and improved relationships with parents is a promising development in their lives. However, it is not known how parents would behave towards their sons, and whether they would continue some of the behaviors that contributed to the young men’s running away and engaging in illegal activity. 173 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION The purpose of this dissertation is to explore convicted juveniles’ experiences and the life course events that led them to the prison. Specifically, this dissertation described the context of the juveniles and peer influences, which had a major effect on juveniles’ trajectories. It also considered how several factors, such as low socioeconomic status of the family, father’s alcohol use, drug use, low attachment to the family, harsh discipline, and lack of supervision affected juveniles lives. Finally, it examined the short-term effects of the prison experience on youth. This chapter discusses major findings of this dissertation and establishes whether findings are supported by the theory’s assumptions, propositions, and research on other youth who are delinquent. It also describes the limitation of this study. Finally, it addresses implications of this dissertation for future research and policy. Discussion of Findings This research used Sampson and Laub’s (1993) life course theory, which incorporated family attachment, discipline, and supervision; school attachment; peer influence; and background factors as explained in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. In this regard, it provided a broad multi-level explanation by exploring youth’s experiences in multiple domains which led them to engage in crime. This approach is consistent with the ecological theory of child development, which has proved to be very useful in understanding human behavior. Some of the findings of this dissertation were consistent with the current literature on life course theory and other researchers and theorists. Some findings were unique to the Turkish context. This dissertation contributed to theory in nine specific ways, which are considered next. 174 Influential and Irrelevant Background Factors Family’s low socioeconomic status, residential mobility, and excessive parental drinking were the three important structural background factors in the present study. They served as starting points for juveniles’ negative trajectories. Low socioeconomic status of the family was the most influential background factor in juveniles’ life course. It led families to live in bad neighborhood and disrupted youth’s education trajectories. It also created youth’s employment trajectory. Therefore, the first contribution of this dissertation to life course theory is understanding of adolescent employment, its effect on juveniles’ lives, and expectation of parents from their children to supplement family income. The employment trajectory in this dissertation was quite different than in the original life course theory. Adolescent employment is rarely studied in Western criminological studies (Hagan, 1996). In the limited research, some studies found that adolescent employment reduced criminality (Farrington et al., 1986; PriogGood & Sickles, 1986), and a few studies found that adolescent employment did not exert an effect on youth crime (Gottfredson, 1985). Steinberg (1996) found that youth employment detached adolescents from school. In this study, juveniles began working at a very early age and took responsibilities to supplement their families’ income, which in turn, weakened their attachment to the school. It also disrupted youth’s education trajectory due to balancing work and school at the same time. Life course theory did not focus on negative effects of adolescents’ employment trajectory. Therefore, the application of life course theory in Turkey demonstrated the importance of attention to youth’s employment trajectory in contexts similar to the Turkish environment. A second theoretical contribution was revealing the effect of neighborhood within the life course theory. Dependent on their parents, due to their families’ poverty, the boys had to move 175 and live in undesirable neighborhoods. Families’ low socio-economic status and their moves led to living in neighborhoods, in particular squatter areas, that had many negative features. These neighborhoods, in part through exposing youth to delinquent peers, drove juveniles to engage in delinquency or drug use. Although Sampson and Laub did not incorporate the neighborhood effect in their theory, in light of current literature (Herrenkohl et al., 2001; Patchin et al., 2006; Scarpa, 2001), it is not surprising that negative neighborhood conditions not only limited juveniles’ access to conventional peers, but it also undermined family functioning because of the various stressors they confronted. Living in bad neighborhoods can affect parents’ parenting by increasing harsh discipline and reducing parental warmth (Deng et al., 2006; Hill & HermanStahl, 2002). Families had difficulties keeping their children from crime in squatter areas and other neighborhoods where drug and crime were common. They failed to supervise and control their children. Structurally induced family functioning thus became another influence on juveniles’ trajectories of illegal activity. Negative neighborhood conditions also disrupted juveniles’ education trajectory. Therefore, neighborhood effects stood out as one of the most influential factors in this dissertation. Along with influential background factors, there were also irrelevant background factors which were proposed as influential background factors in the theory. For instance, family disruption is one of the mostly studied variables, and many researchers conclude that juveniles in disrupted families more often commit crime than those in non-disrupted families (Demuth & Brown, 2004). Moreover, Sampson and Laub (1993) found a significant effect of family disruption on juveniles’ attachment to parents, and parental rejection and lack of supervision. However, most of the juveniles had both parents at home and only a few came from disrupted families. Therefore, although family disruption was one of the most prominent factors which 176 produced delinquency in the United States, it was not an apparent influence in the Turkish context. Family size, another irrelevant background factor, was not apparently influential in the study, although juveniles lived in overcrowded families in small houses. Mother’s employment similarly had no apparent effect. In Western countries, both parents may work to supplement family income. Therefore, Sampson and Laub (1993) found that mother’s employment increased their difficulties in supervising and monitoring children. However, only two of the boys’ mothers were employed in this study. This would be expected in the patriarchal type of Turkish families where father work and mothers stay at home and do housework. Laub and Sampson (2003) did not examine substance abuse of parents. Therefore, they recommended studying substance abuse of parents as well as excessive drinking habits. However, in the present study, none of the juveniles had parents who used drugs. However, fathers’ alcohol use did contribute to negative family relations. Family Influences Several studies have revealed that negative parental attachment, harsh discipline, and lack of supervision predict juvenile delinquency (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1987; Farrington, 1989; Jang & Smith, 1997; Leiber, Mack, & Featherstone, 2009; Mack et al., 2007; Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Sokol-Katz et al., 1997). Contemporary literature has emphasized the importance of incorporating family processes along with family structure into a single framework (Ingram et al., 2007). Using Sampson and Laub’s life course theory enabled incorporating family attachment, discipline, and supervision in the theoretical model that guided this dissertation. The trajectory of living with the family influenced youth’s lives in different ways. Juveniles were pushed out of the family into a context that promoted crime by negative family 177 processes. Father’s behavior, cold personality, feeling distant to them, beating, and fathers’ excessive drinking created lack of attachment. Lack of parental attachment did not directly affect delinquency. Instead, it led juveniles to run away from home and stay with their friends, which in turn, led to delinquency and drug use. Youth who are closely supervised are less likely to associate with delinquent peers (Ingram et al., 2007). Parents who have strong bonds to their children are more likely to supervise and monitor their children, decreasing the likelihood of their children’s association with delinquent peers. When parents are conscious of their children’s friends, that awareness reduces the likelihood that their children will associate with delinquent peers (Warr, 2005). However, in the current study juveniles were not supervised even after peers became more important than parents. Although the literature suggested that supervision was more prevalent in families where both parents were present and mothers knew more about their adolescents’ daily activities than fathers and gained that information by active supervision (Demuth & Brown, 2004; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Waizenhofer et al., 2004), these findings were not supported by the findings of the present study. From the findings, it is clear that the presence of both parents at home is not enough to provide adequate supervision of children. As Demuth and Brown (2004) stated, “a parent’s physical presence is likely to have a smaller impact on delinquent behavior than a parent’s psychological and emotional presence” (p. 78). Despite different research in different years and in different country and cultures described in the literature review and above on family functioning, I reproduced similar findings. Parents increased their supervision of youth after the youth committed a crime. Youth had patriarchal families where fathers were the most powerful authority figure. Fathers expect their spouses and children to obey them completely. They exerted strict control of other family members. 178 However, in these families, mothers were powerless and that was a serious problem when father had to be away at work, sometimes working in another city, which was prevalent in this study. The mothers in such situations were available, but powerless to control her sons. Western research shows that parents with low socioeconomic status are more likely to use physical discipline and exert authoritarian parenting styles, and juveniles who are physically abused are more likely to be arrested for violent, nonviolent and status offenses (Lansford et al., 2007; Patterson et al., 1989; Salzinger, Rosario, & Feldman, 2007). In this dissertation, due to coming from poor and very patriarchal families, family beating was another process affecting the living with the family trajectory. The most common type of parental discipline was beating; fathers or older brothers typically beat youth or locked them up in the house. These practices weakened youth’s attachment to their parents. Parental beating also disrupted juveniles’ education trajectory (Lansford et al., 2007) in particular by leading to truancy, which in turn was related to repeating grades, expulsion, or dropping out as described in Chapter 4. Therefore, harsh discipline appeared to backfire. Youth who were beaten ran away from home and spent more time with their delinquent peers. Therefore, running away which resulted from lack of attachment, harsh discipline, witnessing domestic violence, and drinking fathers, stood out as one of the most influential factors which promoted youths’ engaging in crime and drug use. This was consistent with the Western literature on running away and delinquency (Patterson & Yoerger, 2002; Tyler & Bersani, 2008; Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999). Running away was the most common transition in one trajectory which affected other trajectories. When youth ran away, they easily engaged in crime or used drugs with their friends, because they lived on the streets, abandoned houses, or bachelor’s houses where they could avoid supervision by their parents. Delinquency was one of the outcomes of running away (Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1999) as described in this study. 179 Overall, positive family attachment is believed to facilitate parental supervision and discipline which in turn prevents delinquency. However, in the present study, nearly all juveniles lacked attachment to their parents. When examining youth’s family life, witnessing domestic violence was apparent. Therefore, a third contribution of this dissertation to theory was revealing the effect of domestic violence within the life course theory framework as recommended by Sampson and Laub (1993). In this study, witnessing domestic violence at home weakened bonds between spouses, negatively affected youth’s relations with their parents; led juveniles to run away from home and also disrupted youth’s education trajectory. Education Trajectory In developing life course theory, Sampson and Laub (1993) studied school attachment and poor school performance. The fourth contribution of this dissertation was identifying the mechanisms which negatively affected school attachment and poor school performance. According to the literature, school bonds act as a protective factor not only against early aggression, but also against violent and nonviolent offending (Sprott, Jenkins, & Doob, 2005). Lack of attachment and low educational commitment to school and drop out from school, loosen social control exerted by school and lead to delinquency (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996; Jarjoura, 1993; Herrenkohl et al., 2000; Herrenkohl et al., 2001). In this study, parental beating, witnessing domestic violence, family moves, corporal punishment, and youth’s drug use disrupted youth’s education trajectories and weakened their attachment to school. Among those factors, corporal punishment was one of the prominent negative influences on the education trajectory. Corporal punishment is viewed as normal by some Turkish parents who believe that school teachers take on the roles of mothers and fathers. In a common saying, when parents sent their children to school, they say, “His flesh is yours and his bone is mine.” In Turkish culture, 180 this means that teachers are not different from mothers and fathers. Therefore, teachers can exert harsh discipline at school when needed, as youth’s fathers, who exert harsh discipline at home. The phrase gives implicit permission to teachers to use corporal punishment which may disrupt juveniles’ education trajectory. Peer Influences The fifth contribution of this dissertation was revealing the prominent negative effect of delinquent peers on youth’s trajectories. Although Sampson and Laub did not find a strong influence of delinquent peers in their own study, they recommended examining the role of peer influences more carefully in future studies. They also recommended analysis of the influence of structural conditions on peer influences and the study of whether or not peer influence can neutralize informal social controls resulting from bonds with family and school. Youth are more likely to bond with their delinquent peers when social control is low. Numerous prior studies show that associating with delinquent peers is one of the strongest predictors of delinquency and it exerts direct effects on youth’s delinquent behavior. Peers may show the way and pressure youth into delinquency and committing crimes (Akers, 1998; Matsueda & Anderson, 1998; Patchin et al., 2006; Unnever, Cullen, & Agnew, 2006; Warr, 2002). In my dissertation, peer influence was very prominent in youth’s crime and drug use trajectories. Due to lack of attachment to parents, witnessing domestic violence, and parental beating, peers became more important to youth than their parents. Juveniles lived in bachelor’s houses with their delinquent peers, which supported their drug use, continued illegal behavior, and running away. Besides delinquent peers, older males had great influence on juveniles because they were respected and perceived as role models. They increased youth’s delinquency in multiple ways, such as by providing shelter, committing crime together, or instigating crime. This finding was 181 unique to the Turkish context in which older males are respected and they are obeyed. Because of this fact, delinquent older males also had positive influences on juveniles such as interrupting youth’s drug use trajectory and advising juveniles to quit using drugs or stopping committing crime. The sixth contribution to theory is showing the effect of cousins which was also prominent on juveniles crime and drug use trajectories. In Turkish culture, if cousins are about the same age, they spend more time together than they spend with unrelated peers. Five juveniles either committed crime or used drugs with their cousins. Sampson and Laub (1993) found little or no sibling effect on juveniles’ crime and drug use trajectories. Similarly, siblings had little effect on juveniles’ crime and drug use trajectories in the current study, except through the effects of older brothers exerting harsh discipline and controlling juveniles. The effect of cousins and the role of older brothers can be considered as a cultural difference in the Turkish context. Each trajectory is at least partly influenced by the other trajectory. Therefore, trajectories are interdependent. Although interdependency of trajectories is not well studied in life course theory, my dissertation revealed that drug use and crime trajectories were the most prevalent example of the interconnection of trajectories. The next strongest connection was between drug use and education trajectories. Elder (1985) recommended identifying transitions which were unrelated to age and unexpected. Juveniles could get caught unprepared and without social support. Adolescent marriage and parenting which did not occur according to the normative timetable were unexpected transitional events for juveniles in this dissertation. Moreover, death of a parent, being kicked out of the home, mother’s remarriage, and being sent to boarding school away from home were other unexpected transitional events in youth’s life course. 182 Stigmatization Theory identifies the negative effects of stigmatization of juveniles through a process called cumulative continuity that links early disadvantages to negative outcomes in adulthood. This dissertation made the seventh contribution to the theory by studying juveniles’ stigmatization in various contexts. Family stigmatization, often manifested in the use of humiliating phrases, led juveniles to feel distant from their parents. Youth were labeled as troublemakers in their neighborhoods; therefore, other people around them and neighbors did not want their children to spend time with them. Although delinquent youth sometimes benefited from their criminal reputation because it provided status for them, they were also blamed or punished in schools due to being labeled. The justice system was the last context where stigmatization occurred. The study participants were accused by the police when something happened in their neighborhoods, which in turn negatively affected juveniles’ employment and education trajectories. Laub and Sampson (2003) found negative effects of the juvenile justice system on adult’s education and employment trajectories. This dissertation found the same negative effects. However, the juvenile justice system had a negative influence in youth’s life courses which was different than shown in the current literature on stigmatization of the justice system. That is, the delayed response and perceived leniency of the justice system promoted juveniles’ continuation on a crime trajectory. After arrest for their last offense, they were also charged for their accumulated offenses. Although some youth desisted from crime before they entered prison, due to the slow process of the justice system, charges for prior offenses disrupted their achievement of prosocial goals and conventional lives. Perceived leniency and its outcomes; and the 183 disrupting effects of old charges in juveniles’ lives have important implications for justice system policies. Turning Points Sampson and Laub (1993) identified turning points – marriage, a stable job, and military service – relevant for adult males. Benson (2002) identified the onset of offending as a negative turning point and desistance from offending as a positive turning point for teenagers. This study advanced the life course theory by identifying positive and negative turning points for juveniles in the Turkish context. Onset of offending, onset of drug use, acquiring delinquent peers or criminal older male associates, and moving into bad neighborhoods were negative turning points in juveniles’ lives. For many youth, entering prison, and for two juveniles, marriage served as positive turning points. Change in Identity Laub, Sampson, & Sweeten (2006) recommended further research on human agency to understand life-course trajectories of crime. Therefore, findings about the juveniles’ exercise of human agency was the eighth contribution to the theory. Although juveniles are perceived by many Turkish experts as passive actors influenced by external factors, my dissertation showed that they exercised their agency and they viewed themselves as responsible for their criminal acts. For some, who blamed adverse circumstances such as poverty, parents, it is possible that they did this in an effort to restore their bond to society (Maruna, 2001). Sampson and Laub’s life course theory was criticized for heavily emphasizing transitional events instead of considering other mechanisms, such as change in identity. Therefore, I used the symbolic interactionist perspective on desistance to fill this gap. As a ninth contribution to theory, this dissertation revealed identity change mechanisms. Cognitive changes 184 in juveniles without any transitional event were prevalent in this study. They changed their negative attitude toward parents and improved their relations with their parents (i.e., they experienced a diminution of negative emotions). They also changed their positive attitudes toward their delinquent peers (i.e., they experienced a diminution of positive emotions), and they increased their skills in emotional management. They admitted that they committed and continued crime due to delinquent peers and older males who made crime fun, thrilling, and exciting at the time, but later they changed their attitudes towards their peers and older males. They viewed their criminality as a mistake, felt more mature, and had control over their emotions. Therefore, they believed that they would no longer act without thinking about consequences. Since all of the youth were in prison at the time of the interview, it is not possible to rule out that these changes were due to maturation. However, for most youth these changes did occur. Youths’ future goals seemed to be influenced by incarceration and religious faith which was developed in the prison. Religious faith was important to attain future goals and reconstruct a sense of self in this study. Effects of religion on delinquency and family ties were studied in the U.S. (Giordano, Longmore, Schroeder, & Seffrin, 2008; Maruna, Wilson, & Curran, 2006; Petts, 2009), and its effect has also been recognized in the Turkish context for empowering youth’s positive outlook. Prison may have acted as a turning point for some juveniles by promoting a cognitive shift which transformed youth’s character in positive way and improved their job skills which in turn positively affected youth’s future goals. These mechanisms empowered an optimistic outlook of youth about their future which is also a precursor of desistance from crime. Therefore, incorporating symbolic interactionist perspective into life course theory helped to 185 understand cognitive shifts in youth which is important to understand desistance from and persistence in crime. This dissertation’s findings were also consistent with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. The family as a microsystem negatively affected youth’s crime and drug use trajectories due to low attachment, harsh discipline, and lack of supervision. Juveniles’ persistent truancy reflected the lack of interaction between families and teachers; such interaction is part of the mesosystem. Poverty strongly influenced juveniles’ trajectories, especially by disrupting educational trajectories, leading to family moves, or promoting delinquency. Juveniles had to live in bad neighborhoods or squatter areas, which in ecological systems theory constitute the macrosystem. Youth witnessed violence or drug use in those areas, and families could not monitor their children in those neighborhoods. In the broader macrosystem, juveniles were stigmatized by people in their neighborhoods, family members, and teachers and friends in school. The chronosystem focuses on transitions. Youth had different transitions in different trajectories. Sometimes one transition in one trajectory affected another trajectory. For example, parental beating in a youth’s trajectory of living with his family affected the education trajectory, because youth did not want to go to school with bruises and black eyes. Moreover, sometimes one transition created another trajectory. For example, the running away transition in living with the family created an independent living trajectory. Limitations Like all research, this dissertation has some limitations. Most of the juveniles (20) were from the Central Anatolian region. The juvenile prison was in Ankara; therefore, most of the juveniles were sent from cities in the Central Anatolian region or from adjacent cities. Juveniles 186 from in particular South Eastern Anatolian region and Eastern Anatolian regions were not equally present in this study. Therefore, I did not have balanced number of participants from different regions of Turkey. I hoped to select study participants randomly among juveniles who met the selection criteria. However, during the selection period, some juveniles were released or were on parole. Therefore, I had to include all 18-year-old juveniles who committed assault, robbery, and homicide along with four 19 years old juveniles who committed the same crimes. Since the study participants were not randomly selected and the sample size was 30, findings cannot be generalized to all convicted juveniles in Turkey. However, it is expected that all convicted juveniles would have common experiences such as poverty, drug use problems, delinquent friends, running away from home, and stigmatization. Thus, this study can provide some insights about the pathways which led juveniles into crime and drug use trajectories among other convicted juveniles from other regions of Turkey. Although generalizability is a main concern of qualitative studies, transferability of the study findings is the strength of this study. Transferability as applied to qualitative research refers to the usefulness of the study findings in other contexts. Yin (2003) described this concept as analytic generalization as opposed to statistical generalization which refers to making generalization to the theory of phenomenon that is studied. The purpose of this dissertation was to explore pathways and life course events of convicted juveniles which led them to prison. In doing this, I collected detailed information about the group of convicted juveniles so that I could determine whether findings were transferable. Suggesting some degree of transferability, many findings are context specific to Turkey, and others are consistent with the results of other research across different groups. 187 The interviews were recorded by note taking because tape-recording was prohibited due to regulations of the prison. Although interviewers were experienced people in note-taking and interviewing juveniles, the use of tape-recording would more accurately capture the youth’s comments. Despite these limitations, the current study made a significant contribution to the literature by furthering theoretical understanding of experiences of convicted Turkish juveniles which led them into crime and drug use. This study advanced Sampson and Laub’s life course theory because it was implemented in a non-Western country. It illustrated the effects of one Turkish family type, which was not disrupted but did not monitor their children; powerless mothers who could not exert supervision and discipline over their sons; the role of older males in juveniles’ lives; stigmatization in various contexts as well as benefiting from stigmatization in the school context; incorporating new symbolic interactionist perspective without considering transitional events; and lack of education attachment. This dissertation also produced findings about patterns involving similarities and differences among study participants. By including interviews with social workers, psychologists, and prison guardians, the study increased the credibility of the findings and interpretation. Moreover, comparison with other studies on juveniles in Turkey (Appendix F) showed both some similarities in findings, though consideration of prior research on Turkish youth has considered a very limited number of influences that empirical research has considered and the unique nature of the present study in considering multiple levels of influence. The study design did allow for identification of new ideas based not on prior theory, but on data analysis. For example, the influence of older males was not proposed in juveniles’ lives. However, narratives of youth revealed both negative and positive influence of older males. The 188 confirmation of prior theory as well as new explanations suggested by the data have potential implications for future research, and especially if strengthened by future research findings, have implications for policy. Implications Potential Policy Implications Turkey is a rapidly changing country in Eastern Europe. Its economy is very strong despite global crises. Now, Turkey has the 15th largest economy in the world and 6th largest economy in the Europe. Turkey is projected as having the fastest growing economy among the OECD countries between 2011 and 2017 with impressive average annual GDP growth rate of 6.5%. There is also a process of European Union membership, which is changing the country’s legal systems and promoting social changes (OECD, 2012). Therefore, this membership process helps Turkey to transform itself very fast in different ways such as economically, politically, and socially. These rapid changes promote implementation of different policies in the country. The present research suggests several policies that should be considered as part of the planned change. Juveniles suffered from lack of immediate response after their crimes. Disrupting youth’s achievement of non-criminal goals, the slow process of the justice system led to youth being convicted on old charges even after they desisted from crime. The initial leniency of the justice system limited their awareness of future consequences, and this lack of awareness promoted their continuity in criminal involvement. Juveniles in this sample recidivated many times and did not benefit from the lenient juvenile justice system. Some of them were charged even years later after they had forgotten their crimes. Further study of the relationship of juveniles’ perceived leniency about juvenile justice system to their illegal activity with random 189 samples of youth would shed light on how many youth are negatively affected by this problem. Specifically, a prospective longitudinal study of randomly selected first time offenders could be chosen as sample and they could be followed to see whether leniency is a widespread problem or not. Parental beating led juveniles to run away from home and engage in crime with their delinquent peers. Therefore, legal changes should be considered which will protect youth who are beaten by their parents. Although there is a law regarding the protection of children and women, it is not effective since youth are unlikely to report parents who they fear. A solution would be to establish hot lines for juveniles to directly call and report abuse at home. Alternatively, teachers could be legally required to report physical abuses to the police when they recognize it. Moreover, women in the study were also abused by the spouses. There should be interventions for youth and mothers who witnessed and were abused due to domestic violence. Child labor was prevalent in this study and it disrupted youth’s education trajectory. Consistent with the literature, Turkish parents in low socioeconomic families expected their children to work to supplement family income (Yağmurlu et al., 2009). This can be considered as cultural difference in expectations of Turkish parents. Children worked under unhealthy and unsafe conditions. They even worked illegally as cheap labor in constructions. Although there is a law banning child labor, it is not effectively implemented. Therefore, police, gendarme, and other officials should be trained to enforce the law effectively and to strictly control businesses. Drug treatment in Amatem facilities was not effective as evidenced by the narratives of youth. The media has extensively criticized the failure of these facilities. In the present study, youth either stayed in these facilities briefly or they were given numbing medications which 190 made youth unable to function. Although adolescents in the U.S. are rarely subject to pharmacological drug treatments (Vaughn & Howard, 2004), juveniles in Turkey were mostly given medications. Vaughn and Howard (2004) conducted a meta-analysis and examined the most effective adolescent substance use treatments. Among different interventions, those which included multidimensional family therapy (Liddle et al., 2001) and cognitive-behavioral group treatment (Kaminer & Burleson, 1999) were the most effective adolescent substance abuse treatments. In the current study, some families were not aware of their children’s drug use, some ignored it, and some beat their children for it. Therefore, controlled experiments to examine family interventions to address adolescent drug use would be very helpful in guiding Turkish policies and programs for youth. In the present study, it was found that the role of parenting is important because without supervision, reasonable discipline mechanisms, and attachment, parents cannot buffer their children from the effects of bad neighborhood conditions and delinquent peers. This study confirmed the importance of maintaining good family relationships to prevent juvenile delinquency. Effective family-oriented interventions such as Functional Family Therapy (Sexton & Alexander, 2000) or Parent Management Training (Kazdin, 2005) may have desirable outcomes for improving good parenting practices which in turn, improve parent-children relations and decrease youth’s exposure to delinquent peers. These would, of course, require adaptation and further evaluation to be transferred to settings in Turkey. In this dissertation, drug use empowered youth to commit crime and also increased their engaging in crime. Therefore, an interconnection of drug use and crime trajectories was prevalent. Implementation of juvenile drug court programs may be an efficient and effective crime control strategy. Drug court programs were first created in the United States in 1989 to 191 decrease drug-related crimes and targeted drug-involved offenders. Research found that participants of this program were less likely to recidivate especially for violent offenses. Moreover, it was a good alternative to incarceration (Nored & Carlan, 2008). It helped youth to “alter their drug-addicted lifestyles through intense supervision, feedback, treatment, and graduated sanctions and rewards for behavior (Polakowski et al., 2008, p. 1). It included comprehensive individual and family counseling. Therefore, drug courts may be appropriate in the Turkish context, where at least in the group I have studied, there is a need to increase supervision and control of juveniles. Drug courts would address the problem of juveniles feeling as though nothing will happen to them due to lack of response of the current juvenile justice system. However, drug courts have been criticized for not considering external influences such as peers’ substance abuse, lack of educational attachment, lack of supervision, or weak parental attachment (Gilmore, Rodriguez, & Webb, 2005) as observed in this study. Therefore, in order to have successful outcomes, these factors should be taken into account when implementing juvenile drug court programs. Giordano, Schroeder, and Cernkovich (2007) emphasized the importance of identity in adolescent development. As explained in Chapter 5, juveniles’ changes in their negative attitude towards their parents, positive attitudes towards their delinquent peers and increased control on their emotions promoted their having a positive outlook. Therefore, consideration should be given to the development and testing of interventions that promote identity reorientation. Giordano, Cernkovich, and Rudolph (2002) found that prison treatments and religious experiences in the prison were important catalysts for changes that offenders had made. Religion was also important in identity transformation in this dissertation. Since religion had an effect on identity transformation (Giordano, Longmore, Schroeder, & Seffrin, 2008; Maruna, Wilson, & 192 Curran, 2006) and religious changes were considered as important factors which could alter pathways of delinquency (Petts, 2009), faith-based interventions should be considered for prison and community corrections programs for youth. Because some of the juveniles regretted ignoring or not being taught about religion, faith based interventions may also target families so that “religion may amplify the effect of parenting practices on delinquency by adding greater meaning to these relationships” (Petts, 2009, p. 481). Moreover, religiously oriented programs in prisons were associated with fewer disciplinary problems among prisoners and it may strengthen conventional social ties by providing more prosocial contacts. Therefore, it may strengthen desistance from crime (Giordano, Longmore, Schroeder, & Seffrin, 2008). In this dissertation, although some of the youth moved into better neighborhoods, they returned to their bad neighborhoods and maintained their delinquent associations. Lending support to findings in the present research, the U.S. MTO experience revealed specific mechanisms which promoted juveniles’ returning to their previous bad neighborhoods. In both studies, for example, adolescents returned to their bad neighborhoods due to lack of friends in new neighborhood and hostile attitudes toward them. Therefore, when families move into low poverty neighborhoods, effective interventions may include youth organizations and clubs where youth can meet new friends. These kinds of stronger institutional resources can promote juvenile’s conventional lifestyles and may detach them from their delinquent peers. For example, the St. Louis experiment which attempted to involve adolescents in a prosocial peer groups successfully prevented delinquency (Feldman, Caplinger, & Wodarski, 1983). In the present study, education levels of juveniles were low and most of them dropped out or were expelled from school. Therefore, their education trajectory was disrupted and they did not have a high school diploma, which would be necessary to continue to college or to work in 193 jobs which require high school diploma. Therefore, juveniles should be encouraged to participate in distance education in the prison to earn a high school diploma; and community corrections settings should incorporate an educational component. Most of the juveniles lacked attachment to their schools. In Turkey, counselors were employed in schools starting in 2005. There are still many schools which do not have counselors, however. A school counselor’s presence in the school may create bonds between counselors and students, because students will get used to counselors and will not hesitate to trust his/her advice. Counselors can work with classroom teachers and design, implement, and assess interventions. They can figure out the risk factors for students in the school and they can implement interventions together. As Galassi and Akos (2004) stated, “the school counselor is a leader within the educational community who works with students, teachers, administrators, parents, and other members of the community to build a supportive learning environment that nurtures the development of academic, career, and personal/social competence among students and fosters an appreciation of diversity and a commitment to social justice” (p. 155). Counselors can work with classroom teachers because teachers can easily identify the youth most at risk for becoming delinquent. Moreover, school counselors should be trained to deal with students who are delinquent because Furlong et al. (1996) found that school counselors felt unprepared to deal with school violence or delinquent students. School can be another context where drug interventions can be implemented. In the United States, ALERT was a research-based intervention program which was implemented in schools and focused and targeted violent and problematic juveniles in the school. This program reduced drug use among those students (Cunningham & Henggeler, 2001). Moreover, there can be parent trainings in the schools which begin in the first grade that may promote effective 194 parenting such as setting limits and using appropriate discipline (Hawkins et al., 1987). In this dissertation, before they engaged in crime, juveniles had structured routines when they went to school. After school, or when they were truant, they hung out with their friends which promoted delinquency. Therefore, there needs to be after school programs for juveniles to supervise their involvement in constructive activities in order to prevent them from exposure to delinquent peers. After school programs may result in affiliations with convenient peers. Moreover, truancy was very prevalent among juveniles in this dissertation. Policy options to prevent truancy should be explored as a point of intervention; they may include sending letters to homes, calling parents, family visits, and referring truant juveniles to counselors in the school. Juveniles participated in job trainings in the prison. However, interviews with guardians showed that due to the limited number of different job trainings, sometimes youth participated in job training which they did not prefer. For youth who do become incarcerated, their level of engagement in training may be depend on the match between their interests and available training. Investment in these types of programs are yet another option that could be explored to improve post-incarceration outcomes. Mentoring programs and the use of street workers are prevalent in intervention and prevention programs for delinquents in the United States. The U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention encouraged implementation of the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP) to mentor at-risk youth through collaboration among educational institutions, medical service providers, recreation centers, and substance abuse treatment programs. The adult mentors assigned to each at-risk youth had higher education levels and work experience so they became positive role models for at-risk youth. This program had positive outcomes (Tierney, Baldwin, & Resch, 1995). However, in these kinds of mentoring programs, street workers should be selected 195 carefully for the success of the interventions. For example, Klein (1969) examined the effectiveness of an intervention program that employed street workers who targeted gang members in Los Angeles County. He criticized the use of street workers because they did not fulfill their objectives. Moreover, Johnson (2012) interviewed street workers of One Vision One Life (OVOL) community-based violence program which was implemented in Pittsburg. He found that street workers did not intervene in any violence and they were afraid to go to places where crime occurred. Therefore, it is important to identify effective street workers. In this dissertation, youth respected and obeyed older males in the study participants’ neighborhoods. They also had a positive influence on youth’s lives. Therefore, they could intervene into juveniles’ drug or crime trajectories in positive ways. Although their methods to stop youth from using drugs were violent, they may be directed into more acceptable ways to intervene. Another context for possible intervention can be the military. Every Turkish male must do his military service. Juveniles will have to go to military when they are released from the prison before they start a new life. Because all of the convicted juveniles have low education, they will have to serve in the military for 16 months as a private. This period can be used for interventions coordinated with Justice Department and Army. Future Research Implications This dissertation suggests directions for future research on the experiences of other juveniles who were arrested as well as those who are active offenders, but who have not been arrested. Knowledge from research on a variety of groups and on the several possible interventions noted above would inform strategies for intervention generalizable beyond the group studied for the present research. 196 Increasing the sample size of convicted juveniles from other regions of Turkey would make it possible to develop more comprehensive understanding of pathways leading crime for all delinquent juveniles. Research on comparative samples from different regions with actively delinquent but unapprehended, arrested, and convicted youth would reveal similarities or differences among juveniles from different regions. Moreover, interviews with families of delinquent juveniles should be included in studies which enable researchers to develop more comprehensive understanding of the context of juveniles. In this dissertation, I studied convicted juveniles who were convicted for assault, robbery, or homicide – the most prevalent offenses that youth committed. Therefore, I limited the offense types. Future research can be done on juveniles who committed different types of offenses, such as sex offenses or who only engaged in theft. The research used a retrospective longitudinal design; so, I could not follow the study participants. Therefore, I do not know whether they will recidivate or not and I will not know why they do or do not recidivate. Therefore, prospective longitudinal research designs should be used to enable researchers to understand the experiences of individuals in the different stages of their life courses. In addition experiences of delinquent and convicted females should be further studied. They may have similar or different experiences, trajectories, transitional events, or turning points which will contribute to a comprehensive understanding of juvenile delinquency. During the interviews, youth described peers who lived in the same squatter areas and neighborhoods where they lived, but who did not commit crime or did not use drugs. Therefore, qualitative studies should be conducted on those juveniles to understand how they did not engage in delinquency or drug use. 197 APPENDICES 198 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT (ENGLISH VERSION) Interview to be conducted with convicted youth in youth prison. The interview will be conducted in two separate parts. Part I of the Interview General Information The purpose of this study is to learn how some youth come to youth prisons. The goal of this interview is to end up with a history of your life. The person who is heading up this research is hoping that by understanding how up to 30 men came to be incarcerated it will be possible to recommend programs for men that in the future would improve their lives. I will ask you about different experiences you have had in your life. During the interviews, I will try to place things on what is called a Life Calendar so that it is clear what order things happened in. At some points, I will check back with you to be sure things are in the correct order. First, I would like to get some general information about you. Some of the questions will be about your life when you were in middle school and high school, and will ask you to describe any changes during these years. After the interview, I will try to arrange what you tell me on the Life Calendar, and then questions in the next interview will help me put things in the correct period of your life and in the correct order. To Understand Age-Graded Expectations Boys had First, I would like to get your ideas on the ages at which you think are ideal for a Turkish youth to complete school? To complete any training for work? To start contributing to the family income? To meet someone to marry? To marry? To make enough money to support themselves? To live apart from the family? Is this the timing you are following yourself? Why or why not? Is this the timing your parent(s) expect you to follow? Why or why not? CHILDHOOD AND FAMILY BACKGROUND FACTORS Where were you born? (Identify region of the city) Where have you lived at different ages? [Fill in the life calendar] Family Disruption For every place you lived that we noted in the life calendar, who lived in the household with you? How many brothers and sisters? One or both parents? Other people? Where did they live? If not with both parents, where was the out of home parent or parents living? Why brothers, sisters, and both parents not living together? Residential Mobility 199 For each time you moved, why did you or people you lived with move? Was the place you moved to better, the same, or worse than where you were living? In what way? How would people describe any of these places? Were they places that people do not want to reside in? Overcrowding In these different places, did you have a separate room for yourself? How about other people in the household? How many people shared your room? What were the different rooms in the house? Family SES For the different times up to right now, who worked in the household? What kind of work did they do? How steady was the work? How much education did each of the adults in the household have? Starting around age 12, was there a lack of money for necessities at home? Was there any shortage of good food in the household? Of money to get clothes? Or other needed things, like money to pay rent? How bad did things get? How did you deal with it? How did they affect you? Parents’ Criminality and Alcohol Drinking Have any household member ever done things that could get them in trouble with the police? What happened? What did they do? Did adults or older siblings in the household ever drink alcohol? For the time they drank the most, how did it affect them? How did they treat you? How did they treat each other? How often did they drink this much? Did your parents use drug? For the time they used drug, how did it affect them? How did they treat you? LIVING SITUATIONS and LIFE What was your typical daily schedule like before you had trouble with the police? What did you do each part of the day? Did this change as you got older? When and how? Were you responsible to take care of your siblings? If yes, how? If not why? Were there times when you were not living with one or more parents? Why was this so? What led up to your not living with a parent? Starting from the first time, how old were you at that time and how long did it last? Were there times when you did not have anywhere stable to live or were kicked out of your house, or were runaway? What happened to cause this? Starting with the first time, when were these periods of time? Where did you stay? Was it safe? If not, in what ways? Were there times in these years that things were going especially good for you? What was going well? When was that happening? Were there times when it felt like your life was really a struggle and things were really not going too well? What was going on? How did you deal with these stressful situations? Where 200 on the life calendar were these happening? Were there any times in your life when your basic needs for place to live, food, or clothing were not met? Now I am going to ask if several different things had an effect on this. Here is a page that lists each thing [Refer to last part of the interview]* RESIDENCY AND NEIGHBORHOOD Starting with the each of these places where you lived starting age 12 that you mentioned above, can you describe neighborhood(s) you grew up in? What were the places like? Were there things for kids your ages about 12 to do? What kinds of things? If not, what was doing for recreation and other things that kids like to do? If you could not get to things to do, how did you fill up your time? Were there any problems with crime, drugs, use of inhalants in the area, like that? What kinds of things? If yes, did you ever see these things going on or get hurt yourself? If yes, how you felt when it happened or what was going through your mind at that time? Did being in the neighborhood affect your getting into fights, being in a street group or being involved in illegal activities? How? In each of the places where you lived, were there supportive people to talk to? Who were they? What kinds of things could you talk about? SCHOOL Starting in the elementary school years, what are the different schools you have been in and about how many grades? Did you repeat any grades? If yes, which ones? Why? Have you ever been expelled or dropped out of school? How were you affected? When you left school for any reason did it have positive consequences? How? For each one of these schools, what was the atmosphere like in these schools? Did you feel safe? If no, why not? Did you feel like school was a good place to be? Why or why not? For each one of these schools, were there any problems with stealing, fighting, drugs, things like that? What kinds of things? If yes, how did these affect you? Did you get into fights or used drugs? How did you deal with these problems? What about bonds to teachers and school staff? Did you have the same classmates and teachers in each grade? Now I am going to ask if several different things had an effect on this. Here is a page that lists each thing [Refer to last part of the interview]* FAMILY and Family Attachment 201 Tell me about your family. How would you describe your relationship with your parents, your brother and sister, and other family members? Are you close to them? If not, in what ways do you not feel close to them? When that feeling of not feeling close start, or has it always been like that? Why did it start? Do you talk about your thoughts, feelings, and problems with your parents? What are the good parts about your relationship with your family? Are there any bad parts? What do adults at home when they are angry at each other? Do they ever just talk it over? Do they yell? Do they hit each other? Who hits whom? What is the worst injury? How often did this happen? What were the reasons for that? How did you deal with these situations? How did it affect you? Now I am going to ask if several different things had an effect on this. Here is a page that lists each thing [Refer to last part of the interview]* Family Discipline and Abuse What is the reason(s) to get punishment from your parents? How your father and mother punish you at home? Is there anyone else who punishes you at home? If they physically punish you, did you think that was Ok? Was that punishment fair? Did you get any physical injury from that? Did your relatives or parents ever do any of these sorts of things? Do your parents or relatives feel you were wortless, yell at you, call you names, criticize you all the time, tell you that you will not be a man? If yes, how? Who did this? When did it start and how long did it continue? Sometimes adults in a family, for example parents or other relatives or older siblings, encourage or force children or adolescents to have sex or do sexual touching or other sexual things with them. Did this ever happen to you? Did it have anything to do with how you were getting along with your parents, how you were doing in school, or other important things in your life? What? How about non-family? Family Supervision To what extent did your parents or adults keep track of what you were doing? For example, did someone always know where you were and who you were with? Who? How did they know what you were doing? Did they know the friends you hang around with? How did this change as you got older? Now I am going to ask if several different things had an effect on this. Here is a page that lists each thing [Refer to last part of the interview]* We have talked about a lot of things. Today, as a final question, I wonder if you could comment on the strengths you had or have now? Part II of the Interview 202 Here is the life calendar from your first interview with different places you were living, who you were living with, your family relations and school experience. [Interviewer and the participant will discuss the life calendar, and examine it together]. CRIMINAL HISTORY When did you first start doing things that might get you in trouble with the police? What did you do? What led up to your doing this? What was your reason for doing this? Looking at this life calendar, when were you doing different things that could get you in trouble with the police? How often? Did you do these things with friends, relatives, or alone? After you had trouble with the police, how did your parents react to this? How it affected your family life and their routines such as their discipline and monitoring practices? What was your typical daily schedule like during these times? What did you do each part of the day? Now I am going to ask if several different things had an effect on this. Here is a page that lists each thing [Refer to last part of the interview]* CUMULATIVE CONTINUITY Did you feel as if you were seen as a bad person or in some other negative way? How? Who saw you that way? What grade were you in when you first had trouble with the police? Did you go to court? What happened? How did contact with police or going to court affected your education? How it affected your relationships with your friends in the school, teachers, and school administration? If you were working, how did it affect your relationships in working place? Do you think it will affect your future employment opportunities? If you had negative experience due to that reaction, did that have anything to do with your breaking the law again? So, when you got in trouble with the police and the courts, did that make your life better in some ways? How? Did it make your life harder in some ways? How? Did experiences with the police and the courts and incarceration make you more or less likely to break the law again? How? Are there other events which makes you feel as if you were seen in a negative way or treated badly by others except for having trouble with the police? How did being arrested or in court or in a prison affect how you saw yourself? How do you see yourself now? PEERS/SIBLINGS What about friends that did not get in trouble or break the law? How would you describe how close you are to these groups? For the different ages, when you had free time (not working and not in school), how much time did you spend in your home, out with siblings, out with friends, or with a girlfriend? For times you hung out with friends, what were the people like? Were they elder? What did you 203 like to do when you were together? Did they ever do things that might get them into trouble with the police? If yes, what kinds of things? How old were you when you started hanging out with friends who were doing stuff like that? Did you change your friends who had trouble with the police? Or you kept the same friends? What was your role in your friends’ group? How much of your free time were you spending with your friends when you were out? Are you still in contact with any friends who did things that could get them in trouble with the police? Do you have friends here? Which friends will you probably spend time with when you get out? Why? How did having delinquent peers affect your connections to family and school? Now I am going to ask if several different things had an effect on this. Here is a page that lists each thing [Refer to last part of the interview]* DRUGS Was there a time when you used alcohol, drugs or something like inhalants? If yes, when did you first start and why? What was it? How long did you use drugs? Where did you find the money for them? Did you use it regularly? When did you stop using it? How and why? How drug use affected your life, your health, your family, school, work, and day-to-day activities? How much of a typical week did you see such negative effects, and for how long a period? What about during the other times in your life? Did your family recognize your drug use? What did they do? Did being in the neighborhood affect your getting into drugs? How? Now I am going to ask if several different things had an effect on this. Here is a page that lists each thing [Refer to last part of the interview]* WORK HISTORY Did you work for pay before entering prison? If no, why not? If yes, for each job, how old were you? What were you doing? How long at each job? Did you like the job? Did you like those you worked with? What did you do? How much did you earn? What were you doing with the money you earned? Why did you stop working? Did work make the life more meaningful? Did your family have to do anything with your working? Romantic Relationship Did you have a girlfriend? When? How old was this person? How long were you guys together? Did you break up? If yes, when? What was good about this relationship? Was there 204 anything not so good about your relationship? Did you ever emotionally or physically hurt this person? In what way? Did she ever emotionally or physically hurt you? How? RELIGION Some families are very religious and some are not affected much by religion in their day to day lives or their beliefs. How would you describe your family? How would you describe yourself? At different ages, how much time did you spend learning about Islam and practicing it? Did you go to mosque to learn Qur’an? How about now? TRANSITIONS When you look at your past and events that you recalled up to now, which events do you identify as transitions whether good or bad. Please explain. TURNING POINTS When you look at your past and events that you recalled up to now, at what points in your life did things change so you took a really different direction in life? Some people call these things turning points. Starting with the most important turning point what are the changes that occurred? And what caused them? At what age did it occur? How they affected your life? What changed in your life? HUMAN AGENCY Did you do things to try to make your life better for yourself or your family, or to change yourself for the better? What did you do? What happened? Do you have any regrets about the direction your life has taken? If yes, what are they? Explain. Is your religious belief plays a role in that regret? Did you do anything to cause the change? What was the role of your human agency, structural context, and routine activities when persistence in and desistance from crime? Identity as an important element of human agency How would you describe yourself to others? How would your friends describe you to others? How would your parent(s)/mother/father describe you to others? How would the police or prison officials describe you to others? FOR FUTURE How would you describe yourself at this time? Where do you see yourself in 5 years? Ten years? What are your dreams and goals for your future when you are released? What are they? 205 When you leave here, what is your plan for finding a stable job, getting married, having a safe place to live? What will help you do these things? What will make it difficult? Do you feel as if you are prepared and equipped for this? Do you think you are going to back to prison when you are released? If yes, what would it take to keep you from going back to prison? What, if anything, would bring you back to the prison? LAST QUESTION Do you have anything else that you want to say about your experiences that you think can help other boys? *Effects that will be asked at the end of some part of the interview [They will be listed in a separate page] Moving Parents not being together Parents had trouble with police Parents had drinking habits Parents had substance abuse Low family SES Family overcrowding Employment of mother Questions for Key Informants 1- What do you think about family’s lack of ttachment in promoting youth’s dcriminality? 2- What do you think about family’s beating in promoting youth’s dcriminality? 3- What do you think about family’s lack of supervision in promoting youth’s dcriminality? 4- What do you think about delinquent peers’ role in promoting youth’s dcriminality? 5- What is the role of drug use in youth’s life course? 6- What do you think about older males’role in promoting youth’s dcriminality? 7- Do youth have optimistic goals for their future when they are released from the prison? 8- What empowers youth in prison to have positive future plans? 9- Do youths’ families come to visit their sons frequenty? 206 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT (TURKISH VERSION) Bu mülakat cezaevınde bulunan hükümlü genc yetiskinlerle yapılacaktır ve iki bölümden oluşmaktadır. Mülakat Birinci Bölüm Genel Bilgiler Bu çalışmanın amacı gençlerin hapishanede bulunma nedenlerini öğrenmektir. Bu mülakatın amacı hayat hikayenizi öğrenmektir. Bu çalışmayı yürüten kişinin hedefi 30 erkek hükümlünün hapisheye geliş sebeplerini anlayarak gelecekte gençlerin hapse düşmelerini önleyecek programlar önermektir. Size hayatınızda yaşadığınız değişik tecrübeler hakkında sorular soracağım. Bu mülakatlar esnasında, ortaya çıkan olayları ‘Hayat Takvimi’ adı verilen bir tabloya yerleştireceğim. Böylelikle başınızdan geçen olayların sıralaması sağlanmış olacaktır. Mülakatın bazı bölümlerinde sizinle birlikte bu olayların sıralaması kontrol edilecektir. İlk olarak sizin hakkınızda genel bilgiler almak istiyorum. Bazı sorular sizin ilköğretim ve lise yıllarınızdaki hayatınıza ait olacak olup, bu yıllarda sizde meydana gelen değişiklikleri anlatmanız istenecektir. Mülakattan sonra, bana anlattığınız şeyleri hayat takviminde sıralamaya çalışacağım ve sonraki mulakattaki sorular hayatınızdaki olayların sıralamasını doğru bir şekilde düzenlememe yardımcı olacaklardır. Erkelerin Yaş Bazındaki Beklentileri İçin Mülakata başlamadan önce sizin şu konulardaki fikirlerinizi öğrenmek istiyorum. İdeal olarak bir Türk genci kaç yaşında okulu bitirmesi gerekir? Kaç yaşında çalışma için eğitimini bitirmesi gerekir? Kaç yaşında aile ekonomisine katkıda bulunmaya başlaması beklenir? Kaç yaşında evleneceği birisiyle tanışması beklenir? Kaç yaşında evlenmesi beklenir? Kaç yaşında kendi kendilerini idare etmeleri beklenir? Kaç yaşında evden ayrı yaşamaları beklenir: Bu zamanlamalar sizin kendi takip ettiğiniz bir zamanlamamı? Neden? Neden değil? Bu zamanlamalar ailenizin sizden takip etmenizi beklediği bir zamanlamamı? Neden? Neden değil? ÇOCUKLUK VE AİLE FAKTÖRLERİ Nerede doğdunuz? Nerelerde yaşadınız ve kaç yaşlarındaydınız bu yerlerde? (Hayat Takvimini doldurun) Aile Parçalanması Yukarıda belirtmiş olduğunuz her değişik yerde, evde kimlerle birlikte yaşadınız? Kaç kızkardeş ve erkek kardeşiniz vardı? Anne-babanız her ikisi de evdemiydi? Başka insanlar varmıydı? Eğer anne-babanız ile birlikte yaşamadıysanız bu yerlerde, evde olmayan anne veya babanız nerelerde yaşıyordu? Neden kardeşleriniz ve anne-babanız birlikte yaşamıyorlardı? Göç ve Taşınma Her taşındığınızdaö neden siz ve beraber olduğunuz kişiler taşındılar? 207 Taşındığınız yerler önceki yaşadığınız yerlerle karşılaştırıldığında daha mı iyiydi, kötüydü, yoksa aynımıydı? Hangi yönlerle? İnsanlar genel olarak yaşadığınız bu değişik yerleri nasıl tanımlarlar? Bu yerlerde kalmak isterlermiydi? Aile Kalabalıklılığı Yaşadığınız bu değişik yerlerde kendinize ait bir odanız varmıydı? Evde kalan diğer kişiler nerede kalıyorlardı? Kaç kişi aynı odayı paylaştı?Evde kaç değişik oda vardı? Aile ekonomik durum Şimdiye kadar geçen zamandaö evde kim(ler) çalıştı? Ne tür işlerde çalıştılar? Ne kadar kalıcı işlerdi bunlar? Evdeki her yetişkinin eğitim düzeyi ne idi? 12 yaşından başlayarak, evde gerekli şeyler için para sıkıntısı yaşandı mı? Evde yiyecek eksiği, kıyafet için para olmaması veya kira için para bulunamaması gibi parasal sıkıntılar yaşandı mı? Bu ieyler ne kadar köt,ye gitti? Bunlarla nasıl başa çıktınız? Bunlar sizi nasıl etkiledi? Ailenin Suçluluğu/Alkol Alışkanlığı/Uyuşturucu Kullanımı Evdeki herhangi birinin polisle başı belaya girdi mi? Ne oldu? Ne yaptılar? Anne-babanız veya büyük kardeşleriniz evde hiç içki içtiler mi? Çok içtiklerinde bu onları nasıl etkiledi? Size nasıl davrandılar? Butür içmeyi hangi sıklıkla yaptılar? Ailede uyuşturucu veya tıner vs. kullanan var mı? Eğer kullandılarsa bu onları nasıl etkiledi? Size nasıl davrandılar? HAYAT ŞARTLARI Polisle sorun yaşamadan önce, günlük rutin işleriniz nelerdi? Günün her kısmında neler yapardınız? Bu durum yaşınız ilerledğinde değiştimi? Nezaman ve nasıl? Kardeşlerinize bakmakla sorumluymuyduz? Evetse, nasıl? Değil ise neden? Anne babanızın her ikisiyle veya bir tanesiyle birlikte yaşamadığınız zamanlar varmıydı? Neden oldu? Anne-babanızla birlıkte yaşamamaya sebep olan ne idi? En baştan başlayarak bu durumlarda kaç yaşlarındaydınız ve bu durum ne kadar sürdü? Hayatınızda sürekli kalacağınız bir yerlerin olmadığı zamanlar, evden atıldığınız zamanlar, veya evden kaçtığınız zamanlar oldu mu? Bunlara ne sebep oldu? En baştan başlayarak hayatınızın hangi dönemlerinde oldu? Bu durumlarda nerelerde kaldınız? Kaldığınız yerler güvenli miydi? Eğer değildiyse, hangi sebeplerden dolayı güvenli değildi? Bu süreçte özellikle sizin için yolunda giden şeyler oldumu? Ne yolunda gitmişti? Güzel şeyler olarak neler oluyordu? Ne zaman oluyordu? Hayatınızda işlerin gerçektende kötü gittiği ve zorluklar yaşadığınız zamanlar oldu mu? Neler oluyordu? Bu durumlarla nasıl başa çıktınız? Hayat takvımınızde bunlar nerelerde oluyordu? Hayatınızda yemek kıyafet, yaşanacak yer gibi temel ihtiyaçlarınızın karşılanamadığı zamanlar oldumu? Şimdi bu anlattığınız durumların size sırasıyla okuyacağım şeylerle nasıl bir ilgisi olduğunu anlatırmısınız?* MAHALLE VE ÇEVRE Yukarıda bahsettiğiniz 12 yaşından itibaren yaşamış olduğunuz değişik yerlerden başlayarak, büyüdüğünüz çevre ve mahalleyi anlatırmısınız? Ne tür yerlerdi? 12 yaşında çocukların oynayacağı türden parklar varmıydı? Ne tür şeyler vardı çocuklar için? Eğer yoksa, siz ve diğer çocuklar eğlence olarak ne yaparlardı? Zamanlarını nasıl doldururlardı? 208 Bu yerlerde suç, uyuşturucu, veya tiner-bali kullanımı gibi problemler varmıydı? Evet ise, bü tür şeylere şahit oldunuz mu? Kendinize zarar verdiniz mi? Evet ise, olduğunda kendinizi nasıl hissettiniz? Aklınızdan neler geçiyordu? Bulunmuş olduğunuz çevre ve mahallenin kavgalara karışmanıza, sokak çetelerine katılmanıza, veya illegal işlere bulaşmanıza bir etkisi oldu mu? Evet ise, nasıl? Yaşadığınız bu her değişik yerde, konuştuğunuz ve size yardımcı olan insanlar varmıydı? Kimlerdi? Ne tür şeylerden konuşurdunuz? OKUL İlkokul yıllarından başlarsak, kaç değişik okulda okudunuz? Kaçıncı sınıfa kadar okudunuz? Hiç sınıfta kaldınız mı? Evetse, kaçıncı sınıf? Neden? Okuduğunuz her okulda nasıl bir atmosfer vardı? Kendinizi güvende hissettiniz mi? Hayır ise, neden? Okulun bulunulması gereken iyi bir yer olduğunu hissettiniz mi? Neden ve neden değil? Okuduğunuz okullarda hırsızlık, kavga, uyuşturucu gibi sorunlar varmıydı? Ne gibi şeyler vardı? Varsa, bu sizi nasıl etkiledi? Kavgalara karıştınız mı ve uyuşturucu kullandınız mı? Bu problemlerle nasıl başa çıktınız? Okulda öğretmenleriniz ve okul yönetimiyle olan ilişkileriniz nasıldı? Onlarla aranızda herhangi bir bağ varmıydı? Okula giderken bir sonraki sınıfa geçtiğinizde sınıfınızdaki öğrenciler ve öğretmenleriniz değişirmiydi? Şimdi bu anlattığınız durumların size sırasıyla okuyacağım şeylerle nasıl bir ilgisi olduğunu anlatırmısınız?* AİLE VE AİLE BAĞLILIĞI Bana ailenizden bahsedermisiniz? Anne ve babanızla, kardeslerinizle, ve diğer aile fertleriyle nasıl bir ilişkiniz vardı anlatırmısınız? Onlara yakınmıydınız? Değil ise, hangi yönlerden kendinizi onlara yakın hissetmediniz? Bu kendinizi yakın hissetmeme nezaman başladı veya bu herzaman böylemiydi? Neden başladı? Düşünceleriniz, hisleriniz ve problemlerinizi ailenizle konuşurmusunuz? Ailenizle olan ilişkinizde iyi yönler nelerdir? İlişinizin kötü yanları da var mı? Anne babanız birbirine kızgın olduklarında ne yaparlar? Sadece konuşarak geçiştirirler mi? Birbirlerine bağırırlar mı? Birbirlerine vururlar mı? Kim kime vurur? Bu durumda kim en kötü şekilde zarar görür? Bu ne sıklıkla olur? Bunun sebepleri genelde nelerdir? Bu durumlarla nasıl başa çıkarsınız? Bu sizi nasıl etkiler? Şimdi bu anlattığınız durumların size sırasıyla okuyacağım şeylerle nasıl bir ilgisi olduğunu anlatırmısınız?* Aile Disiplini ve Dayak Anne babanız tarafından cezalandırılmanızın sebepleri nelerdir? Anne ve babanız sizi nasıl cezalandırır? Evde size ceza veren başka birileri de var mı? Eğer size dayak atarak cezalandırırlarsa bu sizin için normal mi? Bu ceza biçimi adil bir yöntem mi yaptığınız şey karşılığında? Bunun sonucunda herhangibir zarar gördünüz mü? Akrabalarınız da bu tür şeyler yaparlar mı? Aileniz ve akrabalarınız sizin değersiz olduğunuzu düşünürlermi veya bunu size hissettirirler mi? Nasıl? Size bağırırlar mı? Size lakap takarlar mı? Sizi sürekli eleştirirler mi? Size adam olmayacağınızı söylerler mi? Bu tür şeyleri nasıl yaparlar? Bunları kim daha çok yapar? Bu nezaman başladı ve ne kadar sürdü? Bazen evin 209 içindeki anne-baba veya akraba gibi yetişkinler çocukları cinsel olarak taciz edebilirler (örneğin dokunarak). Bu tür şeyler başınıza hiç geldi mi? Evet ise, bu durum anne babanızla olan ilişkilerinizde, okul hayatınızda, veya hayatınızın diğer önemli yerlerinde nasıl bir etkisi oldu? Aile dışında bu tür şeylere maruz kaldınız mı? Aile Kontrolü Anne babanız veya evdeki diğer yetişkinler ne ölçüde yaptığınız şeyleri takip/kontrol ederlerdi? Örneğin, ailenizde herzaman mutlaka birisi nerede ve kimle olduğunuzu bilir miydi? Bu kimdir? Sizin neler yaptığınızı nasıl bilirlerdi? Beraber olduğunuz arkadaşlarınızı bilirler miydi? Bu durum büyüdüğünüzde nasıl değişti? Şimdi bu anlattığınız durumların size sırasıyla okuyacağım şeylerle nasıl bir ilgisi olduğunu anlatırmısınız?* Birçok konu hakkında konuştuk. Bugünkü son soru olarak bana şimdiye kadarki ve şimdiki güçlü yönlerinden bahsedermisin? Mülakat İkinci Bölüm Bu size göstermiş olduğum geçen mülakatta anlatmış olduğunuz yaşadığınız yerler, aile ilişkileriniz ve okul hayatınız ile ilgili hazırlanmış hayat takvimidir. (Mülakatçı ve katılımcı hayat takvimini birlikte kontrol edeceklerdir). SUÇ GEÇMİŞİ Polisle ilk nezaman başınız derde girdi? Ne yapmıştınız? Buna ne sebep olmuştu? Hayat takviminize bakıldığında nezaman bü tür sorunlar yaşadınız? Ne sıklıkla? Bu tür şeyleri arkadaşlarınızla, akrabalarınızla, veya tek başınıza mı yaptınız? Suç işledikten sonra, aileniz buna nasıl bir tepki gösterdi? Bu sizin aile yaşantınızı ve onların disiplin ve kontrol mekanızmalarını nasıl etkiledi? Suç işledikten sonra günlük yaşantınız değişti mi? Nasıl? Gününüzü nasıl geçiriyordunuz? Şimdi bu anlattığınız durumların size sırasıyla okuyacağım şeylerle nasıl bir ilgisi olduğunu anlatırmısınız?* ARTAN DEZAVANTAJLAR Kendinizi kötü bir insan olarak görüldüğünüz hissettiğiniz oldumu? Nasıl? Kim tarafından? İlk suç işlediğinizde kaçıncı sınıfa gidiyordunuz? Bu durum eğitiminizi nasıl etkiledi? Bu durum okuldaki arkadaşlarınızla, öğretmenlerinizle, ve okul yönetimiyle olan ilişkinizi nasıl etkiledi? Eğer bu zamanda çalışıyor idiyseniz, iş yerindeki insanlarla ilşkinizi nasıl etkiledi? Bu durumun gelecekteki iş fırsatlarını olumsuz etkileyeceğini düşünüyormusunuz? Eğer suç işlemenizden dolayı olumsuz tepkiler aldıysanız, bu olumsuz tepkilerden dolayı suç işlemeye devam ettiğiniz oldumu? Suç işlemeniz hayatınızı iyi bir şekilde etkiledi mi? Nasıl? Yoksa dahamı zorlaştırdı? Hapishane tecrübeniz, mahkeme veya polisle yaşadığınız tecrübeleriniz sizin daha çokmu yoksa daha azmı tekrar suç işlemenize etkisi oldu? Nasıl? Suç işlemenizin dışında kendinizi toplum tarafından dışlanmış hissettiren başka şeyler varmıydı? Kendinizi şuan nasıl görüyorsunuz? Bunda tutuklanmanın ve hapishanede olmanın etkisi nelerdir? 210 ARKADAŞ/KARDEŞ Suç işlemeyen arkadaşlarınız oldu mu? Onlarla aranız nasıldı? Bu arkadaş grubuna olan yakınlığınızı anlatırmısınız? 12 yaşından başlayarak, boş zamanlarınızda (okulda veya çalışıyorsanız işte olmadığınız zamanlarda) evde, dışarıda kardeşlerinizle, arkadaşlarınızla, veya kızarkadaşınızla ne kadar vakit geçiriyordunuz? Birlikte olduğunuz arkadaşlarınız nasıl kimselerdi? Sizden daha mı büyüklerdi? Arkadaşlarınızla birlikteyken neleri yapmaktan hoşlanırdınız? Arkadaşlarınız hiç polisle sorun yaçayacakları şeyler yaptılar mı? Eğer yaptılarsa, ne tür şeylerdi bunlar? Bu tür şeyler yapan arkadaşlarla kaç yaşındayken birlikte olmaya başladınız? Bu tür arkadaşlarınızı hiç değiştirdiniz mi? Nasıl? Veya aynı arkadaşlarla devam mı ettiniz? Arkadaş grubunuzdaki konumunuz ne idi. O arkadaş grubunda olmanın suç işleme açısından sizin üzerinizde nasıl bir etkisi vardı? Arkadaş grubu içerisinde bir hiyerarşik yapı varmıydı? Kendinizi bu arkadaş grubu içerisinde göstermek için birşeyler yapmak zorundamıydınız? Kurallarınız varmıydı? Bu tür arkadaşlarınızla hala irtibatınız var mı? Nasıl? Bunun dışında kalan arkaşalarınız oldu mu (suç işlemeyen). Hangi tür arkadaşlarınıza kendinizi daha yaın hissediyorsunuz? Burada arkadaşlarınız var mı? Buradan çıktığınızda hangi tür arkadaşlarınızla vakit geçirmeyi tercih edeceksiniz? Neden? Kötü arkadaş çevreniz aile bağlarınızı ve eğitiminizi nasıl etkiledi? Şimdi bu anlattığınız durumların size sırasıyla okuyacağım şeylerle nasıl bir ilgisi olduğunu anlatırmısınız?* UYUŞTURUCU/TİNER KULLANIMI Hayatınızda hiç uyuşturucu, hap, tiner veya alkol kullandınız mı? Evet ise, nezaman ve neden başladınız? Ne kullandınız? Ne kadar süre kullandınız? Düzenli olarak kullandınız mı? Parayı nasıl temin ediyordunuz? Ne zaman kullanmayı bıraktınız? Nasıl ve neden? Bu tür şeyleri kullanmanız sağlığınızı, hayatınızı, ailenizi, eğitiminizi, işinizi, ve günlük aktivitelerinizi nasıl etkiledi? Bunun olumsuz etkilerini bir haftanın ne kadar süresinde gördünüz? Aileniz bu tür şeyleri kulandığınızın farkındamıydı? Ne yaptılar? İçinde bulunduğunuz çevrenin bu tür şeyleri kullanmanızda ettkisi varmıydı? Nasıl? Şimdi bu anlattığınız durumların size sırasıyla okuyacağım şeylerle nasıl bir ilgisi olduğunu anlatırmısınız?* İŞ GEÇMİŞİ Hapse girmeden önce hiç ücretli olarak çalıştınız mı? Hayır ise, neden çalışmadınız? Evet ise, her çalıştığınız işte kaç yaşındaydınız? Ne yapıyordunuz bu işlerde? Ne kadar süre çalıştınız bu her işte? Çalışmış olduğunuz işi ne kadar sevdiniz? İşyerinizde çalışan kişileri sevdiniz mi? Ne kadar kazandınız? Kazandığınız parayla ne yaptınız? Neden çalışmayı bıraktınız? Çalışmak hayatınızı daha anlamlı bir hale getirdimi? Ailenizin çalışmanızda herhangi bir etkisi/baskısı oldu mu? Nasıl? KIZARKADAŞ Hiç kızarkadaşın oldu mu? Ne zaman? Bu kız kaç yaşındaydı? Ne kadar zamandır birlikteydiniz? Ayrıldınız mı? Evet ise, ne zaman ve neden? Bu ilişkinizde iyi olan şey ne idi? Kötü olan şeyler varmıydı bu ilişkinizde? Duygusal veya fiziksel olarak kız arkadaşınıza zarar verdiniz mi? Nasıl? Kız arkadaşınız size duygusal veya fiziksel olarak zarar verdimi? Nasıl? 211 DİN Bazı aileler günlük hayatlarında ve inançlarında dini hassasiyetleri çok olurken bazı aileler bu konuda hassas olmayabiliyor. Ailenizi bu açıdan nasıl tasvir edersiniz? Kendinizi nasıl tasvir edersiniz? Ailenizin bu konularda sizin üzerinizde bir etkisi oldu mu? Nasıl? 12 yaşından başlayarak, dininizi öğrenme adına birşeyler yaptınız mı? Namaz kılarmısınız? Kur’an okumayı biliyormusunuz? Nasıl öğrendiniz? Şuan ki durumunuz nasıl bu konularda? DÖNÜM NOKTALARI Geçmişinize ve şu ana kadarki hatırladığınız şeylere baktığınızda, hayatınızın hangi dönemlerinde bazı şeyler hayatınızı tamamen değişik bir yönde etkiledi? Bazı insanlar bunu hayatta dönüm noktaları olarak adlandırıyor ve olumlu ve olumsuz olabiliyor. En önemli dönüm noktasından başlayarak, hayatınızda nasıl değişikliklere yol açtı bu dönüm noktaları? Bu dönüm noktalarına neler sebep oldu? Hangi yaşlarda oldu bu dönüm noktaları? İRADE Hayatınızı veya ailenizin hayatını daha iyi bir hale getirmek için birşeyler yaptınız mı? Veya kendinizi daha iyi bir hale getirmek için birşeyler yaptınız mı? Neler yaptınız? Neler oldu sonuçta? Hayatınızın gidişatı konusunda hiç pişmanlık yaşadınız mı? Evet ise, bunlar nelerdi? Lütfen açıklayın. Dini duygularınız bu pişmanlıkta bir rol oynadı mı? Değişim için herhangibir şey yaptınız mı? İradenin Önemli bir unsuru olarak Kimlik Kendinizi başkalarına nasıl tarif edersiniz? Arkadaşlarınız sizi başkalarına nasıl tarif ederler? Anne babanız sizi başkalarına nasıl tarif ederler? Polis veya cezaevi görevlileri sizi başkalarına nasıl tarif ederler? GELECEK Şuanda kendinizi nasıl tasvir edersiniz? Gelecek 5 ve 10 yılda kendinizi nerede görüyorsunuz? Buradan çıktıktan sonraki hayalleriniz ve hedefleriniz nelerdir? Buradan çıktıktan sonra düzenli bir iş bulmak, evlenmek, ve düzenli bir hayat yaşamak için planlarınız neler? Bunları gerçekleştırmenize ne ler yardım edecek? Neler zorlaştıracak? Bunun için kendinizi hazır hissediyormusunuz? Buradan çıktıktan sonra tekrar hapse geri döneceğinizi düşünüyormusunuz? Evet ise, sizi buradan uzak tutacak şeyler neler olabilir? Sizi buraya tekrar döndürecek şeyler neler olabilir? SON SORU Bu konuda sizin durumunuza düşmemiş insanlara faydası olacağını düşündüğünüz başka söyleyeceğiniz şeyler var mı? *Mülakatın bazı yerlerinde sorulacaktır. (Başka bir kağıtta listeleneceklerdir) Taşınma/Göç Anne babanın birlikte olmaması Anne Babanın Suçluluğu 212 Anne Babanın Alkol Kullanımı Anne Babanın Uyuşturucu vb. Şeyler Kullanımı Ailenin zayıf ekonomik durumu Ailenin kalabalık olması Annenin Çalışması Questions for Key Informants (Turkish Version) 1- Aile bağlarının zayıf olmasının cocukların suç işlemesine olan etkisi nelerdir? 2- Çocuğun aile içerisinde maruz kaldığı fiziksel şiddetin cocukların suç işlemesine olan etkisi nelerdir? 3- Aile denetim ve kontrolünün zayıf olası veya hiç olmamasının cocukların suç işlemesine olan etkisi nelerdir? 4- Suç işleyen arkadaşlarla birlikte olmanın cocukların suç işlemesine olan etkisi nelerdir? 5- Uyuşturucu kullanımının çocukların hayatına olan etkisi nelerdir? 6- Çocukların birlikte olduğu genç yetişkinlerin cocukların suç işlemesine olan etkisi nelerdir? 7- Çocuklar hapisten çıkınca gelecekleri için olumlu hedefleri var mı? 8- Eğer varsa bu olumlu hedefleri güdüleyen faktörler nelerdir? 9- Çocukların aileleri onları hapiste sürekli ziyaret ediyor mu? 213 APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM FOR JUVENILES (ENGLISH VERSION) Qualitative Study of Exploring Pathways to Youth Incarceration in Turkey Research Participant Information and Consent Form FOR CONVICTED YOUTH You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. Study Title: Qualitative Study of Exploring Pathways of Convicted Youth, which lead them into Youth Prison Researcher and Title: Serkan Tasgin (Graduate Student) Merry Morash (Supervising Professor) Department and Institution: School of Criminal Justice Address and Contact Information for Merry Morash: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan. 001517-432-9235. morashm@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: You are being asked to participate in a research study to understand how youth end up convicted and in a youth prison. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because a person in the institution’s administration indicated that after checking with you, you agreed to hear about the study and be invited to take part. From this study, the researchers hope to understand what things in either childhood or adolescence may result in youth getting in trouble with the law and being sent to an institution. In the entire study, 30 convicted youth are being asked to participate. Your participation in the study will take from two hours to four hours, and can be spread over one to two different interviews. 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO: The study involves one to two interviews, and you will be asked to give permission for the interviewer to write your answers down. By filling out a form with a mailing or email address, it will be possible for you to receive a summary of study findings about some of the things that seem to influence youth to get in trouble with the law or to be sent to youth prison. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study may contribute to the understanding the positive and negative experiences that youth have growing up. 214 4. POTENTIAL RISKS: The potential risk of participating in this study are that in answering the questions, you may recall and think about some upsetting times during your childhood and adolescence, and this can make you feel distress or discomfort. You will be asked about involvement in illegal activity during your adolescence and your relationship with your family, school, and peers. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Information in this project will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your name will not be with the data, and there will be no way to connect your name and the answers you give. A separate list of names will be kept in the primary interviewer’s locked file cabinet until all of the interviews are complete, so that no person is contacted or interviewed twice. After the interviews are complete which will be within six months or less, then that list will be destroyed. There will be no way to connect your answers to your name. Only the primary interviewer will see the list of names. The data for this project will be on password-protected computers in the office of another person who does research in the U.S.A. This office is at Michigan State University, and is locked when it is not in use. People with access to the data are the person who is heading up the research and members of what is called the Institutional Review Board, which are people responsible for making sure that the rights of human subjects are protected in research projects. The results of this study will be used in a doctoral study. Then, it may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain anonymous. 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. Choosing not to participate or withdrawing from the study will not make any difference in the quality of any services you receive, and whether you participate will not be told to anyone in the Justice System or any program, including anyone in the youth prison. If you decide not to participate but do not want people who work here to know, you can remain with the interviewer for a period of time that an interview could be completed. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY For the complete interview, you will receive $20 value handcraft set. You will receive this set at the completion of the interview. 8. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, and if you want to receive a summary of study findings about some of the things that seem to influence youth to get in trouble with the law or to be sent to youth prison please contact the professor supervising this research, Merry Morash, at Baker Hall, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 48824. The phone number is 001-517-432-9235. The email address is morashm@msu.edu. 215 If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 001-517-355-2180, Fax 001-517-432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 48824. 9. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT A. Please mark X below means that you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate in this study research study. Mark Here__________________ Date______________________ CONSENT FORM FOR KEY INFORMANTS (ENGLISH VERSION) Research Participant Information and Consent Form 1. EXPLANATION OF THE RESEARCH and WHAT YOU WILL DO: You are being asked to participate in a research study to understand how youth end up convicted and in a youth prison. The purpose of the research is to understand what things in either childhood or adolescence may result in youth getting in trouble with the law and being sent to an institution. This study is being conducted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD in Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. The purpose of interviews with professionals knowledgeable of this youth is to obtain second source of data to improve validity of findings and interpretations. About five professionals knowledgeable about convicted youth are being recruited to participate in this study. As a participant in this study, you will be asked about what youth experienced in their lives before they entered prison. The interview will occur in spring of 2012, and will take about half an hour and will be scheduled for a time that is convenient for you. 2. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time without penalty. 3. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY You will not be compensated for participation in the study. 4. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS If you have concerns or questions about this study, please feel free to contact the researcher (Serkan Tasgin, 560 Baker Hall, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mi, 48824, 001-517- 402-9311. tasginse@msu.edu.) You may also contact professor supervising this research, Merry Morash, at Baker Hall, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 48824. The phone number is 001-517432-9235. The email address is morashm@msu.edu. 216 If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 001-517-355-2180, Fax 001-517-432-4503, or email irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 48824. 5. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. Please sign__________________________________ 217 Date__________________________ APPENDIX D CONSENT FORM FOR JUVENILES (TURKISH VERSION) TÜRKİYE’DE GENC YETİSKİNLERİN HAPSE GİRMELERİNE NEDEN OLAN YOLLARIN KALİTATİF OLARAK İNCELENMESİ Araştırmaya Katılım ve Rıza Formu HÜKÜMLÜ GENC YETİSKINLER İÇİN Bu araştırma projesine katılmanız istenmektedir. Araştırmacılar size çalışma hakkında bilgi vermek, bu çalışmaya katılımın gönüllülük esasına göre olduğunu bildirmek; katılımın muhtemel yararları ve zararlarını belirtmek ve sizi bu konuda sağlıklı bir karar vermenizi sağlamakla yükümlülerdir. Araştırmacılara istediğiniz soruyu sormakta kendinizi rahat hissetmelisiniz. Çalışma Konusu: Türkiye’de Hükümlü Genc Yetiskinlerin Hapse Girmelerine Neden olan Yolların Kalitatif Yöntemle Araştırılması Araştırmacı ve Ünvanı: Serkan TAŞĞIN (Doktora Öğrencisi) Merry Morash (Çalışmaya Nezaret Eden Profesör) Kurumu ve Departmanı: Ceza Adalet Bölümü/Michigan State Üniversitesi Merry Morash’ın Adres ve İletişim Bilgileri: School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, USA, 001517-432-9235. morashm@msu.edu 1. ÇALIŞMANIN AMACI: Türkiye’de genc yetiskinlerin neden ve nasıl hapse girdiklerini anlamayı amaçlayan bu araştırma projesine katılmanız istenmektedir. Bu çalışma için tasarlanan katılımcılardan birisi olabilirsiniz, çünkü hapishane yönetimi sizinle görüştükten sonra bu çalışmaya katılmayı kabul ettiğinizi belirtmişti. Bu çalışmayla amaçlanan şey, çocukluk veya adolasan dönemlerinde nelerin suç işlemeye ve hapse düşmeye neden olduğunu anlamaya çalışmaktır. Çalışmanın tamamında 30 hükümlü genc yetiskinlerin katılımı istenmektedir. Sizin bu çalışmaya katılma süreniz iki saatten dört saate kadar planlanmakta olup bu süre bir veya iki mulakat yapılması planlanmaktadır. 2. NE YAPACAKSINIZ: Bu calışma bir veya iki mülakattan oluşacaktır. Mulakat yapanlara cevaplarınızı yazma iznini vermeniz gerekmektedir. İletişim adresi veya email adresi vermeniz durumunda, çalışmanın bulgularını özet olarak alabileceksiniz. 3. MUHTEMEL YARARLAR: Bu çalışmaya katılmakla direk olarak bir fayda görmeyeceksiniz. Fakat, bu çalışmaya katılarak katkıda bulunmanız gençlerin olumlu ve olumsuz deneyimlerini anlamaya yarar sağlayacaktır. 218 Bu çalışmaya katılamanız veya katılmamanız, ve mülakat sırasında söyleyeceğiniz herhangi bir şey hapishanede size karşı olan tutum ve davranışlarda veya sizin varsa belli bir tarihte şartlı tahliye olmanıza veya olmamanıza fayda sağlamayacaktır. 4. MUHTEMEL RİSKLER Bu çalışmaya katılmanızdaki muhtemel riskler sorulara cevap verirken çocukluk ve adolasan dönemlerinizdeki sizi rahatsız edecek şeyleri hatırladığınızda, bundan dolayı kendinizi stresli veya rahat hissetmeme ihtimalidir. Bu dönemlerdeki işlediğiniz suçlar, aile, okul, ve arkadaş ilişkileriniz hakkında sorular sorulacaktır. 5. GİZLİLİK ve KİŞİSEL BİLGİLERİN KORUNMASI: Bu çalışmada elde edilecek bilgilerin gizliliği en üst seviyede korunacaktır. İsminiz hiçbir şekilde veriler içinde yer almayacak ve vereceğiniz cevaplarla isminizi hiçbir şekilde bir araya getirmek mümkün olmayacaktır. İsimleriniz mülakat yapan kişilerin kitli dolaplarında mülakatlar bitene kadar tutulacaktır. Böylelikle aynı kişi ile mülakat yapılması çnlenmiş olacaktır. Mülakatlar bittikten sonra bu isim listesi yok edilecektir. Verdiğiniz bilgilerin size ait olduğu hiçbir şekilde mümkün olamayacaktır. Elde edilen veriler, bu araştırmayı yapan kişinin Amerika’daki ofisinde bulunan şifre korumalı bilgisayarında tutulacaktır. Bu ofis Michigan State Üniversitesindedir ve kullanımda olmadığı zamanlar kitli bulunmaktadır. Bu veriye ulaşabilecek kişiler bu çalışmayı yürüten kişi ve üniversite etik kurulu üyeleridir. Etik kurulu üyelerinin görevi araştırmalarda yer alan insanların haklarını güvenceye almaktır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları doktora çalışmasında kullanılacaktır. Sonrasında makale olarak yayımlanabilir veya konferanslarda sunulabilir. Fakat hiçbir şekilde çalışmaya katılanların isimleri gizli tutulacaktır. 6. KATILMA, HAYIR DEME, VE ÇEKİLME HAKKINIZ Bu çalışmaya katılım tamamiyle gönüllülük esasına göredir. Dolayısıyla hayır deme hakkınız vardır. Herhangibir zamanda fikrinizi değiştirebilir ve vazgeçebilirsiniz. Belli sorulara cevap vermeyebilirsiniz yada katılımdan vazgeçebilirsiniz. Çalışmaya katılmak istememeniz veya çalışmadan ayrılmanız, size sunulan hizmetlerde bir değişikliğe sebep olmayacaktır. Katılmak istememeniz durumunda bu hiçbir şekilde içinde bulunduğunuz kuruma söylenmeyecektir. Eğer çalışmaya katılmak istemiyorsanız ve bunun hapishanede çalışanlar tarafından bilinmesini istemezseniz, mülakat yapacak kişilerle mülakat süresi kadar kalabilirsiniz. 7. ÇALIŞMAYA KATILMA BEDELİ Çalışmaya katılmanızdan dolayı 20 dolar değerinde el işleri malzemesi alacaksınız. Bu malzemeleri en son mülakatın sonunda alacaksınız. 8. SORULARINIZ VE ENDİŞELERİNİZ İÇİN İLETİŞİM BİLGİLERİ Eğer bu çalışma hakkında bu çalışmayla ilgili bilimsel konular veya bu çalışmanın herhangibir kısmında ne yapılacağı hakkında sorularınız veya endişeleriniz varsa; veya herhangi bir zararı bildirmek isterseniz, ya da gençlerin neden suç işlediği ve hapse düştüğü ile ilgili çalışmanın özetini almak isterseniz, lütfen bu çalışmaya nezaret eden Profesör Merry Morash ile Baker Hall, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 48824 219 adresinden irtibat kurunuz. Telefon numarası: 001-517-432 9235. Email adresi: morashm@msu.edu Eğer katılımcı olarak bu çalışmadaki rolünüz ile ilgili sorularınız ve endişeleriniz ya da bu çalışmayla ilgili şikayetleriniz varsa kimliğinizi gizli tutarak dilerseniz Michigan State Üniversitesinin Etik Kuruluna 001 517 355 2180 numaralı telefondan ve 001 517 432 4503 numaralı faks numarasından veya irb@msu.edu email adresinden veya 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 488824 posta adresinden şikayette bulunabilirsiniz. 9. BİLDİRİLEN RIZA FORMU DÖKÜMANTASYONU Aşağıdaki bolume X koymaniz sizin bu çalışmaya kendi rızanızla katıldığınızı ifade eder. Burayi isaretleyin_____________________________ Tarih:______________________ CONSENT FORM FOR KEY INFORMANTS (TURKISH VERSION) Katılımcı Bilgisi ve Rıza Formu 1. ÇALIŞMANIN AMACI ve NE YAPACAKSINIZ: Türkiye’de genc yetiskinlerin neden ve nasıl hapse girdiklerini anlamayı amaçlayan bu araştırma projesine katılmanız istenmektedir. Bu çalışmayla amaçlanan şey, çocukluk veya adolasan dönemlerinde nelerin suç işlemeye ve hapse düşmeye neden olduğunu anlamaya çalışmaktır. Çalışmanın tamamında 30 hükümlü genc yetiskinlerin katılımı istenmektedir. İkincil kaynak olarak sizinle yapılacak olan mülakatın amacı, genç yetişkinlerden elde edilen bilgilerin geçerliliğini ve yorumlanabilmesini arttırmaktır. Bu konuyla ilgili 5 profesyonelin çalışmaya katılımı amaçlanmıştır. Katılımcı olarak sizden istenen şey, yapılacak olan mulakatta size genç yetişkinlerin hapse girmeden önceki yaşadıkları olaylar sorulacaktır. Bu görüşmeler 2012 yılı sizin müsait olduğunuz zamanlarda ilkbaharda yapılacaktır. 2. KATILMA, HAYIR DEME, VE ÇEKİLME HAKKINIZ: Bu çalışmaya katılım tamamiyle gönüllülük esasına göredir. Dolayısıyla hayır deme hakkınız vardır. Herhangibir zamanda fikrinizi değiştirebilir ve vazgeçebilirsiniz. Belli sorulara cevap vermeyebilirsiniz yada katılımdan vazgeçebilirsiniz. 3. MUHTEMEL YARARLAR VE ZARARLAR: Bu çalışmaya katılmakla direk olarak bir fayda görmeyeceksiniz. Fakat, bu çalışmaya katılarak katkıda bulunmanız gençlerin olumlu ve olumsuz deneyimlerini anlamaya yarar sağlayacaktır. Bu çalışmaya katılmanızda herhangibir risk bulunmamaktadır. 4. SORULARINIZ VE ENDİŞELERİNİZ İÇİN İLETİŞİM BİLGİLERİ: Eğer bu çalışma hakkında bu çalışmayla ilgili bilimsel konular veya bu çalışmanın herhangibir kısmında ne yapılacağı hakkında sorularınız varsa , lütfen bu çalışmayı yürüten araştırmacı ile irtibat kurun. (Serkan Tasgin, 560 Baker Hall, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mi, 48824, 001-517- 402-9311. tasginse@msu.edu.). Ayrıca bu çalışmaya nezaret eden Profesör Merry Morash ile Baker Hall, School of Criminal 220 Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 48824 adresinden irtibat kurabilirsiniz. Telefon numarası: 001-517-432 9235. Email adresi: morashm@msu.edu Eğer katılımcı olarak bu çalışmadaki rolünüz ile ilgili sorularınız ve endişeleriniz ya da bu çalışmayla ilgili şikayetleriniz varsa kimliğinizi gizli tutarak dilerseniz Michigan State Üniversitesinin Etik Kuruluna 001 517 355 2180 numaralı telefondan ve 001 517 432 4503 numaralı faks numarasından veya irb@msu.edu email adresinden veya 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI, 488824 posta adresinden şikayette bulunabilirsiniz. 5. BİLDİRİLEN RIZA FORMU DÖKÜMANTASYONU: Yukarıdaki bilgileri okudum ve anladım. Bu çalışmaya gönüllü olarak katılmaya rıza gösteriyorum. Lütfen imzalayın________________________________ Tarih_________________________ 221 APPENDIX E STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY FOR INTERVIEWERS (ENGLISH VERSION) This form is intended to further ensure confidentiality of data obtained during the course of the study entitled “Assessing an age-graded theory of informal social control: Qualitative study of exploring pathways to youth incarceration in Turkey”. All parties employed in this research will be asked to read the following statement and sign their names indicating they agree to comply. I hereby affirm that I will not reveal or in any manner disclose information obtained during the course of the study. I agree to discuss material directly related to this study only with other members of the research team. I will destroy the word file in my possession after I send it to the principle investigator. Name: Signature Principle Investigator’s Signature: STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY FOR INTERVIEWERS (TURKISH VERSION) GİZLİLİK ve KİŞİSEL BİLGİLERİN KORUNMASI BEYANI Bu form “Turkiye’de genç yetiskinlerin hapse girmelerine neden olan yolların kualitatif yöntemle araştırılması çalışmasında yer alacak çoçukların kişisel bilgilerinin korunmasının sağlanması için hazırlanmıştır. Bu çalışmayı yürütücek olan kişilere aşağıda yazılan beyanı okuyup uyacaklarını imza ile belirteceklerdir. Bu çalışma boyunca elde edilecek olan bilgileri hiçbirşekilde beyan etmeyeceğim. Çalışma ile ilgili materyalleri sadece araştırma grubunun diğer üyeleri ile konuşacağım. Mülakat dökümanlarını çalışma sorumlusuna email ile gönderdikten sonra imha edeceğim. İsim: İmza: Çalışma Sorumlusu İmza: 222 APPENDIX F Table 5. Summary of the some studies on Juvenile Delinquency in Turkey Type Hanci et al. (2005) Mangir (1992) Gunce & Konanc (1983) Subasi (1979) Yavuzer (1981) Genar (2007) Ogel et al (2004) Acar (2004) Individual Characteristics Substance Abuse Family as General No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Qualitative Larceny, Fight, Assault No Yes Yes Quantitative/ Descriptive Findings Not mentioned Yes Yes Yes Qualitative Sex Offenses Low social skills Yes Yes Sample Design Article 3327 students Quantitative (Official Records) Report 176 male juvenile delinquents Quantitative Report 120 juvenile delinquents Quantitative Report Report Report Report Unpublished dissertation 135 juvenile delinquents 214 Juvenile Delinquents 48 Male and 2 female juveniles who lived on the streets 163 male and 31 female young adults under 21 30 Male Convicted Sex Offender Quantitative Quantitative Crime Type Comparison of Crime Types with Regions Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned Not mentioned (continued) 223 Table 5 (cont’d) Family Attachment Hanci et al. (2005) Family Family Discipline Family Supervision Fam SES Run Away Structure Move No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Genar (2007) Yes No No Yes No No No Ogel et al (2004) No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No Mangir (1992) Gunce & Konanc (1983) Subasi (1979) Yavuzer (1981) Acar (2004) (continued) 224 Table 5 (cont’d) School Future Peers School No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No Genar (2007) Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Ogel et al (2004) Yes Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Hanci et al. (2005) Mangir (1992) Gunce & Konanc (1983) Subasi (1979) Yavuzer (1981) Acar (2004) Attachment Work Prison Life Stigmatization Expectations (continued) 225 Table 5 (cont’d) Family Type Sample Isir et al (2007) Akduman & Colak (2008) Sumer & Aydin (1999) Kocak (1997) Bahar & Seyhan (1997) Article Article Article 106 Convicted juveniles Design Individual Characteristics Substance Abuse Structure Family Attachment Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 136 juvenile delinquents Literature Review on School Violence in Turkey No Quantitative Yes No Quantitative Yes No design No Article Literature Review No design No Literature Review No design No 232 arrested juveniles Quantitative No Article Unpublished Turkeri (1995) Ontas & Aksit (2008) Ogel & Aksoy (2007) Dissertation Article 69 male arrested juvenile Qualitative No 270 juveniles Quantitative No Article No (continued) 226 Table 5 (cont’d) Family Family Family Discipline Supervision Fam SES Domestic Alcohol Use Violence Run Away Structure Isir et al (2007) Akduman & Colak (2008) Sumer & Aydin (1999) Kocak (1997) Bahar & Seyhan (1997) No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Turkeri (1995) Ontas & Aksit (2008) Ogel & Aksoy (2007) Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes No (continued) 227 Table 5 (cont’d) Squatter Family Move School School Attachment School Truancy Work Prison Future Stigmatization Expectations Peers Isir et al (2007) Akduma n& Colak (2008) Sumer & Aydin (1999) Kocak (1997) Bahar & Seyhan (1997) No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Turkeri (1995) Ontas & Aksit (2008) Ogel & Aksoy (2007) Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No No No No No (continued) 228 Table 5 (cont’d) Individual Type Sample Design Substance Characteristics Abuse Self Control 230 convicted Copur et al., (2005) Icli et al., (2009) Article juveniles Quantitative Yes Yes No Article 274 delinquents Quantitative Yes Yes No Gazioglu (2007) Dikici (2008) Akduman & Baran (2010) Article 251 adolescents Quantitative Yes No No Article 55 street youth Qualitative Yes Yes No Article 103 delinquents Quantitative Yes No No Article 369 college Quantitative No No Yes Article 1710 male and Quantitative No No No Article 1710 male and Quantitative No No No Article 215 male Quantitative No Yes No Ozbay & Koksoy (2009) Ozbay & Ozcan (2008) Ozbay & Ozcan (2006) Ulugtekin (1989) (continued) 229 Table 5 (cont’d) Family Family Family Family Family Structure Attachment Discipline Supervision Fam SES Parent Alcohol Use Criminality Copur et al., (2005) Icli et al., (2009) No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Gazioglu (2007) Dikici (2008) Akduman & Baran (2010) Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Ozbay & Koksoy (2009) Ozbay & Ozcan (2008) Ozbay & Ozcan (2006) Ulugtekin (1989) (continued) 230 Table 5 (cont’d) Domestic Violence Run Away Structure Squatter Family Move Peers School Copur et al., (2005) Icli et al., (2009) No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Gazioglu (2007) Dikici (2008) Akduman & Baran (2010) No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No Ozbay & Koksoy (2009) Ozbay & Ozcan (2008) Ozbay & Ozcan (2006) Ulugtekin (1989) (continued) 231 Table 5 (cont’d) School Future Attachment School Truancy Work Prison Life Stigmatization Expectation Copur et al., (2005) Icli et al., (2009) No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Gazioglu (2007) Dikici (2008) Akduman & Baran (2010) Ozbay & Koksoy (2009) Ozbay & Ozcan (2008) Ozbay & Ozcan (2006) Ulugtekin (1989) No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 232 REFERENCES 233 REFERENCES Acar, Y.B. (2004). Cinsel suçtan hükümlü çocukların yaşam öyküsü çalışması ve grupla sosyal hizmet uygulaması (The study of life history of juveniles convicted of sexual offense and social wor practice with group). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Ankara. Akduman, G.G. & Çolak, M, (2008). The depression levels of delinquent children in Turkey. The Social Sciences, 3(3), 273-278. Akers, R.L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Akers, R.L. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. (3rd ed.), Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Bahar, H.İ. & Seyhan, K. (2006). Çocukta suçluluğun gelişmesine yol açan faktörler (The factors that lead juvenile delinuency). Polis Dergisi (Police Journal) 47, 97-113. Bartol, C.R. (1980). Criminal behavior: A psychological approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Baslevent, C., & Dayioglu, M. (2005). The effect of squatter housing on income distribution in urban Turkey. Urban Studies, 42, 31-45. Benson, M.L. (2002). Crime and the life course: An introduction. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bernburg, J.G. & Krohn, M.D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287-1318. Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L.E. (2003). Introduction to survey quality. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 234 Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D.P. (1988). Criminal career research: Its value for criminology. Criminology, 26, 1-35. Bodwitch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493-509. Bonger, W.A. (1916). Criminality and economic conditions. H. P. Horton (Trans.), Boston, MA: Little Brown and Company. (Original work published 1916). Bottcher, J. (2001). Social practices of gender: How gender relates to delinquency in the everyday lives of high-risk youths. Criminology, 39(4), 893-931. Bowen, G.A. (2006). Grounded theory and sensitizing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1-9. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Briggs, X., Popkin, S.J., Goering, J. (2010). Moving to opportunity: The story of an American experiment to fight ghetto poverty. New York: Oxford University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 513-531. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22(6), 723-742. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in Human Development: Research Paradigms Present and Future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey, & M. Moorehouse. Persons in context: Developmental processes (pp. 25-49), New York: Cambridge University Press. 235 Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development-Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (1-103). Greenwich, Conn: JAI. Bubolz, M., & Sontag, M. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm & S. Steinmetz. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. (pp. 419-448). NY: Plenum Press. Catalano, R.F., & Hawkins, J.D. (1996). The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In J.D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-197). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ceballo, R., Dahl, T.A., Aretakis, M.T., & Ramirez, C. (2001). Inner city children’s exposure to community violence: How much do parents know? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 927-940. Cernkovich, S.A. & Giordano, P.C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25(2), 295-321. Chung, I., Hill, K.G., Hawkins, J.D., Gilchirst, L.D., & Nagin, D.S. (2002). Childhood predictors of offense trajectories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 60-90. Church, W.T., Wharton, T., & Taylor, J.K. (2009). An examination of differential association and social control theory: Family systems and delinquency. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(3), 3-15. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crosnoe, R. (2000). Friendships in childhood and adolescence: The life course and new directions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(4), 377-391. Crosnoe, R. & Cooper, C.E. (2010). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions into elementary school: Linking family processes, school contexts, and educational policy. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 258-291. Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2003). Criminological theory, past to present: Essential readings. (3rd ed). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. 236 Cunningham, P.B., Henggeler, S.W. (2001). Implementation of an empirically based drug and violence prevention and intervention program in public school settings. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 30(1), 221-232. Dannefer, D. (1984). Adult development and social theory: A paradigmatic reappraisal. American Sociological Review, 49, 100-116. Dannefer, D. (2003). Toward a global geography of the life course: Challenges of late modernity for life course theory. In J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 647-659). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Degirmencioglu, S.M., Acar, H., Baykara-Acar, Y. (2008). Extreme forms of child labor in Turkey. Children & Society, 22, 191-200. Dembo, R., Grandon, G., La Voie, L., Schmeidler, J., Burgos, W. (1986). Parents and drugs revisited: Some further evidence in support of social learning theory. Criminology, 24(1), p. 85-104. Demuth, S. & Brown, S.L. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: The significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 58-81. Deng, S., Lopez, V., Roosa, M.W., Ryu, E., Burrell, G.L., Tein, J.Y., Crowder, S. (2006). Family processes mediating the relationship of neighborhood disadvantage to early adolescent internalizing problems. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(2), 206-231. Edwards, C.P., Knoche, L., Aukrust, V., Kumru, A., & Kim, M. (2006). Parental ethno-theories of child development: looking beyond independence and individualism in American belief systems. In U. Kim, K-S. Yang., & K-K. Hwang (Eds.), Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context (pp. 141-162), New York: Springer. Elder, G.H. (1985). Perspectives on the life course. In G.H. Elder (Ed.), Life course dynamics: Trajectories and transitions, 1968-1980 (pp. 23-49). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 237 Elder, G.H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1-12. Elder, G.H., Johnson, M.K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 3-19). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Fagan, J., & Wexler, S. (1987). Family origins of violent delinquents. Criminology, 25(3), 643669. Fagan, J., Hansen, K.V., & Jang, M. (1983). Profiles of chronically violent delinquents: Empirical test of an integrated theory. In J. Kleugel (Ed.), Evaluating juvenile justice. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Farrington, D.P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence and Victims, 4, 79-100. Farrington, D.P., Gallagher, B., Morley, L., Raymond, J., Ledger, S., West, D.J. (1986). Unemployment, school leaving, and crime. British Journal of Criminology, 26, 335-356. Feldman, R.A., Caplinger, T.E., & Wodarski, J.S. (1983). The St. Louis Conundrum: The effective treatment of antisocial youth. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Fowler, F.J., & Mangione, T.W. (1990). Standardized survey interviewing: Minimizing interviewer-related error. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Franke, T.M. (2000). The role of attachment as a protective factor in adolescent violent behavior. Adolescent & Family Health, 1(1), 40-57. Freedman, D., Thornton, A., Camburn, D., Alwin, D., & Young-De Marco, L. (1988). The life history calendar: A technique for collecting retrospective data. Sociological Methodology, 18, 37-68. Furlong, M., Babinski, L.,Poland, S., Munoz, J., Boles, S. (1996). Factors associated with school psychologists’ perceptions of campus violence. Psychology in the Schools, 33, 28-37. 238 Galassi, J.P., & Akos, P. (2004). Developmental advocacy: Twenty-first century school counseling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 82(2), 146-157. Garbarino, J. (1992). Children and families in the social environment. New York: Aldine de Gruyter Publishing Company. Genar (2007). Istanbul’da siddet ve siddetin sosyolojik arka plani arastirma raporu (Violence in Istanbul and its sociological background). Retrieved on March 23, 2010 from http://www.genar.com.tr/files/istanbul_siddet_rapor.pdf Gilmore, A.S., Rodriguez, N., & Webb, V.J. (2005). Substance abuse and drug courts: The role of social bonds in juvenile drug courts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(4), 287315. Giordano, P.C., Cernkovich, S.A., & Rudolph, J.L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990-1064. Giordano, P.C., Longmore, M.A., Schroeder, R.D., & Seffrin, P.M. (2008). A life-course perspective on spirituality and desistance from crime. Criminology, 46(1), 99-132. Giordano, P.C., Schroeder, R.D., & Cernkovich, S.A. (2007). Emotions and crime over the life course: A neo-Meadian perspective on criminal continuity and change. American Journal of Sociology, 112(6), 1603-1661. Good, D.H., Pirog-Good, M.A., Sickles, R.C. (1986). An analysis of youth crime and employment patterns. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 219-236. Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P.H., & Henry, D.B. (2000). A developmental-ecological model of the relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16(2), 169-198. Gottfredson, D.C. (1985). Youth employment, crime, and schooling: A longitudinal study of a national sample. Developmental Psychology, 21, 419-432. Gottfredson, M., Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University 239 Press. Günçe, G. & Konanç, E. (1983). Child abuse in Turkey. In J.E. Lavitt (Ed.), Child abuse and neglect research and innovations (pp. 135-149). Boston: NATO ASI Series. Habermas, T. & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 748-769. Hagan, J. (1996). The class and crime controversy. In J. Hagan, A.R. Gillis, & D. Brownfield (Eds.), Criminological controversies: A methodological primer (pp. 1-15). Boulder, CO: Westview. Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1997). Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Hancı, İ.H., Eşiyok, B., Şimşek, F., & Ulukol, B. (2005). Cezaevinde bulunan çocukların temel özellikleri ve suç tipleri (Demographics and offense types of juveniles in prison). In E. Akyüz, S. Uluğtekin, Y.B. Acar, & Ö.C. Öntaş (Eds.), 3. Ulusal çocuk ve suç sempozyumu: Bakın, gözetme ve eğitim (National Violence and Juvenile symposium: Care, supervision, and education) (pp. 399-405). Ankara: Yorum Matbaacılık. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Jones, G., & Fine, D. (1987). Delinquency prevention through parent training: Results and issues from work in progress. In J.Q. Wilson & G.C. Loury (Eds.). From children to citizens, Vol. 3: Families, schools, and delinquency prevention (186-204), New York: Springer-Verlag. Herrenkohl, T.I., Maguin, E., Hill, K.G., Hawkins, J.D., & Abbott, R.D. (2000). Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26(3), 176-186. Herrenkohl, T.I., Hawkins, J.D., Chung, I., Hill, K.G., & Battin-Pearson, S. (2001). School and community risk factors and interventions. In R. Loeber & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, interventions, and service needs (pp. 211-246). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Bjarnason, T., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Kokkevi, A., & Morgan 240 M. (2004). The 2003 ESPAD report: Alcohol and other drug use among students in 35 European countries. Retrieved August 17, 2009, from http://www.espad.org/documents/Espad/ESPAD_reports/The_2003_ESPAD_report.pdf Hill, N. E., & Herman-Stahl, M. A. (2002). Neighborhood safety and social involvement: Associations with parenting behaviors and depressive symptoms among African American and Euro-American mothers. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 209-219. Hirschfield, P. (2009). Another way out: The impact of juvenile arrests on high school dropout. Sociology of Education, 82(4), 368-393. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hogan, D.P. (1991). Reintroducing culture in life course research. Contemporary Sociology, 20, 1-4. Hser, Y, Longshore, D., & Anglin, M.D. (2007). The life course perspective on drug use: A conceptual framework for understanding drug use trajectories. Evaluation Review, 31(6), 515-547. Ingram, J.R., Patchin, J.W., Huebner, B.M., McCluskey, J.D., Bynum, T. (2007). Parents, friends, and serious delinquency: An examination of direct and indirect effects among atrisk early adolescents. Criminal Justice Review, 32(4), 380-400. Işır, A.B., Tokdemir, M., Küçüker, H., Dülger, H. E. (2007). Role of family factors in adolescent delinquency in an Elazig/Turkey reformatory. Journal of Forensic Science, 52(1), 125127. İrtiş, V. (2010). Understanding juvenile penal justice in Turkey: An attitude both punitive and lax, expressing a will for solidarity. In F. Bailleau & Y. Cartuyvels (Eds.), The criminalization of youth: Juvenile justice in Europe, Turkey, and Canada (pp. 231-262.), Brussels, Belgium: Vubpress Brussels University Press. Jang, S., Smith, C. (1997). A test of reciprocal causal relationships among parental supervision, effective ties, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(4), 307-336. 241 Jarjoura, G.R. (1993). Does dropping out of school enhance delinquent involvement? Results from a large-scale national probability sample. Criminology, 31, 149-172. Jarrett, R.L. (1997). African-American family and parenting strategies in impoverished neighborhoods. Qualitative Sociology, 29(2), 275-288. Jenkins, P. (1995). School delinquency and school commitment. Sociology of Education, 68, 221-239. Kağıtçıbaşı, Ç. (1984). Socialization in traditional society: A challenge to psychology. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 145-157. Kaminer, Y., & Burleson, J.A. (1999). Psychotherapies for adolescent substance abusers: 15month follow-up of a pilot study. American Journal of Addictions, 8, 114-119. Katz, S.R. (1997). How schools criminalize Latino youth. Social Justice, 24, 77-95. Katz, S.R. (1999). Building the foundation for a side-by-side explanatory model: A general theory of crime, the age-grade life course theory, and attachment theory. Western Criminology Review, 1(2). Retrieved from http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v1n2/katz.html Kazdin, A.E. (2005). Parent management training: Treatment for oppositional, aggressive, and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press. Kornhauser, R.R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kempf, K.L. (1993). The empirical status of Hirschi’s control theory. In F. Adler & W.S. Laufer (Eds.), New directions in criminological theory: Advances in Criminological theory, Vol. 4. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Kırımsoy, E. & Çavdar, Y. (2005). Adalet Bakanlıgı’na bağlı kurumlarda bulunan çocuklara yönelik bir sivil toplum çalışması: “Eğitsel, Sportif, Sanatsal ve Sosyal Etkinlikler Projesi” (Civil Society initiative towards juveniles in justice institutions: Educational, sportive, and social activities project). In E. Akyüz, S. Uluğtekin, Y.B. Acar, & Ö.C. Öntaş (Eds.), 3. Ulusal çocuk ve suç sempozyumu: Bakın, gözetme ve eğitim (National 242 Violence and Juvenile symposium: Care, supervision, and education), (pp. 101-109). Ankara: Yorum Matbaacılık. Klein, M. W. (1969). Gang cohesiveness, delinquency, and a street-work program. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 6(2), 135-66. Koçak, M. (2006). Küçükler ve suç ortaklığı (Juveniles and crime companions). Polis Dergisi (Police Journal), 47, 342-342. Lansford, J.E., Miller-Johnson, S., Berlin, L.J., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (2007). Early physical abuse and later violent delinquency: A prospective longitudinal study. Child Maltreatment, 12(3), 233-245. Larzelere, R.E., & Patterson, G.R. (1990). Parental management: Mediator of the effect of socioeconomic status on early delinquency. Criminology, 28, 301-323. Laub, J. (1999). Alterations in the opportunity structure: A criminological perspective. In Transitions to adulthood in a changing economy: No work, no family, no future? A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.) (48-55) Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Laub, J.H. & Lauritsen, J.L. (1993). Violent criminal behavior over the life course: A review of the longitudinal and comparative research. Violence and Victims, 8(3), 235-252. Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (1988). Unraveling families and delinquency: A re-analysis of Gluecks’ data. Criminology, 26(3), 355-380. Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (1993). Turning points in the life course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31(3), 301-325. Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (2001). Understanding desistence from crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A review of research, Vol. 28 (pp. 1-69), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 243 Laub, J.H., Nagin, D.S., & Sampson, R.J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225-238. Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J., & Sweeten, G.A. (2006). Assessing Sampson and Laub’s life course theory of crime. In F.T. Cullen, J.P. Wright, & K.R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory, Advances in criminological theory (pp. 313-333). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. LeBel, T.P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). “The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime.” European Journal of Criminology, 5, 131-159. Legard, R., Keegan, J., & Ward, K. (2003). In-depth interviews. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 138-169), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Leiber, M.J., Mack, K.Y., & Featherstone, R.A. (2009). Family structure, family processes, economic factors, and delinquency: Similarities and differences by race and ethnicity. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(2), 79-99. Lemert, E. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewis, J. (2003). Design issues. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 47-76), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Liska, A.E. & Reed, M.D. (1985). Ties to conventional institutions and delinquency: Estimating reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 5, 547-560. Little, H.A., Dakof, G.A., Parker, K., Diamond, S., Barrett, K., & Tejeda, M. (2001). Multidimensional family therapy for adolescent drug abuse: Results of randomized clinical trial. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 651-688. Livingston, M., Stewart, A., & Ogilvie, J. (2008). Understanding juvenile offending trajectories. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 41(3), 345-363. 244 Loeber, R., & Farrington, D.P. (1998). Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D.P. (2001). Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lotz, R., Lee, L. (1999). Socialibility, school experience, and delinquency. Youth and Society, 31(2), 199-223. Mack, K., Leiber, M., Featherstone, R., & Monserud, M. (2007). Reassessing the family delinquency association: Do family type, family processes, and economic factors make a difference? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 51-67. Macmillan, R. & Eliason, S.R. (2003). Characterizing the life course as role configurations and pathways. In J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 529-554). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Magnusson, D. & Bergman, L.R. (1988). Individual and variable-based approaches to longitudinal research on early risk factors. In M. Rutter (Ed.), Studies of psychosocial risk: The power of longitudinal data (pp. 45-61). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Mangır, M. (1992). Ankara kalabalık çocuk ıslah evinde bulunan suça yönelmiş çocukların işledikleri suç türleri ile uyum düzeylerinin bazı değişikliklere gore incelenmesi (Examination of incarcerated juveniles by their offense types and their compliance). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Z.F. Yayınları. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Maruna, S. & Roy, K. (2007). Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of “knifing off” and desistance from crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23(1), 104124. 245 Maruna, S., Wilson, L., & Curran, K. (2006). Why God is often found behind bars: Prison conversions and the crisis of self-narrative. Research in Human Development, 3(2&3), 161-184. Matsueda, R.L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1577-1611. Matsueda, R.L., Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family structure, and delinquency: A test of differential association and social control theories. American Sociological Review, 52(6), 826-840. Matsueda, R.L., & Anderson, K. (1998). The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology, 36, 269-306. Maxwell, J.A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D.J. Rog (Eds.), The Sage handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 214-253), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McAdams, D.P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100-122. McCord, W., McCord, J., & zola, I.K. (1969). Origins of crime: A new evaluation of the Cambridge-Sommerville study. Montclair, NJ: Patterson, Smith. McGloin, J.M. (2009). Delinquency balance: Revisiting peer influence. Criminology, 47(2), 439477. McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. McWhiter, J.J., McWhirter, B.T., McWhirter, E.H., & McWhirter, R.J. (2007). At risk youth: A comprehensive response (4th Edition). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 246 Melde, C, &Esbensen, F. (2011). Gang membership as a turning point in the life course. Criminology, 49(2), 513-552. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, J. & Decker, S.H. (2001). Young women and gang violence: Gender, street offending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115-140. Moffitt, T.E. (1993). Adolescence limited and life course persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701. Montemayor, R. (2001). Parental monitoring. In J.V. Lerner, R.M. Lerner, & J. Finkelstein (Eds.), Adolescence in America: An encyclopedia Vol. 2, (pp. 481-484). Santa Barbara: CA: ABC_CLIO. Morash, M. (2006). Understanding gender, crime, and justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morash, M. (2010). Women on probation and parole: A feminist critique of community programs and services. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Morris, N.A. & Slocum, L.A. (2010). The validity of self-reported prevalence, frequency, and timing of arrest: An evaluation of data collected using a life event calendar. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(2), 210-240. Nored, L.S. & Carlan, P.C. (2008). Success of drug court programs: Examination of the perceptions of drug court personnel. Criminal Justice Review, 33(3), 329-342. OECD, (2012). What is the economic outlook for OECD countries: An interim assessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/44/58/49995435.pdf on April 3, 2012. Oto, R. (1998). Suç, çocuk ve isnat yeteneği (Crime, juveniles, and their capability). Kamu Hukuku Arşivi, Ankara: KhukA. Öğel, K., & Aksoy, A. (2007). Tutuklu ve hükümlü ergenlerde madde kullanımı (Substance 247 abuse among incarcerated and convicted juveniles). Bağımlılık Dergisi (Journal of Dependence), 8, 11-17. Ögel, K., & Tamar, D. (1996). Uyuşturucu maddeler ve bağımlılık okul eğitim paketi. Öğrenci Anketi Bulguları, İstanbul: AMATEM-Özel Okullar Derneği Yayını, Prive Ltd. Öğel, K., Yücel, H., & Aksoy, A. (2004). İstanbul’da sokakta yaşayan çocukların özellikleri: Araştırma raporu (Characteristics of street children in Istanbul: A research report). Istanbul: Yeniden Yayınları. Öntaş, Ö.C. & Akşit, B.T. (2008). Crime reasons from the eyes of juvenile offenders: A study conducted in a detention center in a capital city. European Journal of Social Sciences, 6(1), 33-46. Özbay, Ö. & Köksoy, O. (2009). Is low self-control associated with violence among youths in Turkey? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53(2), 145-167. Özbay, Ö. & Özcan, Y.Z. (2008). Classic strain theory and gender. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 50(1), 21-38. Özbay, Ö. & Özcan, Y.Z. (2008). A test of Hirschi’s social bonding theory: A comparison of male and female delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(2), 134-157. Patchin, J.W., Huebner, B.M., McCluskey, J.D., Varano, S.P., & Bynum, T.S. (2006). Exposure to community violence and childhood delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 52 (2), 307332. Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The Labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6(3), 359-394. Patterson, G.R. (1980). Children who steal. In T.Hirschi & M. Gottfredson (Eds.), Understanding crime: Current theory and research (pp. 73-90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Patterson, G.R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugine, Oregon: Castalia. 248 Patterson, G.R., DeBaryshe, B.D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335. Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger. K. (2002). A development model for early- and late-onset delinquency. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson, & J. Snyder (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 147172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Petts, R.J. (2009). Family and religious characteristics’ influence on delinquency trajectories from adolescence to young adulthood. American Sociological Review, 74, 465-483. Polakowski, M., Hartley, R.E., & Bates, L. (2008). Treating the tough cases in juvenile drug court: Individual and organizational practices leading to success or failure. Criminal Justice Review, 33(3), 379-404. Polat, A, & Gül, S.K. (2010). Suçun ölçümü (Measurement of crime). Ankara: Adalet. Popkin, S.J., Leventhal, T., & Weismann, G. (2010). Girls in the hood: How safety affects the life chances of low-income girls. Urban Affairs Review, 45(6), 715-744. Rankin, J.H. (1983). The family context of delinquency. Social Problems, 30(4), 466-479. Richards, L. (1999). Using NVivo in qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rutter, M. (1989). Age as an ambiguous variable in developmental research: Some epidemiological considerations from developmental psychopathology. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12(1), 1-34. Rutter, M. (1996). Transitions and turning points in developmental psychopathology: As applied to the age span between childhood and mid-adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 19, 603-626. Rutter, M. & Giller, H. (1983). Juvenile delinquency: Trends and perspectives. New York: Guilford Press. 249 Salzinger, S., Rosario, M., & Feldman, R.S. (2007). Physical child abuse and adolescent violent delinquency: The mediating and moderating roles of personal relationships. Child Maltreatment, 12(3), 208-219. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1992). Crime and deviance in the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 63-84. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T.P. Thornberry (Ed), Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency, (pp. 133-161). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (2003). Desistence from crime over the life course. In J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 295-310). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (2005). Life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602, 12-45. Scarpa, A. (2001). Community violence exposure in a young adult sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 36-53. Schulenberg, J.E., Maggs, J.L., O’Malley, P.M. (2003). How and why the understanding of developmental continuity and discontinuity is important: The sample case of long-term consequences of adolescent substance abuse. In J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 413-436). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Scott, J. & Alwin, D. (1998). Retrospective versus prospective measurement of life histories in longitudinal research. In J.Z. Giele & G.H. Elder (Eds.), Methods of life course research: qualitative and quantitative approaches (pp. 98-127), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and social sciences. (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. 250 Sexton, T.L., & Alexander, J.F. (2000). Functional family therapy (Juvenile Justice Bulletin). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Silverman, D. & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research: A comprehensive guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Simons, R.L., Wu, C., Conger, R.D., & Lorenz, F.O. (1994). Two routes to delinquency: Differences between early and late starters in the impact of parenting and deviant peers. Criminology, 32(2), 247-276. Smith, D. & Paternoster, R. (1987). The gender gap in theories of deviance: Issues and evidence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25(2), 140-172. Simons, R.L., Johnson, C., Conger, R.D., Elder, G. (1998). A test of latent trait versus life course perspectives on the stability of adolescent antisocial behavior. Criminology, 36(2), 217244. Simons, R.L., Stewart, E., Gordon, L.C., Conger, R.D., & Elder, G.L. (2002). A test of lifecourse explanations for stability and change in antisocial behavior from adolescence to young adulthood. Criminology, 40(2), 401-434. Sokol-Katz. J., Dunham, R., Zimmerman, R. (1997). Family structure versus parental attachment in controlling adolescent delinquent behavior: A social control model. Adolescence, 32(125), 199-215. Solmaz. Y. (2010). Türk çocuk adaleti sistemine genel bakış (A general look at the Turkish juvenile justice system). Proceedings from Çocuk Adalet Sistemi. Ankara, Turkey. Sprott, J.B., Jenkins, J.M., & Doob, A.N. (2005). The importance of school: Protecting at-risk youth from early offending. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(1), 59-77. Steinberg, L. (1996). Beyond the classroom: Why school reform has failed an what parents can do about it. New York: Simon and Schuster. 251 Subaşı (1979). Psikososyal açıdan çocuk suçluluğu (Psycho-social perspective of juvenile delinquency). Ankara Üniversitesi Egitim Bilimleri Fakültesi. Ankara. Sümer, Z.H. & Aydın, G. (2000). Incidence of violence in Turkish schools: A review. International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, 21, 335-347. Thornberry, T.P. (1997). Introduction: Some advantages of developmental and life-course perspectives for the study of crime and delinquency. In T.P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 1-10). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Tierney, J.P., Baldwin, J., & Resch, N.L. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of big brothers/Big sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures. Tolan, P.H. (1988). Socioeconomic, family, and social stress correlates of adolescent antisocial and delinquent behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 16, 317-331. Trojanowicz, R.C., Morash, M., & Schram, P.J. (2001). Juvenile delinquency: Concepts and control. (6th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. TUIK (2010). Retrieved from http://www.tuik.gov.tr/girenhukumluapp/girenhukumlu.zul Türkeri, S. (1995). Çocuk ıslahevleri ve çocuk cezaevlerindeki çocukların suç işleme nedenleri açısından incelenmesi (Juvenile reformatories and the assessment of incarcerated juveniles for causes of delinquency). Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara. Tyler, K.A. & Bersani, B.E. (2008). A longitudinal study of early adolescent precursors to running away. The journal of Early Adolescence, 28(2), 230-251. Uhlenberg, P. & Mueller, M. (2003). Family context and individual well-being. In J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course (pp. 123-148). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Uluğtekin, S. (1989). Family background and resocialization of Turkish delinquents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 33, 27-35. 252 Uluğtekin, S., & Acar, Y.B. (2005). Türkiye’de çocuk mahkemeleri ve gözetim raporları araştırması temelinde Türkiye’de gözetim sisteminin değerlendirilmesi (Juvenile courts in Turkey and examination of parole system). In E. Akyüz, S. Uluğtekin, Y.B. Acar, & Ö.C. Öntaş (Eds.), 3. Ulusal çocuk ve suç sempozyumu: Bakın, gözetme ve eğitim (National Violence and Juvenile symposium: Care, supervision, and education) (pp. 157-183). Ankara: Yorum Matbaacılık. UNDP (2008). Human development report: Youth in Turkey. Retrieved from http://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/upload/Turkey/Turkey_NHDR-2008-Eng.pdf UNESCO. (2011). Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2011. Regional Overview: Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Paris: UNESCO. Unnever, J.D., Cullen, F.T., Agnew, R. (2006). Why is bad parenting criminogenic? Implications from rival theories. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(1), 3-33. Vaughn, M.G. & Howard, M.O. (2004). Adolescent substance abuse treatment: A synthesis of controlled evaluations. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(5), 325-335. Wadsworth, T. (2000). Labor markets, delinquency, and social control theory: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 67, 529-546. Waizenhofer, R.N., Buchanan, C.M., & Jackson-Newsom, J. (2004). Mothers’ and fathers’ knowledge of adolescents’ daily activities: Its sources and its links with adolescent adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 348-360. Walters, G.C. & Grusec, J.E. (1977). Punishment. San Francisco, CA; W.H. Freeman and Company. Warr, M. (1993). Age, peers, and delinquency. Criminology, 31(1), 3-53. Warr, M. (1993b). Parents, peers, and delinquency. Social Forces, 72, 247-264. Warr, M. (2001). The social origins of crime: Edwin Sutherland and the theory of differential 253 association. In R. Paternoster & R. Bachman (Eds.), Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory. (pp. 182-191). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Warr, M. (2005). Making delinquent friends: Adult supervision and children’s affiliations. Criminology, 43(1), 77-106. Wells, L.E. & Rankin, J.H. (1988). Direct parental controls and delinquency. Criminology, 26(2), 263-285. Whitbeck, L. B., & Hoyt, D. R. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents and their families. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Widom, C.S. (2000). Childhood victimization: Early adversity, later psychopathology. National Institute of Justice Journal, 242, 2-9. Wikstrom, P.O. (2004). Crime as alternative: Towards cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In J. McCord (Ed.), Beyond empiricism: Institutions and intentions in the study of crime (pp. 1-37). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Wilson, J.Q., & Hernstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature: The definitive study of the causes of crime. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wolfgang, M.E., Figlio, R.M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago press. Yağmurlu, B., Çıtlak, B., Dost, A., & Leyendecker, B. (2009). Türk annelerinin çocuk sosyalleştirme hedeflerinde eğitime bağlı olarak gözlemlenen farklılıklar (Observed differences among Turkish mothers for their goals toward socialization of their children). Türk Psikoloji Dergisi (Turkish Psychological Journal), 24(63), 1-15. Yavuzer, H. (1981). Psiko sosyal açıdan çocuk suçluluğu (Juvenile delinquency from psychosocial perspective). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Istanbul Universitesi, İstanbul. 254 Yin, R.K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. New York: The Guilford Press. Zuker, R.A. (1976). Parental influences on drinking patterns of their children. In M. Greenblatt & M.A. Schuckit (Eds.), Alcoholism problems in women and children (pp. 211-238). New York: Grune and Stratton. 255