Dangerous boys or boys in danger? Examining the relationship between ethnicity,child abuse and violent offending

Abstract

This study considers the extent to which ethnic differences in exposure to child abuse exist between native Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys, and, if they do, whether they are related to differences in levels of violent offending between both groups. The results demonstrate that Moroccan-Dutch boys are significantly more likely to report exposure to child abuse than Dutch boys. In addition, differences in exposure to child abuse are of sufficient magnitude to partially explain the observed differences in levels of violent offending between Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys. The results of this study highlight the need for social services and criminal justice professionals to provide prevention and intervention strategies for abused adolescent boys. This may be particularly important for Moroccan-Dutch boys. Ethnic-specific prevention programmes need to build on a clear understanding of the risk factors and aetiology of juvenile violent offending and need to continue to examine the meaning of the differential risk ratios across ethnic groups. We suggest that further research into the effects of child abuse on juvenile violent delinquency among ethnic minority youth should take this complexity into account.

Keywords

Child abuse ethnicity juvenile delinquency self-report violence

Dangerous boys or boys in danger?

Juvenile delinquency remains a serious problem in today’s society (Hoeve et al., 2011; Wampler and Downs, 2010). In the United States, boys with an African-American or Hispanic-American background are overrepresented in juvenile crime figures (for example, Engen et al., 2002; Hawkins et al., 1998; McCarter, 2009; Rossiter and Rossiter, 2009; Stahl et al., 2007). In most European countries, ethnic minority boys with a non-Western background are disproportionately represented among juvenile offenders. This is true for Turkish boys in Germany, Algerian boys in France and Moroccan boys in Belgium (Esterle-Hedibel, 2001; Put and Walgrave, 2006; Von Gostomski, 2003). Similarly, ethnic minority boys in the Netherlands show higher crime rates than native Dutch boys (De Jong, 2007; Jennissen et al., 2009; Komen, 2002; Van der Laan and Blom, 2011). In particular, Moroccan-Dutch boys are disproportionately represented among juvenile offenders (Veen et al., 2011) and are about four times more often charged with violent offences than would be expected from their estimated proportion in the population (Broekhuizen and Driessen, 2006). Why do ethnic minority boys in general and Moroccan-Dutch boys in particular commit more acts of juvenile delinquency than native boys? This has been a puzzling question and responses to it have varied.

Theoretical framework

Various explanations are reviewed of ethnic differences in juvenile violent offending and can be classified into three general categories (for a review, see Lahlah et al., 2012). First, the dominant research tradition in the study of juvenile offending has depended mostly on individual-level analyses. This theoretical approach has tended to see ethnic differences in juvenile violent offending as largely indistinguishable from individual-level explanations (Loeber and Farrington, 1998). However, individual-level explanations are unlikely to improve our understanding of ethnic differences in juvenile violent offending, since this approach does not take into consideration the larger socio-structural characteristics that distinguish groups (Hawkins et al., 2000). Ethnicity per se is believed to play only a small part, if any, in accounting for ethnic difference in juvenile crime (Lahlah et al., 2012). Second, in contrast to individual-level explanations, structural approaches explore relationships between social conditions and levels of juvenile crime in a given situation or place. These approaches suggest that the harsh economic, political and social conditions that a population faces account for the disparate rates of criminality (Demuth and Brown, 2004; Gould et al., 2002; Pratt, 2001). Indeed, research has shown that structural factors such as low socioeconomic status (SES), unemployment and social marginalization are associated with the overrepresentation of ethnic minority youth among juvenile offenders (Demuth and Brown, 2004; Gould et al., 2002; Pratt, 2001). Third, cultural perspectives assert that value systems for minority groups are qualitatively different from those of natives (Berry, 1997). Youths who are involved in two cultures can experience problems when these two cultures have partly different value systems and/or prescribe different behaviour in particular situations (Ait Ouarasse and Van de Vijver, 2005; Berry, 2005; Junger and Polder, 1991). Meeting the normative demands of two different cultures may involve conflict and stress and subsequent dysfunctional behaviour such as delinquency (see Agnew, 1992; Bovenkerk, 1994; Gabbidon and Greene, 2005; Stevens et al., 2005).

To a large extent, social and cultural approaches appear to be important influences on ethnic differences in juvenile violent offending, independently of individual-level factors (Loeber and Farrington, 1998). However, neither approach has given much thought to familial abuse in explaining ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency, which is the focus of our study.

In recent decades, research has established a clear relationship between the impact of victimization in the home and violent offending (for example, Bolger and Patterson, 2001; Fagan et al., 2007; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002; Swanson et al., 2003; Widom, 1989a, 1989b). Child abuse can refer to situations where children are direct victims of abuse as well as to situations in which children are witnessing inter-parental violence. Studies have convincingly shown that experiencing child abuse is consistently linked to an increased risk of violent delinquency in adolescence and adulthood (Gold et al., 2011; Lewis et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2005). Compared with non-abused children, youth exposed to psychologically aggressive and physically abusive parenting report higher rates of delinquency (Lansford et al., 2004), involvement in violent delinquent behaviour (Herrera and McCloskey, 2001) and arrests for criminal acts (Widom, 1992). Further, sexually abused children are at higher risk of becoming involved in violent delinquency (see Bergen et al., 2003; Yun et al., 2011).

Risk factors for child abuse that have been identified in the extant literature include characteristics such as low family income (Fagan, 2005; Messner et al., 2001), broken homes (Heck and Walsh, 2000; Juby and Farrington, 2001; Perez, 2001), large family size (Jaya and Narasimhan, 2003) and living in urban, disorganized neighbourhoods (Coulton et al., 1995; Lansford et al., 2004). Similar characteristics are prominent among ethnic minority families and are commonly associated with an ethnic minority status (Ferrari, 2002). In addition, research has shown ethnic differences in the rates of exposure to child abuse (Finkelhor et al., 2005). However, few studies have comprehensively examined the extent to which the relationship between ethnicity and violent offending is mediated by exposure to child abuse (Perez, 2001). This lack of insight into child abuse and violent delinquency among ethnic minorities represents an important gap in our understanding of violent offending and hinders prevention efforts (English et al., 2002).

The present study

This study seeks to expand our knowledge of the relationship between ethnicity, child abuse and violent delinquency. In particular, we aim to explore whether different ethnic groups report different levels of exposure to different types of child abuse (that is, physical assault by a parent, sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member and witnessing inter-parental physical violence). To our knowledge there are no Dutch studies that investigate exposure to child abuse by ethnicity. The most recent prevalence study on child abuse in the Netherlands (NPM-2010 – Alink et al., 2011) is based on a replication of two studies that are very different in their design. The first study is a replication of the National Prevalence Study of Child Abuse (Van IJzendoorn et al., 2007) and is based on facts and figures from the Dutch Child Protection Services (AMK) and professionals working with children. The authors report that about 3.4 percent of all 0–17-year-old children experienced child abuse in the previous year according to legal definitions as included in Dutch law (Alink et al., 2011). The second study is a replication of the Pupils on Abuse Study (Lamers-Winkelman et al., 2007) and is based on self-report retrospective questionnaires of high school students. This study revealed that 18.7 percent of the students reported at least one experience of child abuse in the preceding year (Alink et al., 2011). However, neither study examined whether child abuse is more or less common among Moroccan-Dutch youth compared with Dutch youth. In both studies, Moroccans were allocated to the traditional minority group, together with youth with a Turkish, Surinamese and Antillean background (Alink et al., 2011), making a clear distinction by ethnicity impossible. Furthermore, we aim to explore the extent to which previous findings regarding the risk of juvenile offending associated with childhood victimization affects boys of different ethnic background.

Hypotheses

Based on previous theory and research, four hypotheses are derived. From these perspectives, it is hypothesized that ethnic differences in serious violent offending will be found, with Moroccan-Dutch boys reporting higher incidences of violent offending (Hypothesis 1). In addition, we argue that the prevalence of child abuse will vary systematically across ethnic groups, with Moroccan-Dutch boys reporting more exposure to child abuse (Hypothesis 2). We further hypothesize that a history of child abuse increases the likelihood of juvenile violent offending (Hypothesis 3). Lastly, we expect that differences in prevalence of child abuse explain ethnic differences in levels of violent offending (Hypothesis 4). It is important to determine whether ethnic differences in levels of exposure to child abuse exist and add to the differences in levels of violent offending between Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys. A focus on both ethnicity and child abuse may serve as a fertile ground for improving theory and research on juvenile delinquency.

Methods

Participants and procedure

The data used to test these hypotheses are taken from both a school survey and a youth probation office survey. The questionnaire focused on the lifestyle of adolescents – with a particular interest in both risk and protective factors in juvenile offending – in three major cities and two rural districts in the Netherlands in the year 2011.

The intention of the school survey was to survey all fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade pupils in five participating high schools via paper-and-pencil interviews during a one-hour lesson, while a research staff member was present and surveyed 941 adolescents, both boys and girls. Except for special needs schools, all types of schools are represented in the survey. The following analyses were based on data from only 364 Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys. Compared with the original sample, the number of cases was significantly lower because only adolescent boys who designated themselves as Dutch (295) or Moroccan-Dutch (69) were included in the present analyses.

Second, with the goal of oversampling delinquent boys (Loeber et al., 2005), participants were recruited among Dutch (70) and Moroccan-Dutch (43) boys subject to a supervision order either at the time of the study or in the period preceding the study (113), in two (regionally operating) youth probation offices located in the same cities as the participating schools. However, at the time of the study they were neither in custody nor sentenced to prison: they were school-going youth who all lived with (one or both of) their parents. To avoid boys being selected twice, via both school and the youth probation office, probation officers were asked to exclude boys attending one of the five participating high schools. In addition, when a research staff member contacted the boy to schedule an appointment, he was asked which school he attended too. None of the boys attended one of the five participating high schools. A research staff member was present while the boys completed the questionnaire on their own either at their school or at a time and place convenient to them but did not look at the participants’ responses unless the subject asked for help.

An information letter describing the study was sent to parents, who could indicate whether they objected to their son’s participation (passive consent). Participants were informed that the information provided in the study would remain confidential and that they were free not to participate in the research. Inclusion criteria were (a) sufficient reading ability to complete self-report measures, and (b) age between 15 and 18 years. Because no information on the background characteristics of the non-participants was available, possible non-response bias could not be estimated.

Self-report measures were used to assess child characteristics and to measure perceived parent characteristics. With regard to measuring juvenile delinquency, an ongoing debate exists concerning the relative merits of using self-report data as opposed to relying on police or court records. Although some authors prefer using official data only, authors studying the importance of family dynamics with regard to juvenile delinquency tend to prefer self-report data (Juby and Farrington, 2001). They argue that self-reported delinquency can be considered as the data source that most accurately reflects actual behaviour (Thornberry and Krohn, 2000), whereas reliance on official reports may introduce layers of potential bias between actual behaviour and the data because a substantial amount of crime is never reported and many crimes that are reported are never solved, as a result of which it is unknown whether they were committed by juveniles or adults.

A research staff member was present while the participants completed the questionnaires but did not look at the participants’ responses unless the subject asked for help. Participants’ anonymity was maintained by ascribing identification numbers to surveys rather than names. At the project site, surveys were inspected for validity (for example, incomplete sections or identical responses to every item). The responses of 15 boys were subsequently excluded from the data set because they failed the initial check: 5 boys did not complete the questionnaire and the remainder either filled in identical responses to every item (2 boys) or filled in ‘abnormally’ high scores on all juvenile delinquency items (for example, stating that he committed each offence 1000 times) (8 boys). All these boys were from the school sample: 12 of them were Dutch; their mean age was 16.01 years (SD = 0.91); their social class ranged from medium to high; and 9 boys reported living with both parents.

Measures

Demographics

Participants were asked to indicate their age on a single item: ‘What is your age?’ An indication of social class was assessed through participants’ rating of their family’s wealth. Responses were chosen from ‘very rich’, ‘quite rich’, ‘medium rich’, ‘not so rich’, ‘not rich’. Although this is a subjective measure, we chose to assess social class in this way because previous research has shown that adolescents are not able to give an estimation of their family’s net monthly income (see Lamers-Winkelman et al., 2007; Ter Bogt et al., 2005). In addition, the participants were asked to indicate whether their father and mother, respectively, were unemployed. Lastly, participants were asked to indicate their family structure by answering the following question: ‘Which of the following “home situations” applies best to you?’ ‘I live with. . . . ’ Responses to this item were given as (a) both parents, (b) my father, (c) my mother, (d) both parents at different addresses, (e) other.

Ethnicity

Adolescents’ ethnicity was classified based on their responses to a single item in the questionnaire: ‘What ethnic group best describes you?’ (see also Wissink et al., 2004). Only those adolescents who designated themselves as Dutch or Moroccan-Dutch were included in the present analyses. Dutch boys serve as the reference category in all regression models in this research.

History of child abuse

Child abuse experiences were assessed with the ‘Unpleasant and Nasty Incidents Questionnaire’ (see also Lamers-Winkelman et al., 2007). This questionnaire is based on the Dating Violence Questionnaire (Douglas and Straus, 2006) and the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (CTSPC; Straus et al., 1998). The questionnaire assesses (recalled) victimization as reported by the adolescent.

In the current study, three prevalence indices were included: physical assault by a parent (8-item index); sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member (2-item index); and witnessing inter-parental physical violence (7-item index). Examples of items measuring physical assault by a parent, sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member and witnessing inter-parental physical violence are, respectively: ‘Has your mum/dad ever grabbed you around the neck or choked you?’, ‘Has an adult family member ever forced you to perform certain sexual acts’ and ‘Has your mum/dad ever thrown or knocked the other one down?’ The responses to the items that measure physical assault by a parent were used to classify respondents into a group that experienced no abuse (coded as 0) and a group that experienced physical abuse on at least one occasion (coded as 1). Similarly, based on the items pertaining to sexual abuse by a family member, respondents were classified into a group that experienced no abuse and a group that had been raped or sexually assaulted by a family member on one or more occasions. Lastly, using the items that ask about witnessing physical violence between parents, respondents were classified as witnessing physical violence between their parents (coded as 1) if they responded positively to having seen at least one of the parents physically abusing the other on at least one occasion. Respondents who did not report any such experiences were classified as ‘non-witnesses’ (coded as 0).

Alpha coefficients for the three prevalence indices are respectively .76 for physical assault by a parent, .71 for sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member and .84 for witnessing inter-parental physical violence, indicating a good to high internal consistency for each of these indices (Kline, 1999; Murphy and Davidshofer, 1998).

Violent delinquency

Violent delinquency was assessed using the Youth Delinquency Survey (YDS) of the Research and Documentation Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice (2005). The YDS is a self-report measure of juvenile delinquent behaviour and comprises six categories of specific criminal acts: Internet offences (6-item index), drug offences (3-item index), discrimination (4-item index), vandalism (7-item index), property offences (10-item index of moderate to serious property offences) and violent offences (9-item index of moderate to serious violent acts). Questions refer to both minor and frequently occurring offences (for example, fare dodging on public transport, vandalism or shoplifting) as well as serious and less frequent offences (for example, burglary, robbery or hurting someone with a weapon). For each offence, respondents were asked whether they had ever committed it (lifetime prevalence) and, if so, how often they had committed the offence in the previous 12 months (number of incidences in the previous year). For the present analyses, only the number of violent offences committed in the year preceding the study was considered. The alpha coefficient for violent delinquency was found to be .81, indicating good reliability (Kline, 1999; Murphy and Davidshofer, 1998).

Social desirability

Given the possibility of cultural variance in willingness to disclose socially undesirable behaviour (for example, Junger-Tas, 1996), the Social Desirability Scale from the Dating Violence Questionnaire (Douglas and Straus, 2006) was used to assess social desirability. The scale consists of 13 items regarding behaviours and emotions that are slightly undesirable but true for almost everyone, such as ‘There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone’ and ‘I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget’. Respondents are asked to what extent they agree with the statements using a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree and 4 = strongly agree). As a respondent disagrees with more of these items, the chances are greater that he will avoid reporting the undesirable criminal behaviours that are the focus of this study. Scale reliability of the social desirability measure in this study was fair, with an alpha coefficient of .63. In general, an alpha coefficient of .60 or higher is considered acceptable for research purposes (Nunnally, 1978).

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics were calculated. Means and standard deviations were computed for continuous variables, while percentages are presented for categorical variables. Additionally, we performed independent sample t-tests and chi-square tests to compare means and percentages by ethnicity. To identify potential confounders, we examined if there were any (socio-demographic) variables that were significantly associated with our dependent variable, violent delinquency. Next, we performed chi-square tests to examine differences between the two ethnic groups in levels of exposure to child abuse, that is, parental physical violence, sexual abuse by a family member and witnessing parental physical violence. To test the association between child abuse exposure and violent delinquency, correlational analyses were performed for each ethnic group separately. Further, we examined the mediating effect of the different types of child abuse on the relationship between ethnicity and violent delinquency. To establish multiple mediation as proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008) three criteria should be met. First, the predictor variable (ethnicity) must be significantly related to the potential mediators (different types of child abuse). The regression coefficients representing these effects will be denoted a1 to a3. Second, the potential mediators are required to have a significant relationship with the outcome variable (violent delinquency) after controlling for the effects of the predictor variable (denoted b1 to b3). Lastly, the third criterion holds that, to establish full mediation, the effect of the predictor on the outcome variable after controlling for the potential mediators (denoted as c′) should be zero. If the effect of the predictor after controlling for the mediator (c′) on the outcome variable is not equal to zero, but is significantly reduced compared with the total effect of ethnicity on violent offending (denoted as c), then partial mediation is indicated (see Figure 1). Because the assumption of the normality of the sampling distribution of the total and indirect effects, through the potential mediators, is questionable, particularly in small samples as is the case in this study, the indirect effects of ethnicity on violent delinquency were bootstrapped.

Figure 1.

The multiple mediation effect of child abuse experiences, while controlling for social class and parental unemployment. This figure shows the unstandardized regression coefficients. The italic coefficient c’ (0.50) is the direct effect after controlling for the multiple mediator variables.

All analyses were performed on the total sample as well as on the school sample and the probation sample separately. Similar results were found in the separate samples as compared with the total sample, which indicates that the results in the total sample did not suffer from sample selection bias. We omit reporting the results of the separate samples to save space. They are available upon request.

Results

Preliminary analyses

The characteristics of the study participants are reported in Table 1. More than three-quarters of the sample identified themselves as Dutch (76.5 percent), the remainder as Moroccan-Dutch (23.5 percent). Participants in the study ranged in age from 15 to 18, with a mean age of 15.77 years (SD = 0.86). Almost 12 percent of the sample rated their family’s wealth as not (so) rich, indicating they were from a lower-class background. Most boys, by far, reported that they lived with both parents (84.7 percent). The social circumstances of Moroccan-Dutch boys are particularly poor. They rated their family’s wealth significantly lower than their Dutch peers. In addition, the proportion of unemployed parents is also significantly higher for Moroccan-Dutch boys. Significant differences between the groups were found on the variables age (t = −4.07, p < .001), social class (χ²(4) = 63.67, p < .001) and parental unemployment (χ²(1) = 109.67, p < .001 and χ²(1) = 143.85, p < .001 for father and mother, respectively). To identify any potential confounders that we should control for in our analyses, we checked whether the variables described above were significantly related to our dependent variable, violent delinquency. Social class (r = 0.11, p < .05), unemployment of the father (r = 0.27, p < .01) and unemployment of the mother (r = 0.22, p < .01) were found to correlate significantly with violent offending and were therefore included in further analyses.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

	Dutch (N = 365)		Moroccan-Dutch (N = 112)		t	p	d
	M	SD	M	SD
Age	15.67	0.77	16.10	1.04	−4.07	<.001	−0.47
Social desirability	32.46	4.75	32.88	4.71	−0.83	.41	−0.09
Violent delinquency	0.79	1.34	1.82	2.58	−4.08	<.001	−0.50
	Percent (N)		Percent (N)		χ ²	p	V
Social class					63.67	<.001	0.37
Very rich	4.4% (16)		1.8% (2)
Quite rich	34.8% (127)		7.1% (8)
Medium rich	54.5% (199)		62.5% (70)
Not so rich	5.2% (19)		20.5% (23)
Not rich	1.1% (4)		8.0% (9)
Unemployment father	4.8% (17)		44.5% (49)		109.67	<.001	0.49
Unemployment mother	11.7% (42)		67.9% (76)		143.85	<.001	0.55
Family structure					9.88	0.04	0.14
Both parents	81.9% (299)		93.8% (105)
My father	1.4% (5)		0.9% (1)
My mother	5.5% (20)		2.7% (3)
Parents different addresses	10.1% (37)		2.7% (3)
Other	1.1% (4)		0.0% (0)

Note. Discrepancies between totals when summed reflect rounding errors.

Do ethnic differences in violent offending exist?

As a first step in our analysis and in line with Hypothesis 1, we examined the frequency of having committed a violent act in the preceding year by ethnic group. On average, Moroccan-Dutch boys (1.82, SD = 2.58) reported committing significantly more violent acts in the preceding year than their Dutch peers (0.79, SD = 1.34) (t = −4.08, p < .001). Given the possibility of cultural variance in willingness to disclose socially undesirable behavior (for example, Junger-Tas, 1996), a social desirability scale was used as a control. The overall mean score on social desirability was 32.56 (SD = 4.74). No significant difference in mean scores was found between the two groups.

Does the prevalence of different types of child abuse vary by ethnicity?

In line with Hypothesis 2, we compared the prevalence of different types of child abuse (that is, physical assault by a parent, sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member, and witnessing inter-parental physical violence) between the Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch groups. These results are reported in Table 2. About one-third of the total sample reported having experienced physical violence by a parent. Moroccan-Dutch boys (60.7 percent) were significantly more likely to indicate having experienced parental physical violence than Dutch boys (21.6 percent) (χ²(1) = 59.54, p < .001). Further, the Moroccan-Dutch group was significantly more likely to report sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member (17.0 percent) than Dutch boys (4.9 percent) (χ²(1) = 15.70, p < .001). About one-quarter of the total sample witnessed inter-parental physical violence. Once again, Moroccan-Dutch boys (45.5 percent) were significantly more likely to report exposure to physical violence between parents than Dutch boys (17.8 percent) (χ²(1) = 34.31, p < .001).

Table 2.

Chi-square tests for prevalence of child abuse by ethnicity.

Child abuse	Dutch Percent (N)	Moroccans Percent (N)	χ ²	p	V
Physical assault by a parent	21.6% (79)	60.7% (68)	59.54	<.001	0.36
Sexual abuse by a family member	4.9% (18)	17.0% (19)	15.70	<.001	0.19
Witnessing parental physical violence	17.8% (65)	45.5% (51)	34.31	<.001	0.27

Is exposure to child abuse associated with self-reported violent delinquency?

In line with Hypothesis 3, we investigated whether exposure to child abuse is associated with self-reported violent offending. Table 3 displays the associations between child abuse and violent delinquency separately for Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys while controlling for participants’ social class and parental unemployment. For Dutch boys, all forms of child abuse were significantly associated with violent offending, whereas for Moroccan-Dutch boys only parental physical assault and witnessing inter-parental physical violence were significantly associated with violent offending. No significant relationship existed between sexual abuse by a family member and violent delinquency in Moroccan-Dutch boys.

Table 3.

Correlations between measures, by ethnicity.

Measures	1	2	3	4
1. Violent delinquency	_	0.16**	0.14**	0.22***
2. Physical assault by parents	0.31**	_	0.24***	0.40***
3. Sexual abuse by a family member	0.09	0.20*	_	0.25***
4. Witnessing parental physical violence	0.35***	0.43***	0.17*	_

Note. Entries are partial correlations separately for Dutch (N = 365) and Moroccan-Dutch (N = 112) boys with social class and parental unemployment controlled. Dutch boys’ correlations are above the diagonal; Moroccan-Dutch boys’ correlations are below the diagonal.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p< .001

Does exposure to child abuse mediate the effect of ethnicity on self-reported violent delinquency?

In line with Hypothesis 4, mediation analyses were performed to examine whether the relationship between ethnicity and violent offending is mediated by exposure to child abuse. While controlling for social class and parental unemployment, a regression-based causal model was estimated for the effect of ethnicity on violent offending through the mediating effect of exposure to child abuse. As Figure 1 shows, the total (c) and direct (c′) effects of ethnicity on violent delinquency are 1.00, p < .01, and 0.50, p < .01, respectively. The difference between the total and the direct effects is the total indirect effect through child abuse exposure, with a point estimate of 0.50 and a 95 percent BCa bootstrap CI of 0.31 to 0.74 (see Table 4). When taken together, physical assault by a parent, sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member and witnessing inter-parental physical violence significantly mediate the effect of ethnicity on violent offending.

Table 4.

Mediation of the effect of ethnicity on violent delinquency through physical assault by a parent, sexual abuse by a family member and witnessing parental violence, while controlling for social class.

	Point estimate	Product of coefficients		Bootstrapping
				BCa 95 percent CI
		SE	Z	Lower	Upper
				Indirect effects
Assault	0.2036	0.07	2.91	0.0799	0.3709
Sexual	0.0724	0.07	1.03	−0.0216	0.2489
Witnessing	0.2272	0.08	2.84	0.0980	0.3970
Total	0.5032	0.11	4.57	0.3076	0.7406
				Contrasts
Assault vs. sexual	0.1311	0.10	1.31	−0.0694	0.3338
Assault vs. witnessing	0.0236	0.11	0.21	−0.1844	0.2364
Sexual vs. witnessing	0.1547	0.11	1.41	−0.0586	0.3853

Note: BCa, bias corrected and accelerated; 1000 bootstrap samples.

The specific indirect effects of ethnicity on violent offending are 0.20 through physical assault by a parent, 0.07 through sexual abuse by a family member and 0.23 through witnessing inter-parental physical violence. The SEs and critical ratios for these effects are reported in Table 4. With regard to the potential mediators we examined, we can conclude that physical assault by a parent and witnessing inter-parental physical violence are important and significant mediators of the ethnicity violent offending relationship (Z = 2.91, p < .01 and Z = 2.84, p < .01, respectively). The estimates and 95 percent CIs (BCa) are reported in Table 4. Sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member does not contribute to the indirect effect above and beyond physical assault by a parent and witnessing inter-parental physical violence.

Discussion

Juvenile violent offending among adolescent boys with a minority background is reported to be a significant problem in several countries, including the Netherlands. Adding to the extant literature, the current study investigated to what extent possible differences in the prevalence of child abuse mediate the relationship between ethnicity and violent offending. Our results build upon the extant literature in several ways.

First, in line with our first hypothesis, this study demonstrates that the incidence of violent offending is higher for Moroccan-Dutch boys than for Dutch boys. This is in line with the overrepresentation of Moroccan-Dutch boys in official crime statistics (for example, De Jong, 2007; Jennissen et al., 2009; Veen et al., 2011).

Second, in line with our second hypothesis, this study demonstrates that Moroccan-Dutch boys are exposed to greater victimization in the home than are Dutch boys. Up till now, empirical studies on child abuse in the Netherlands have not clarified whether child abuse is more or less prevalent among Moroccan-Dutch youth in comparison with Dutch youth. Of course, the current study may be limited by the sample we were able to reach. However, data from the most recent national self-report study on child abuse among high school students in the Netherlands (NPM-2010 – Alink et al., 2011) show that the percentage of Dutch boys reporting child abuse in the current study is comparable to the prevalence among Dutch boys in the general population. If anything, the Dutch boys in our sample are characterized by slightly more physical violence by a parent and witnessed more inter-parental physical violence. However, when conducting chi-square tests using weighting to correct for disproportional sample sizes (Field, 2009), both effect sizes (respectively −0.09 and −0.07) are small (Cohen, 1988). For sexual abuse perpetrated by a family member, no significant differences are found, suggesting consistency between both studies. Unfortunately, because the national study did not report prevalence for Moroccan-Dutch boys separately, we could not compare the prevalence of child abuse experiences among Moroccan-Dutch boys from our study with the results from the national study. However, we found no significant differences between Moroccan-Dutch and Dutch boys in their social desirability, so we have no reason to assume that our results that show a higher prevalence of child abuse victimization among Moroccan-Dutch boys are artefacts of our study.

Third, consistent with previous research and our third hypothesis, we found that exposure to child abuse is significantly associated with violent offending (for example, Fagan et al., 2007; Perez, 2001; Stouthamer-Loeber et al., 2002; Swanson et al., 2003; Tolan et al., 2006; Widom, 1989a, 1989b). This is true for both Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys, which suggests that the way in which child abuse affects violent offending is similar for both Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys. This too is consistent with findings from previous research (Perez, 2001). Among Moroccan-Dutch boys, however, sexual abuse by a family member is not associated with violent delinquency. Although we can only speculate about the reasons for this absence of an association, one possible explanation for this ethnic-specific finding may be found in the socialization of Moroccan-Dutch boys. Moroccan-Dutch boys grow up in a culture that places a strong emphasis on upholding and defending the reputation of oneself and one’s family, much more so than the Dutch culture. Men, in particular, feel the need to embrace masculine features to guarantee the protection of their property, families and themselves (Pels and De Haan, 2007). Within this context, sexual abuse might be seen as an extreme violation of one’s manly ability to protect and defend oneself and could be considered as critical to well-being. As a result, sexual abuse may lead to internalizing instead of externalizing problems, although this is a tentative hypothesis that we can neither verify nor reject on the basis of our survey data. Further exploration of this unexpected result is therefore necessary.

A fourth addition that our study offers to the existing body of literature, and in accordance with our fourth hypothesis, is our finding that differences in exposure to different types of child abuse partially mediate the relationship between ethnicity and violent delinquency. Greater exposure to child abuse was associated with greater involvement in violent delinquency regardless of ethnicity. Because of the higher prevalence of child abuse victimization among Moroccan-Dutch boys, these results suggest that the higher prevalence of violent offending among Moroccan-Dutch boys is partially explained by the higher level of exposure to different types of child abuse rather than by ethnicity per se.

We acknowledge that the study’s reliance on cross-sectional data limits causal inferences, because cross-sectional studies are confined to one specific point in time. However, many cross-sectional studies attempt to go further than just providing information on the frequency (or level) of the attribute of interest in the study population by collecting information on both the attribute of interest and potential risk factors. For instance, in our study we collected data on potential risk factors for juvenile violent offending. We explicitly sought to establish a causal relationship by considering the lifetime prevalence exposure to different types of child abuse as potential risk factors for violent offending in the preceding year, in the course of which it seems quite probable that the abuse preceded the offending. In addition, research generally shows that younger children are more often the victims of familial abuse than older children (Fisher and McDonald, 1998) and that child abuse victimization decreases with age (Alink et al., 2011; US Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). One reason is that, in most circumstances, the younger the child, the more time spent in the home. However, our survey data did not inform us about these potential age differences. Longitudinal studies are required to investigate the effect of familial abuse on juvenile violent offending. Further, violent delinquency involves a broad spectrum of minor and major violent acts as well as differences in frequency in these minor and major acts. With a sample including boys who were not suspected or convicted of a criminal offence, there might be an inherent and very limited range of violent acts identifying ‘violent’ boys. Therefore, this study’s research design allows for only a partial examination of the central relationship between ethnicity and violence as mediated by abuse.

In addition, as in many studies, rather than using multiple methods of assessment (for example, juvenile criminal records, parents’ reports), we based our study exclusively on self-report instruments to operationalize all constructs. A multi-methods design would have addressed the potential effects of shared method variance by breaking up variance accounted for by the method of assessment. Finally, data were collected among boys of Dutch or Moroccan-Dutch descent only. To increase generalizability, future studies should investigate the relationship between ethnicity, exposure to child abuse and violent offending in samples that contain respondents with a wider range of ethnic backgrounds; that cover a wider age range; that also include girls; and that cover from a wider range of socioeconomic groups (specifically including respondents from lower risk groups).

Implications and future directions

The findings of this study have several implications for the prevention of violent juvenile delinquency. Given that both Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch boys report committing violent delinquent acts and that exposure to child abuse is significantly related to violent offending for both groups, it is important that both groups receive prevention services that reduce risk, enhance protection and lessen the likelihood of violent offending. Furthermore, the results of this study highlight the need for social services and criminal justice professionals to provide prevention and intervention strategies for abused adolescent boys. This may be particularly important for Moroccan-Dutch boys. Given that Moroccan-Dutch boys are significantly more likely to report exposure to child abuse and that these differences in victimization are of sufficient magnitude to partially explain the observed differences in levels of violent offending between Dutch and Moroccan-Dutch, this study emphasizes the need for increased recognition of and procedures to raise awareness about the vulnerable position of Moroccan-Dutch boys. The victimization of Moroccan-Dutch boys, in particular, is often underreported and overlooked by the authorities, perhaps because Moroccan-Dutch boys are less likely than their Dutch peers to be seen as victims. There is clear evidence of the unfavourable position of Moroccan-Dutch boys in Dutch society (Crul and Heering, 2008) and their reputation in Dutch media and public discourse is far from bright. To date, Moroccan-Dutch families still live in lower SES neighbourhoods with a higher immigrant density than do Dutch families (De Boom et al., 2010; CBS, 2012; Laghzaoui, 2009). This suggests that, rather than ethnicity per se, the unfavourable conditions of Moroccan-Dutch boys are probably the result of the, on average, presence of several stressors in the family. This might be generally true for boys with an ethnic minority status with parents failing to provide sufficient help and support owing to a lack of resources to do better and to their social setting making it difficult to succeed. The discrepancy between the parents’ and adolescents’ expectations and/or preferences might cause conflict for the adolescent, which may result in a negative influence on the parent–child relationship or even in child abuse exposure, which in turn results in a higher risk of involvement in violent offending.

Ethnic-specific prevention programmes need to build on a clear understanding of the risk factors and aetiology of juvenile violent delinquency and need to continuously examine the meaning of the differential risk ratios across the two ethnic groups. We suggest that further research into the effects of child abuse on juvenile violent delinquency for ethnic minorities should take this complexity into account.

References

Agnew

(1992) Foundation of a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology 30: 47–88.

Ait Ouarasse

Van de Vijver

FJR

(2005) The role of demographic variables and acculturation attitudes in predicting sociocultural and psychological adaptation in Moroccans in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29: 251–272.

Alink

Van IJzendoorn

Bakermans-Kranenburg

Pannebakker

Vogels

Euser

(2011) Kindermishandeling in Nederland Anno 2010. De tweede nationale prevalentie studie mishandeling van kinderen en jeugdigen (NPM-2010) [Child Abuse in the Netherlands in 2010. The Second National Prevalence Study of Child Abuse]. Leiden: Casimir Publishers.

Bergen

Martin

Richardson

Allison

Roeger

(2003) Sexual abuse and suicidal behavior: A model constructed from a large community sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 42: 1301–1309.

Berry

(1997) Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology 46: 20–34.

Berry

(2005) Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29: 697–712.

Bolger

Patterson

(2001) Developmental pathways from child maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development 72: 549–568.

Bovenkerk

(1994) A delinquent second generation? Research Notes from the Netherlands 2: 2–10.

Broekhuizen

Driessen

FMHM

(2006) Van je vrienden moet je het hebben. Structurele en culturele determinanten van de jeugdcriminaliteit. [It’s Your Friends That Make You Pay. Structural and Cultural Determinants of Juvenile Delinquency]. Utrecht: Bureau Driessen.

10.

CBS (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistie) (2012) URL: http://www.cbs.nl.

11.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

12.

Coulton

Korbin

Chow

(1995) Community level factors and child maltreatment rates. Child Development 66: 1262–1277.

13.

Crul

Heering

(2008) The Position of the Turkish and Moroccan Second Generation in Amsterdam and Rotterdam: The TIES Study in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

14.

De Boom

Weltevrede

Van Wensveen

Van San

Hermus

(2010) Marokkaanse Nederlanders 2010. Een nulmeting van hun positie op de terreinen van onderwijs, arbeid en uitkering en criminaliteit in 22 gemeenten. Rotterdam: Risbo, Erasmus Universiteit.

15.

De Jong

JDA

(2007) Kapot moeilijk: Een etnografisch onderzoek naar opvallend delinquent groepsgedrag van ‘Marokkaanse’ jongens [Torn Difficult: An Ethnographic Study into Striking Delinquent Group Behaviour of ‘Moroccan’ Boys]. Amsterdam: Aksant.

16.

Demuth

Brown

(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.

17.

Douglas

Straus

(2006) Assault and injury of dating partners by university students in 19 countries and its relation to corporal punishment experienced as a child. European Journal of Criminology 3: 293–318.

18.

Engen

Steen

Bridges

(2002) Racial disparities in the punishment of youth: A theoretical and empirical assessment of the literature. Social Problems 49(2): 194–220.

19.

English

Widom

Brandford

(2002) Childhood Victimization and Delinquency, Adult Criminality, and Violent Criminal Behavior: A Replication and Extension, Final Report. Rockville, MD: National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

20.

Esterle-Hedibel

(2001) Youth gangs in France: A socio-ethnographic approach. In: Klein

Kerner

Maxson

Weitekamp

EGM

(eds) The Eurogang Paradox: Street Gangs and Youth Groups in the U.S. and Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

21.

Fagan

(2005) The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: Support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence. Journal of Family Violence 20: 279–290.

22.

Fagan

Van Horn

Hawkins

Arthur

(2007) Gender similarities and differences in the association between risk and protective factors and self- reported serious delinquency. Prevention Science 8: 115–124.

23.

Ferrari

(2002) The impact of culture upon child rearing practices and definitions of maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect 26: 793–813.

24.

Field

(2009) Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, 3rd edn. London: Sage Publications.

25.

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

Hamby

(2005) The victimization of children & youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment 10: 5–25.

26.

Fisher

McDonald

(1998) Characteristics of intrafamilial and extrafamilial child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect 22: 915–929.

27.

Gabbidon

Greene

(2005) Race and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

28.

Gold

Sullivan

Lewis

(2011) The relation between abuse and violent delinquency: The conversion of shame to blame in juvenile offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect 35: 459–467.

29.

Gould

Weinberg

Mustard

(2002) Crime rates and local labor market opportunities in the United States: 1977–1997. Review of Economics and Statistics 84: 45–61.

30.

Hawkins

Laub

Lauritsen

(1998) Race, ethnicity, and serious offending. In: Loeber

Farrington

(eds) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

31.

Hawkins

Laub

Lauritsen

Cothern

(2000) Race, ethnicity, and serious offending. Juvenile Justice Bulletin 6: 1–8.

32.

Heck

Walsh

(2000) The effects of maltreatment and family structure on minor and serious delinquency. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44: 178–193.

33.

Herrera

McCloskey

(2001) Gender differences in the risk for delinquency among youth exposed to family violence. Child Abuse and Neglect 25: 1037–1051.

34.

Hoeve

Dubas

Smeenk

Gerris

JRM

Van der Laan

(2011) Maternal and paternal parenting styles: Unique and combined links to adolescent and young adult delinquency. Journal of Adolescence 34: 813–827.

35.

Jaya

Narasimhan

(2003) Violence on children between 10–18 years in varied family contexts. Indian Psychology Research 60: 2–9.

36.

Jennissen

RPW

Blom

Oosterwaal

(2009) Geregistreerde criminaliteit als indicator van de integratie van niet-Westerse allochtonen [Registered crime as an indicator of the integration of non-Western immigrants]. Mens en Maatschappij 84.

37.

Juby

Farrington

(2001) Disentangling the link between disrupted families and delinquency. British Journal of Criminology 41: 22–40.

38.

Junger

Polder

(1991) Achtergronden van delinquent gedrag onder jongens uit etnische minderheden II [Contexts of Delinquent Behaviour among Boys of Ethnic Minority Descent II]. Arnhem: Gouda Quint/WODC.

39.

Junger-Tas

(1996) Youth and violence in Europe. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention 5: 31–58.

40.

Kline

(1999) Handbook of Psychological Testing, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

41.

Komen

(2002) Dangerous children: Juvenile delinquency and judicial intervention in the Netherlands, 1960–1995. Crime, Law & Social Change 37: 379–401.

42.

Laghzaoui

(2009) Arabic as a minority language in the Netherlands: A sociolinguistic approach. International Journal of Anthropology 23: 233–245.

43.

Lahlah

Lens

KME

Van der Knaap

Bogaerts

(2012) Reflections on ethnicity and juvenile delinquency: The trouble with Moroccan boys. Unpublished manuscript, Tilburg Law School, the Netherlands.

44.

Lamers-Winkelman

Slot

Bijl

Vijlbrief

(2007) Scholieren over mishandeling. Resultaten van een landelijk onderzoek naar de omvang van kindermishandeling onder leerlingen van het voortgezet onderwijs [Pupils on Abuse Study]. Amsterdam / Duivendrecht: VU, PI Research.

45.

Lansford

Deater-Deckard

Dodge

Bates

Pettit

(2004) Ethnic differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent externalizing behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45(4): 801–812.

46.

Lewis

Leeb

Kotch

Smith

Thompson

Black

. (2007) Maltreatment history and weapon carrying among early adolescents. Child Maltreatment 12: 259–268.

47.

Loeber

Farrington

(eds) (1998) Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

48.

Loeber

Pardini

Homish

Crawford

Farrington

Stouthamer-Loeber

. (2005) The prediction of violence and homicide in young men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 73: 1074–1088.

49.

McCarter

(2009) Legal and extralegal factors affecting minority overrepresentation in Virginia’s juvenile justice system: A mixed-method study. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal 26: 533–544.

50.

Messner

Raffalovich

McMillan

(2001) Economic deprivation and changes in homicide arrest rates for white and black youths 1967–1998: A national time series analysis. Criminology 39: 591–613.

51.

Murphy

Davidshofer

(1998) Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications, 4th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

52.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

53.

Pels

De Haan

(2007) Socialization practices of Moroccan families after migration: A reconstruction in an acculturative arena. Young 15(1): 71–89.

54.

Perez

(2001) Ethnic differences in property, violent and sexual offending for abused and non-abused adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice 29: 407–417.

55.

Pratt

(2001) Assessing the Relative Effects of Macro-Level Predictors of Crime: A Meta-Analysis. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.

56.

Preacher

Hayes

(2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36: 717–731.

57.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Method 40: 879–891.

58.

Put

Walgrave

(2006) Belgium: From protection towards accountability. In: Muncie

Goldson

(eds) Comparative Youth Justice: Critical Issues. London: Sage.

59.

Rossiter

(2009) Diamonds in the rough: Bridging gaps in supports for at-risk immigrant and refugee youth. Journal of International Migration and Integration 10: 409–429.

60.

Smith

Ireland

Thornberry

(2005) Adolescent maltreatment and its impact on young adult antisocial behavior. Child Abuse & Neglect 10: 1099–1119.

61.

Stahl

Finnegan

Kang

(2007) Easy access to juvenile court statistics: 1985–2004. National Juvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile court case records 1985–2004.

62.

Stevens

GWJM

Vollebergh

WAM

Pels

TVM

Crijnen

AAM

(2005) Patronen van acculturatie en probleemgedrag bij Marokkaanse jongeren in Nederland [Patterns of acculturation and problem behaviour of Moroccan boys in the Netherlands]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie 60: 153–163.

63.

Stouthamer-Loeber

Wei

Homish

Loeber

(2002) Which family and demographic factors are related to both maltreatment and persistent serious delinquency? Children Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice 5: 261–272.

64.

Straus

Hamby

Finkelhor

Moore

Runyan

(1998) Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent-Child Conflict Tactics Scales: Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse & Neglect 22: 249–270.

65.

Swanson

Parkinson

O’Toole

Plunkett

Shrimpton

Oates

(2003) Juvenile crime, aggression and delinquency after sexual abuse. A longitudinal study. British Journal of Criminology 43: 729–749.

66.

Ter Bogt

Van Dorsselaar

Vollebergh

(2005). Psychische gezondheid, risicogedrag en welbevinden van Nederlandse scholieren. HBSC-Nederland 2005 [Psychological Health, Risk Behaviour and Well-being of Dutch Pupils]. Utrecht: Trimbos Instituut.

67.

Thornberry

Krohn

(2000) The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. Criminal Justice 4: 33–83.

68.

Tolan

Gorman-Smith

Henry

(2006) Family violence. In: Fiske

Kazdin

Schacter

(eds) Annual Review of Psychology 57: 550–583.

69.

Van der Laan

Blom

(2011) Juvenile Delinquency in the Period 1996–2010. Developments with Regard to Self-reported Offenders, Suspects Arrested by the Police, and Prosecuted Offenders, on the Basis of the Juvenile Crime Monitor 2010. The Hague: WODC/CBS, Cahier 2011-2.

70.

Van IJzendoorn

Prinzie

Euser

Groeneveld

Brilleslijper-Kater

Van Noort-van der Linden

AMT

. (2007) Kindermishandeling in Nederland Anno 2005. De Nationale Prevalentie studie Mishandeling van Kinderen en Jeugdigen [NPM-2005]. Leiden: Casimir Publishers.

71.

Veen

Stevens

GWJM

Doreleijers

TAH

Dekovic

Pels

Vollebergh

WAM

(2011) Ethnic differences in the mother–son relationship of incarcerated and non-incarcerated male adolescents in the Netherlands. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 5: 23.

72.

Von Gostomski

(2003) Gewalt als reaktion auf anerkennungsdefizite? [Force as reaction to acknowledgement deficits]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 55: 253–277.

73.

US Department of Health and Human Services (2001) Child Maltreatment 1999. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

74.

Wampler

Downs

(2010) Parent and peer attachment in minority males at risk for delinquency. Clinical Social Work Journal 38: 107–119.

75.

Widom

(1989a) Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin 106: 3–28.

76.

Widom

(1989b) The cycle of violence. Science 244: 160–166.

77.

Widom

(1992) The Cycle of Violence. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

78.

Wissink

Dekovic

Meijer

(2009) Adolescent friendship relations and developmental outcomes: Ethnic and gender differences. Journal of Early Adolescence 29: 405–425.

79.

Yun

Ball

Lim

(2011) Disentangling the relationship between child maltreatment and violent delinquency: Using a nationally representative sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 26: 88–110.