RECIDIVISM AFTER A TREATMENT IN A DISCIPLINARY CENTRE FOR JUVENILES

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine recidivists' and non-recidivists' differences in characteristics of the psychosocial functioning after a treatment in a Disciplinary Centre for Juveniles in Sarajevo Canton, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The research was conducted on a sample of 131 juvenile delinquents adjudicated with the educational measure of referral to the juvenile disciplinary centre. The statistical analysis was performed in the SPSS 17.0 program package. The differences between recidivists and non-recidivists were measured using Mann-Whitney test on all variables. A group of four variables were compared by: (a) school factors, (b) family factors, (c) spare time activities and peer relationships and (d) personality and behaviour of juveniles. The results have shown that risk factors are more pronounced in recidivists in all four areas of the psychosocial functioning. The largest difference is in the areas related to spare time activities and peer-relationships, as well as family functioning. The results indicate that the intensified treatment should focus on these areas in order to prevent recidivism.

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)

...

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine recidivists' and non-recidivists' differences in characteristics of the psychosocial functioning after a treatment in a Disciplinary Centre for Juveniles in Sarajevo Canton, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The research was conducted on a sample of 131 juvenile delinquents adjudicated with the educational measure of referral to the juvenile disciplinary centre. The statistical analysis was performed in the SPSS 17.0 program package. The differences between recidivists and non-recidivists were measured using Mann-Whitney test on all variables. A group of four variables were compared by: (a) school factors, (b) family factors, (c) spare time activities and peer relationships and (d) personality and behaviour of juveniles. The results have shown that risk factors are more pronounced in recidivists in all four areas of the psychosocial functioning. The largest difference is in the areas related to spare time activities and peer-relationships, as well as family functioning. The results indicate that the intensified treatment should focus on these areas in order to prevent recidivism.

Keywords: recidivism, educational measure, responsiveness factors

Introduction

Every society had its youth whose behaviour deviated from the socially acceptable and as such it was condemned or sanctioned in one way or another. Juvenile delinquency is a dynamic category subjected to various changes in its scope, phenomenology and implemented interventions. In comparison to crime committed by adults, juvenile delinquency is specific in terms of the age category of offenders, motivation, type of offense and applicable interventions (1). Youth engaged crime represents a considerable problem for society and their families (2). It remains an unresolved question how to respond to the delinquent behaviour and with what methods, e.g. sanctions, while simultaneously ensuring that they take responsibility for their behaviour, since it is necessary to establish a balance between the retribution and rehabilitation elements each sanction has (3). Educational measures are now the largest and the most frequently pronounced type of criminal sanctions for juveniles, with the purpose of providing education, rehabilitation and a proper development of the juvenile (4). Amongst all education measures, a significant place is reserved for the educational measure of referral to the Disciplinary Centre due to its specificities in relation to its implementation and juveniles adjudicated with this measure. The purpose of the imposition of these measures is that, in a relatively short period of time, a powerful impact may be achieved in children via various strategies, in strictly structured conditions by means of direct methods focused on behavioural modifications, development of a personal responsibility and prevention of future criminal acts (4). The efficiency of a treatment method may be assessed by measuring the number of juveniles who come again into conflict with the law (recidivism) or via other different indicators of progress in social functioning (5). Considering the consensus in general literature that adult criminals begin their criminal careers in their juvenile years suggesting that, in order to fight adult criminality, we must begin by controlling juvenile delinquency, the recidivism of young offenders presents an even more disturbing problem. Understanding juvenile recidivism is crucial for the development of effective policy responses to the broader ramifications of juvenile offense (6). Recidivism is most frequently defined as any arrest or offence within a specified follow-up period after release from a detention or rehabilitation facility (7) and it is alsoa key indicator for determining whether criminal justice interventions, from diversion to incarceration, are making a difference in turning offenders away from crime. Recidivism rates are commonly used as a means of measuring the success of specific institutional programs. The timing of recidivism is vital not only for measurements but also for understanding the processes underlying the effects of sanctions and interventions with respect to the propensity of the individual to commit crime (8). The effectiveness of a particular intervention may be the greatest in the period directly following it. Over time, other factors may influence the effectiveness of the intervention and it may become more difficult to determine its effectiveness, disaggregated from other factors (9). In the context of the above, it may be concluded that juvenile offenders are an important target for interventions aimed at the prevention of an ongoing criminal behaviour. Juvenile delinquency and recidivism are thought to be caused by a complicated interaction of risk factors (10). Recidivism can best be prevented if treatment targets the specific risk factors that are presented in serious juvenile offenders.Palmer states that individuals with completely different personality structures may have same estimated risk factors and respond differently to the same treatment. Each individual has a number of specific features that may complicate or facilitate the treatment process (11). Thus, a better understanding of these specific risk factors is needed to increase the treatment effect in order to prevent the persistence of criminal behaviour and to reduce the severity of recidivism (12). The main use of recidivism data is in evaluation of the effectiveness of sentences or programs that reduce reoffending. Additionally, there is a great deal of research on risk assessment to predict recidivism, which might assist criminal justice decision- makers in sentencing or in release decisions (13). In recent years, criminal justice and social science researchers have identified specific principles that are proven effective in reducing recidivism. One of the key principles is the principle of responsiveness, which together with the principles of risk, need, professional discretion and integrity of treatment programs contribute to achieving the objectives of effective treatments (14). Responsiveness and risk/need factors are characteristics of offenders and their situations that predict future criminal behaviour (15). Same authors report that interventions based on these principles may reduce recidivism in young offenders by 25 to 40%. The notion of a specific responsiveness refers to the idea that individual personal characteristics may make offenders more or less responsive to the treatment. Although not a new idea, the labelling of the practice of matching treatment to personal characteristics (responsiveness) is relatively new (16). Responsiveness factors include all those variables that influence the success of the treatment (14). Responsiveness factors implies to a specific group of risk or protective factors that are related to the characteristics and / or circumstances which affect the manner in which the person (or other important people) respond to interventional procedures. Theorists suggest three domains that are important for responsiveness: characteristics of offenders, experts and treatment. The same author lists the following factors of responsiveness: academic skills and abilities, learning style and acquisition of new skills, ability to empathise and establish relationships, willingness to change behaviour, motivation to solve life problems, etc. (1). Further examination of these factors clarifies why certain treatment approaches seem to produce better outcome than other. Appropriate treatments, programming, and interventions based on an individual's responsiveness factors increase his or her chances for success (17). Van Voorhis pointed out that the neglect of responsiveness factors often masks the results of the evaluation of program effectiveness, consequentially being rated as ineffective despite the fact that it is unsuitable for certain types of offenders (18). In this paper, juvenile recidivism applies to those juveniles who are registered as re- arrested within three months after their treatment in Disciplinary Centre. This criterion of recidivism is more comprehensive because it involves all juveniles regardless of the type of criminal offense. Realistic insight into the occurrence and movement of criminal restitution in juvenile offenders will receive a refund if it is looked in relation to the total applicants, not only to convicted minors (20). Therefore, if we considered only those recidivist-juveniles subjected to certain sanctions, we would get an utterly mistaken view of the prevalence of recidivism among juveniles. The principle of opportunity supports such an understanding of recidivism. The same author points out that this principle applies even in the time of deliberations on the penalty that should be imposed. The official police records were used in this article since they provide an objective and clear measure of recidivism (20).

In view of the above mentioned, the aim of this work is to examine the differences in recidivists' and non-recidivists' characteristics of psycho-social functioning after the treatment. Four groups of variables were compared: (a) school factors, (b) family factors, spare time activities and peer relationships and (d) personality and behaviour of juveniles to show the largest effect of the difference. In order to prevent recidivism of juvenile delinquents, treatment should be intensified in areas where variables show the largest effect of the differences.

Methodology

The sample

The sample included 131 juvenile offenders aged between 14 and 18, of both genders, from the Canton of Sarajevo, who were referred to the Disciplinary Centre for Juveniles in Sarajevo by the decision of the Court, in the period between June 1, 2007 and June 30, 2013, and toward whom the planned treatment program at the Disciplinary Centre was implemented in its entirety. To determine the occurrence of recidivism, data was obtained on the basis of the official police records of the Canton Sarajevo, for the period of 3 months after completing the treatment. Table 1 shows the distribution of participants in relation to gender.

Table 1 shows that in the total sample of 131 subjects, 121 subjects or 92.3% were male and 10 subjects or 7.7% were female. The domination of male subjects is evident.

Measuring instrument

Test subjects data were collected using evaluation sheet containing data from the official policerecords of the Ministry of Interior, the Sarajevo Canton, for monitoring purposes of juvenile recidivism 3 months after implementation of treatment in the Disciplinary Centre. The evaluation sheet on the treatment program effects assessment is based on the analysis of the official records and documentation of expert employees of the Disciplinary Centre. Variables in the instrument (the evaluation sheet) were categorised into four areas, namely: functioning in school, family functioning, spare time and peer relations. For the purposes of this study, 21 variables were included in the assessment. The variables were ranked by categories: 1. Never, 2. Rarely, 3. Sometimes, and 4. Often. The answer to each of the questions was presented in a form of the most favourable to the least favourable response for the test subject. The dependent variable is a variable related to recidivism and defined in categories: 1. No, 2. Yes.

I. Group of variables related to variables that describe the functioning in school includes six variables as follows:

1. Risk of the pre-expulsion from the school;

2. Poor academic success;

3. Violation of the rules of conduct in the classroom;

4. Unexcused absences from school;

5. Lack of motivation for learning;

6. Lack of studying habits;

II. Group of variables related to variables that describe family functioning includes five variables, namely:

1. Problems of communication in the family;

2. Parents do not control stay outside of the family;

3. Parents do not give tasks (obligations) to a juvenile;

4. Parent's permissiveness to juvenile's requests;

5. Parents do not provide support in upbringing and education;

III. Group of variables related to spare time activities and peer relationships includes three variables, namely:

1. Socialising with peers with unacceptable behaviour;

2. Unplanned spare time (unstructured);

3. Going out on risky places;

IV.Group of variables related to the personality and behaviour of juveniles includes seven variables:

1. Interests inappropriate to their age;

2. Verbal aggression;

3. Violent conflict resolution;

4. Failure to adopt work habits;

5. Failure to adopt hygienic habits;

6. Lack of feeling regret for inappropriate behaviour;

7. Denying responsibility for bad actions.

Data on juvenile recidivism were based on analysis of the official police records and documents of the Ministry of Interior, the Canton of Sarajevo.

Method of data collection

The study was conducted in the Sarajevo Can- ton, the Cantonal Public Institution Disciplinary Centre for Juveniles and the Ministry of Interior, in the period from March to May 2013.The conducted study was based on data from the wards' personal files, and through the evaluation of educators who have implemented the educational measure.

Statistical Analysis

Considering the aim of the research and the structure of variables in the processing of data, the differences between recidivists and non- recidivists were measured using Mann-Whitney test, in which all variables were tested for the effects of difference.

Results

Determining differences between recidivists and non-recidivists

Data on the incidence of recidivism are shown in Table 2. Data are presented through absolute and relative frequencies.

Table 2 shows that in the total sample of 131 subjects who were at the Disciplinary Centre for treatment, 20 juveniles were recidivists. Mann-Whitney test was used in order to determine which variables differentiate reci- divists from non-recidivists. The results of Mann-Whitney test and effect sizes are shown in Table 3.

From the analysis of the Table 3, it is evident that out of 21 observed variables that define the areas of treatment, 20 of them significantly differentiate recidivists from non-recidivist, showing that, in comparison to non-recidivists, recidivists have more pronounced risk factors contributing the characteristics of psychosocial functioning that reduce treatment success. To further verify the strength of these differences, we calculated the effect size of these differences, and the largest effect of differences was found in areas related to spare time activities and peer relationships (socialising with peers with unacceptable behaviour, unplanned (unstructured) spare time) and family functioning (communication problems within the family; lack of control over the time spent without parental supervision). The medium effect of difference was found in a majority of variables related to school (risk of pre- expulsion from the school, poor academic achievement, violation of the rules of conduct in the classroom, unexcused absences from school, lack of motivation for learning). The mean effect was also observed in three variables related to the family environment (parental permissiveness to juvenile's requests, lack of parental supervision of spare time activities, parental failure to assign tasks/obligations to a juvenile). The smallest effect of difference was found in variables related to the personality and behaviour of juveniles (verbal aggression, violent conflict resolution, failure to adopt work habits, failure to adopt hygienic habits).

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the differences between recidivists and non- recidivists with regard to certain areas of psychosocial functioning of juveniles. The results gainedin this study indicate that out of 21 observed variables that define the areas of treatment, 20 of them significantly distinguish recidivists from non-recidivists. In regards to the magnitude of the effect, the greatest effect of the difference is related to the variable spare time and socialising with delinquent peers, as well as to variables of family functioning. Many authors emphasise that spare time may lead to juvenile delinquency if not planned, programmed and structured. Youth without structured activities tend to have approximately twice the average number of repeated offences than those who tend to favour the protective influence of organised activities such as clubs, sports, or lessons (21).Peer factors, including gang involvement and association with deviant and often older peers, have been long discussed as contributing factors to youth engagement in delinquent behaviour, and more recently as factors that predict reoffending (22). Mbuba wrote that "a large body of research has successfully and steadily linked peer influence to patterned delinquent behaviour with peer pressure forming a central explanation of not only the first involvement in delinquency, but also the repetitive pattern that typifies recidivism (6). Therefore, this variable, along with socialising with anti-social individuals, is in a significant correlation with the interruption of schooling due to the influence of such persons in juvenile's behaviour. Criminological research has confirmed that socialising with people exhibiting an antisocial behaviour represents one of the highest forms of behavioural disorders in juvenile delinquents (23). Association with antisocial peers has been identified as an important risk factor for delinquency and recidivism (24). According to Hansen, this type of behavioural disorders is one of the most consistent and most reliable predictors of juvenile delinquency (18). Delinquent peer associations are also important in predicting general delinquent recidivism (26). Affiliation with deviant peers is a stronger predictor of delinquent behaviour than variables such as family, school, and community characteristics (27). According to McCord et al., factors such as peer delinquent behaviour, peer approval of delinquent behaviour, attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with adolescent antisocial behaviour (28). Antisocial persons try to attract new people in their closer environment by all means, and they usually find them among juveniles who are unstable or with poor upbringing. Groups committing inappropriate actions are often of a temporary character and loose structure. Bouillet and Uzelac (23) cite results of the research conducted in Croatia and point out that recidivism is associated with a number of variables, and they emphasise, inter alia, socialising with people of an anti-social behaviour. The largest effect of difference was observed in variables related to family functioning. Furthermore, Cottle, Lee, and Heilbrun from their meta-analysis of twenty- three published studies on recidivism concludedthat the presence of family problems was a strong predictor of reoffending (29). The importance of family problems also makes good aftercare indispensable. If juvenile offenders return to an unchanged problematic environment, it is unlikely that any positive change will be sustained (30). Farrington reported that the following family factors also influence delinquency and recidivism, as well as inadequate child rearing/management methods (e.g., poor supervision, inconsistent discipline, parental coldness and rejection, low parental involvement in their children's life) (31). In over seventy reviewed studies, the best predictors of delinquency and recidivism included parental rejection, the lack of parental supervision and the parent-child involvement (32). A number of studies have also shown that poor family attachment (i.e. running away from home, not residing with parents) is more common among youth persistently reoffending (22).The impact of recidivism on family problems, e.g. parental skills, indicates that intervention should not only focus on the individual offender, but also on the family. The findings on this issue are in line with previous research that suggests that a multi-systemic approach works in the prevention of recidivism (33). The medium effect of the difference that distinguishes recidivists from non-recidivists refers to the function of the school. School is a key domain to be considered in youth development, one where early signs of future delinquent behaviour may be evident. The school domain includes poor investment and commitment to school, early academic difficulties and/or failure, problematic behaviour in school, bad conduct, and truancy. Research has suggested that youth who proceed to serious offences experience significant disciplinary, achievement, and learning challenges in school (34). Descriptive analyses demonstrated that youth who had problems at school with truancy, suspensions, getting into fights, using weapons, and who considered dropping out of school tended to have a higher average number of repeated offences than those who did not (35). Our results concur with findings that poor academic achievement correlates with recidivism. Poor academic achievement is a striking predictor for delinquency recidivism (29). Research suggests that poor academic performance, truancy and bad conduct in the classroom are all potential precursors for future criminal behaviour (36). Low levels of academic achievement and negative attitude towards school are positive predictors of reoffending (37). Variables related to the personality and behaviour of juveniles showed the smallest effect of difference.This study has limitations that should be taken into account, all of which related to the fact that there was insufficient research conducted by institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the recidivism of juvenile delinquents due to the lack of institutions for the implementation of measures. Also, this research only focused on recidivism in the period of three months after completion of treatment in Disciplinary Centre, which is a short period. Therefore, further research should focus on measuring re- offending with a larger time-span. We should also note that this research focused on official data about re-offending, so there is no data on self-reported and officially non-reported delinquent behaviour.

Conclusion

Given the aim of the research, the implemented research and the interpretation of the results, the following conclusions may be drawn: after the observation of all four areas related to (a) school factors, (b) family factors, (c) spare time activities and peer relationships and (d) personality and behaviour of juveniles, it is evident thatrecidivists have more pronounced risk factors that influence the treatment outcome. The largest effect of the difference is related to spare-time activities, socialising with peers with delinquent behaviour and family functioning. The medium effect of difference is the most prominent in the area of school functioning and family environment. Results of this research indicate that a special attention needs to be devoted to these variables. Generally speaking, persons in criminal recidivism are a problematic part of any delinquent population. Usually they are "stubborn" in their unlawful conduct, having spent most of their life in conflict with societal norms. It is important to note the fact that juvenile crime recidivists manifest severe forms of behavioural disorders, and that they are not rooted in any educational environment, family or school. The abovementioned variables of recidivism indicate the need to empower the treatment program and activities in the field of structuring the spare time of juveniles, to empower the work in the field of positive selection of peer groups and socialisation with peers with an acceptable behaviour, as well as to strengthen the control and surveillance of the juvenile's presence at risky places and to establish a better cooperation between the Disciplinary Centre and other educational institutions with an aim of reducing the risk of expulsion from the school. Weaker effectiveness of the recidivists' treatment suggests that more attention should be paid to factors relating to offenders' characteristics as one of the elements of responsiveness that, in addition to characteristics of experts and treatment, could contribute to the reduction of recidivism.

Conflict of interests

Authors declare that have no conflict of interests

.../ References

1. Ricijas N, Jeðud-Boric I, Lotar-Rihtaric, M, Mirosavljevic A. Pojacana briga i nadzor. Iz perspective mladih i voditelja mjere. Zagreb: Ured Unicefa za Hrvatsku; 2014.

2. Perkins-Dock RE. Family interventions with incarcerated youth: A review of the literature. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2001; 45(5): 606≠625.

3. Ricijas N. Procjena planiranje i izvjestavanje u izvrsenju maloljetnickih alternativnih sankcija. Ministarstvo socijalne politike i mladih Republike Hrvatske. Zagreb; 2012.

4. Koller-Trbovic N, Juricanin T. Evaluacija nekih obiljezja tretmana u okviru Disciplinskog centra za maloljetnike. Defektologija. Zagreb; 1990.

5. Miksaj-Todorovic Lj, Buðanovac A. Penoloska re- habilitacija I. Interna skripta. Zagreb: Defektoloski fakultet Sveucilista u Zagrebu;1995.

6. Mbuba MJ. Juvenile recidivism: An analysis of race and other socio-demographic predictors within three intervention modalities in the State of Louisiana. A Dissertation. The Department of Sociology. Louisiana State University; 2004.

7. Wierson M, Forehand R. Predicting recidivism in juvenile delinquents: The role of mental health diagnoses and the qualification of conclusions by race. Behaviour Research and Therapy.1995; 33, 63≠67.

8. Boone J, Fulton BA. Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: The principles of effective implementation. Nacional Institute of corrections; 2004.

9. Maxwell G, Morris A. Family group conferences and re-offending' in Restorative justice for juveniles: Conferencing, mediaon and circles. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2001: 243≠263.

10. Loeber R, Farrington DP. The significance of child delinquency. Child delinquents: development, intervention and service needs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001; 1≠21.

11. Palmer T. Programmatic and non-programmatic aspects of successful intervention. Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks: Ca Sage; 1996: 131-182.

12. Schumacher M, Kurz GA. The 8% solution: preventing serious, repeat juvenile crime. Sage Publications; 2000.

13. Farrington D P, Davies D. T. Repeated Contacts with the Criminal Justice System and Offender Outcomes. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Statistics Canada; 2007.

14. Vasiljevic D. Responsivnost kao faktor uspesnosti tretmana prestupnika. Socijalna misao. Defektoloski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu 2005; 12 (2-3): 107≠121.

15. Andrews DA, Bonta J. The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing; 1993.

16. Andrews DA, Bonta J, Hoge, RD. Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 1990;17: 19≠52.

17. Bogue B, et all. Implementing evidence-based principles in community corrections. Leading organizacional change and development. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections and rime and Justice Institute; 2004.

18. Van Voorhis P. Correctional classification and the responsivity principle. Forum on corrections research; 1997.

19. Singer M. Kriminologija. Globus. Zagreb; 1996.

20. Heilbrun K. et all. Risk factors for juvenile criminal recidivism. The postrelease Community adjustment of juvenile offenders. Criminal justice and behaviour. 2000; 27 (3), 275≠291.

21. Leslie D. et all. Relating risk and protective factors to youth eoffending: A two-year follow-up. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies 2011; 2 (1): 172≠196.

22. MacRae LD, Bertrand L D, Paetsch J J, Hornick JP, DeGusti B. A study of youth reoffending in Calgary. Calgary: AB: Canadian Research Institute for Law and the Family; 2009.

23. Boiuillet D. Uzelac S. Osnove socijalne pedagogije. Skolska knjiga d.d.. Zagreb; 2007.

24. Bender K. Why do some maltreated youth become juvenile offenders? A call for further investigation and adaptation of youth services. Children and Youth Services Review; 2010; 32, 466≠473.

25. Hansen WB. Prevention programs: Factors that individually focused program must address.Resourch papers.Rock-wille.1997; 53≠55.

26. Hoge RD, Andrews DA. Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory: User's Manual. North Towanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems; 2002.

27. Elliott DS, Menard S. Delinquent friends and delinquent behaviour: Temporal and developmental patterns. In: Hawkins J. David., editor. Delinquency and crime: Current theories. Cambridge criminology series. Cambridge University Press; New York: 1996; 28≠67.

28. McCord J, Widom CS, Crowell NA. Juvenile crime, juvenile justice, panel of juvenile crime: prevention, treatment and control.Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.

29. Cottle CC, Lee R J, Heilbrun K. The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behaviour. 2001; 28, 367≠394.

30. Eva M, et all. A classification of risk factors in serious juvenile offenders and the relation between patterns of risk factors and recidivism. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 2010; 20 (1): 23≠38.

31. Farrington, D P. Crime and the family. The Criminologist, 2010; 35 (2), 1≠6.

32. Machteld H, et all. The Relationship Between Parenting and Delinquency: A Meta-analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol 2009; 37(6): 749≠775.

33. Henggeler et all. Multisystemic therapy: an effective violence prevention approach for serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Adolescence 1996; 19: 47≠61.

34. Kershaw M A, Beckerman A, Perkins D. Young chronic offenders: A case study of contextual and intervention characteristics. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2005; 3 (2): 133-150.

35. Archer D, Johnson V, Miller K, et al. Persistent young offenders: A retrospective study. London: Youth Justice Board for England and Wales; 2005.

36. MacRae LD, Lorne DB, Joanne JP, Joseph PH. Relating risk and protective factors to youth reoffending: a two year follow up. International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies 2011; 2.(1): 172≠196.

37. Cernkovich SA, Giordano PC. School Bonding, Race, and Delinquency. Criminology 1992; 30 (2): 261≠291.

Ranko KOVACEVIC1

Samir SULJAGIC2

Dzenita LJUCA2

Edin MUFIC1

1 Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Tuzla

2 KJU Disciplinski centar za maloljetnike, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Recived: 30.05.2014

Accepted: 03.08.2014

Original Article

Correspondending address:

Ranko KOVACEVIC

Univerzitetska 1, 75 000 Tuzla,

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Phone: + 387 35 320 678; + 387 61 855 024

E-mail: [email protected]