Upload
cathleen-mcdonald
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Crime and substance Crime and substance abuse: risk and abuse: risk and
protective factorsprotective factors
Concetta Pastorelli Concetta Pastorelli in collaboration with in collaboration with
Laura Panerai, Valeria CastellaniLaura Panerai, Valeria Castellani , , Maria Gerbino, Giovanni VecchioMaria Gerbino, Giovanni Vecchio
Interuniversity Center for the Study Interuniversity Center for the Study of Prosocial and Antisocial of Prosocial and Antisocial
Behavior, University of Rome, Behavior, University of Rome, SapienzaSapienza
Centro Italiano di Solidarieta’, Centro Italiano di Solidarieta’,
Rome - ItalyRome - Italy
Interuniversity Center for the Study of Interuniversity Center for the Study of Development of Prosocial and Antisocial behaviorDevelopment of Prosocial and Antisocial behavior
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA “LA SAPIENZAUNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA “LA SAPIENZA
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI NAPOLI “FEDERICO II”UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI NAPOLI “FEDERICO II”
UNIVERSITA’ “CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE” DI MILANOUNIVERSITA’ “CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE” DI MILANO
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI FIRENZEUNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI FIRENZE
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI PADOVAUNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI PADOVA
UNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI CATANIAUNIVERSITA’ DEGLI STUDI DI CATANIAUNVERSITA’DEGLI STUDI DI TORINOUNVERSITA’DEGLI STUDI DI TORINO
Promoting, Developing, Promoting, Developing, EnhancingEnhancing and Protecting Personal and and Protecting Personal and Collective Resources through Collective Resources through
Research, Teaching, and Research, Teaching, and InterventionIntervention
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
The Centro Italiano The Centro Italiano di Solidarieta’ Team, di Solidarieta’ Team, his President:,Don his President:,Don Mario Picchi, and Mario Picchi, and Vice President, Juan Vice President, Juan Pares Pares
The The Interuniversity Interuniversity Center TeamCenter Team
The participants who so generously allowed us to The participants who so generously allowed us to interview and assess them for hoursinterview and assess them for hours
Centro Italianodi Solidarietà di Roma
The Sert ( territorial service)Team, their chiefs, psychologists and social workersThe Sert ( territorial service)Team, their chiefs, psychologists and social workers The Funding Agencies, Regione LazioThe Funding Agencies, Regione Lazio
UNIVERSITA’ DI ROMA
“LA SAPIENZA”
According to a psycosocial perspective we capitalize on the most relevant research findings related to the development of drug-use/abuse and delinquency within an ecological approach
Individuals are embedded in an ecological niche
and individual -organismic factors play a role in conjunction with contextual forces
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Simultaneous measurement of a broad array of risk and protective factors is important to predict adequately the initiation and maintenance of antisocial behavior.
It is important to assess risk and protective factors at multiple levels: community, peer, family, individual
RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS
AIMS OF THE AIMS OF THE STUDYSTUDY
To examine the prevalence of To examine the prevalence of crimes in a group of drug addicted crimes in a group of drug addicted adultsadults
To identify the most relevant risk To identify the most relevant risk and protective factors associated and protective factors associated with crimes in a group of drug with crimes in a group of drug addicted adultsaddicted adults
PARTICIPANTSPARTICIPANTS 178 Young Adults and Adults 178 Young Adults and Adults receiving residential receiving residential (49.4%) or(49.4%) or nonresidential (50.6%) substance nonresidential (50.6%) substance abuse treatment in the city of Romeabuse treatment in the city of Rome
Residential Community Treatment: Residential Community Treatment: Progetto Uomo, CeIS Progetto Uomo, CeIS Non-residential Treatment: Local Non-residential Treatment: Local public facilities -Methadone delivery public facilities -Methadone delivery (2 centers:Sert) (2 centers:Sert)
Participants were invited to Participants were invited to complete the assessment during the complete the assessment during the first week of their entry to the first week of their entry to the program program Approximately 22%Approximately 22% refused to participate refused to participate in the study.in the study.
PROCEDUREPROCEDURE FFirst session: Informed consent, irst session: Informed consent,
semi-structured interviewsemi-structured interview
Second session: Self reported Second session: Self reported questionnairesquestionnaires
Third Session: Self reported Third Session: Self reported questionnairesquestionnaires
Average Hours: 3.5 Average Hours: 3.5
Crime-related VariablesCrime-related Variables
Violent criminalityViolent criminality11 : : physical assault with and without a weapon, physical assault with and without a weapon, threatening someonethreatening someone, , being involved in being involved in gang-fightsgang-fights
Not violent criminalityNot violent criminality 11: stealing property, : stealing property, destroying property, destroying property, shoplifting, or selling drugsshoplifting, or selling drugs
Penal problemsPenal problems: financial crimes, assalt against pubblic officer, : financial crimes, assalt against pubblic officer, illegal possesion of drug, drug pushing, physical violence, theft, illegal possesion of drug, drug pushing, physical violence, theft, ect.ect.
11((Elliot, Huizinga, Ageton 1985)Elliot, Huizinga, Ageton 1985)
Contextual Risk factorsContextual Risk factors Conditions of NConditions of Neighborhood eighborhood
(crimes, drug addiction, (crimes, drug addiction, minorile minorile job, prostitution, illiteracy, etc)job, prostitution, illiteracy, etc)
Substance Availability in the Substance Availability in the neighborhoodneighborhood
Interpersonal Risk factorsInterpersonal Risk factors AggregationAggregationwith deviant peerswith deviant peers 11
Family problems (Penal problems, Family problems (Penal problems, Substance problems, Use of violence)Substance problems, Use of violence)
Family conflictFamily conflict 2 2
1( Capaldi Patterson, 1989)1( Capaldi Patterson, 1989)
2 (Honess, Charman, Zani,Cicognani, Xerri, Jackson, & Bosma (1997)2 (Honess, Charman, Zani,Cicognani, Xerri, Jackson, & Bosma (1997)
Contextual and Psychosocial Contextual and Psychosocial Variables/1Variables/1
Individual Risk Factors Individual Risk Factors IrritabilityIrritability : :tendency to react impulsively,
controversially, or rudely at the slightest provocation or disagreement 1
Hostile Rumination:Hostile Rumination: tendency to maintain or even increase the desire for vengeance, in opposition to the tendency to quickly recover from ill feelings or desires to retaliate 22
Moral disengagement:Moral disengagement: tendency tendency to disengage internal moral control that allows different types of mis-conducts while preserving one’s own personal standards (moral justification, attribution of blame, etc.) 3
11(Caprara, Pastorelli, Perugini, Barbaranelli, 1991)(Caprara, Pastorelli, Perugini, Barbaranelli, 1991) 2 (2 (Caprara, 1985)Caprara, 1985) 3 (Caprara, Pastorelli, Bandura 1995)3 (Caprara, Pastorelli, Bandura 1995)
Contextual and Psychosocial Contextual and Psychosocial Variables/2Variables/2
Protective Protective FactorsFactors
Education LevelEducation Level Personality traits: Emotional Stability, Personality traits: Emotional Stability,
Coscientiousness, Friendliness, Openess Coscientiousness, Friendliness, Openess 11 Self-Esteem Self-Esteem 22 Self efficacy beliefsSelf efficacy beliefs in various domains in various domains 33 “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and
execute the courses of action required to produce given attainment”
a) in resisting transgressive peer pressuresa) in resisting transgressive peer pressures b) in establishing social relationships b) in establishing social relationships c) in regulating negative and positive affects c) in regulating negative and positive affects d) in managing effectively their relationsd) in managing effectively their relations1 (1 (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, 1993)Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, 1993) 2 (Rosenberg, 1965)2 (Rosenberg, 1965)3( Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola, Rozsa, Bandura, 2001)3( Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola, Rozsa, Bandura, 2001)
%%
AgeAge
18-3518-35 57,5%57,5%>35>35 42,5%42,5%
GenderGender
MaleMale 86%86%FemaleFemale 14%14%
Yearly Family Income Yearly Family Income (EURO)(EURO)
<16.000<16.000 24%24%16-30.00016-30.000 34%34%31-40.00031-40.000 22%22%
>40.000 euro>40.000 euro 20%20%
SampleSample
%%
EducationEducation
< High School < High School DiplomaDiploma
64%64%
High School DiplomaHigh School Diploma 31%31%University University 5%5%
School-ProblemsSchool-Problems
Disciplinary ProblemsDisciplinary Problems 45,8%45,8%Expulsions from Expulsions from
schoolsschools10,4%10,4%
Family HistoryFamily History
Family Substance Family Substance abuseabuse
55,6%55,6%
Family crimesFamily crimes 28%28%
SampleSample
Primary Primary substancesubstance
Secondary Secondary substancesubstance
Tertiary Tertiary substancesubstance
CocaineCocaine 23%23% 41%41% 20,4%20,4%
HeroineHeroine 44%44% 20%20% 11,2%11,2%
CannabisCannabis 18%18% 20%20% 33%33%
AlcoholAlcohol 12,2%12,2% 10%10% 17%17%
Other Other SubstancesSubstances
2,8%2,8% 9%9% 18,4%18,4%
Primary, secondary, tertiary Primary, secondary, tertiary substancesubstance
82.4% OF THE SAMPLE USES MULTIPLE DRUGS
<11 <11 yearsyears
11-14 11-14 yearsyears
14-16 14-16 yearsyears
16-20 16-20 yearsyears
>20 >20 yearsyears
AlcoholAlcohol 20%20% 16%16% 28%28% 25%25% 11%11%
HeroineHeroine 1%1% 13%13% 22%22% 33%33% 31%31%
OppiateOppiate 3%3% 16%16% 24%24% 27%27% 30%30%
Depressant Depressant -- 10%10% 21%21% 31,5%31,5% 37,5%37,5%
CocaineCocaine -- 13,6%13,6% 32%32% 29%29% 25,4%25,4%
AmphetaminesAmphetamines -- 11%11% 26%26% 49%49% 14%14%
CannabisCannabis 6%6% 46%46% 31%31% 15%15% 2%2%
hallucinogenshallucinogens 7,7%7,7% 12,3%12,3% 23%23% 42%42% 15%15%
InhalantInhalant 9%9% 27%27% 14%14% 32%32% 18%18%
Age of First Use of DrugsAge of First Use of Drugs
Violent Violent crimes in the crimes in the last 6 monthslast 6 months
Not violent Not violent crimes in crimes in the last 6 the last 6 monthsmonths
Penal Penal Problems Problems across lifeacross life
48.7%48.7% 68.7%68.7% 60%60%
CrimesCrimes
Types of Penal Problems Types of Penal Problems across Lifeacross Life
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
%
financial crimes insult against pubblic officerillegal possession of drug robberydrug pushing physical violencetheft other
CONTEXTUAL, INTERPERSONAL AND
INDIVIDUAL RISK AND PROTECTIVE
FACTORSFOR CRIME
Age of Age of use of use of drugsdrugs
IrritabilIrritabilityity
Hostile Hostile RuminatiRuminati
onon
Moral Moral disengagdisengag
ementement
S. Efficacy S. Efficacy in in
regulating regulating transgrestransgres
sive sive pressurespressures
Risky Risky neighborhoodneighborhood
Substance Substance availabilityavailability
Deviant Deviant friendsfriends
Family Family problems with problems with lawlaw
Family Family substance substance abuseabuse
-
Significant Relations Contextual-Interpersonal and
Individual Risk/Protective Factors
<.25; <.25; >=.25>=.25
Violent Violent Criminal Criminal
actsacts
Not Violent Not Violent Criminal Criminal
ActsActs
Penal Penal ProblemsProblems
Risky neighborhoodRisky neighborhood
Substance availabilitySubstance availability
Deviant friendsDeviant friends
Family legal problemsFamily legal problems
Family substance abuseFamily substance abuse
Age of first use of drugsAge of first use of drugs
IrritabilityIrritability
Moral disengagementMoral disengagement
Significant Relations between Risk Factors and Crimes
<.25; <.25; >=.25>=.25
Violent Violent Criminal Criminal
actsacts
Not Not Violent Violent
Criminal Criminal ActsActs
Penal Penal ProblemProblem
ss
Father EducationFather Education-- --
Mother educationMother education--
Self efficacy beliefs inSelf efficacy beliefs in
Resisting to Resisting to transgressive pressurestransgressive pressures
-- --Self efficacy beliefs inSelf efficacy beliefs in
Regulating negative Regulating negative affectaffect
--
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONS PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND CRIMES
-<.25-<.25
Violent Violent Criminal Criminal
actsacts
Not Violent Not Violent Criminal Criminal
ActsActs
Penal Penal ProblemProblem
ss
RISKY NRISKY NEIGHBORHOODEIGHBORHOOD IIIIIIDEVIANT FRIENDSDEVIANT FRIENDS II IIDISAPPROVAL OF DRUG DISAPPROVAL OF DRUG USEUSE
IVIV
MORAL DISENGAGEMENTMORAL DISENGAGEMENT IIII IIIIIIIRRITABILITYIRRITABILITY IVIVHOSTILE RUMINATIONHOSTILE RUMINATION IIIIII IVIVFRIENDLINESS/HOSTILITYFRIENDLINESS/HOSTILITY IIII
CONSCIENTOUNESSCONSCIENTOUNESS VVCONFLICT WITH MOTHERCONFLICT WITH MOTHER II VVS. EFFICACY IN S. EFFICACY IN REGULATING REGULATING TRANSGRESSIVE TRANSGRESSIVE PRESSURESPRESSURES
VV IIII
MAIN FACTORS THAT DISCRIMINATE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT OR DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES
Violent profileViolent profile
-1
-0,8-0,6
-0,4
-0,20
0,2
0,4
0,60,8
1
not
yes
Not violent profileNot violent profile
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
Irrita
bility
Hostile
Rum
inat
ion
Mor.
Disen
gagm
ent
Conflict
with
moth
er
Devia
nt frie
nds
Conditions
of Nei
ghborhood
Friendlin
ess
Conscio
untess
Reg
ulato
ry S
elf-e
ffica
cy
S.E.R
egula
ting n
egat
ive
affe
ct
Disap
prova
l of d
rug u
se
notyes
Penal Problems ProfilePenal Problems Profile
-1
-0,8
-0,6
-0,4
-0,2
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
YesNot
Summing UpSumming Up
Regarding the typology of drugs: Regarding the typology of drugs: - Multiple drugs Multiple drugs - Decrease of heroin and parallel Decrease of heroin and parallel
increase of cocaineincrease of cocaine
Regarding the typology of individuals and Regarding the typology of individuals and their contexts in relation of criminal their contexts in relation of criminal activity we may sustain they follow activity we may sustain they follow distint pathwaysdistint pathways::
Violent pathwayViolent pathway
Not Violent pathwayNot Violent pathway
Summing UpSumming Up
1.1. Violent pathwaysViolent pathways
More importance of More importance of personality personality characteristicscharacteristics related to related to emotional emotional controlcontrol (more irritable and hostile, more (more irritable and hostile, more incline to revenge -hostile rumination)incline to revenge -hostile rumination)
They lack of regulatory capacity both They lack of regulatory capacity both emotionally and interpersonallyemotionally and interpersonally
Summing UpSumming Up
1.1. Not-Violent pathwaysNot-Violent pathways
Less importance of personality-Less importance of personality-temperamental characteristicstemperamental characteristics
More importance of intrafamilial and More importance of intrafamilial and interpersonal experiences that relate interpersonal experiences that relate to individuals capacity regulate to individuals capacity regulate themselves morally and in the peer-themselves morally and in the peer-context.context.
Summing UpSumming Up
1.1. Both Violent and Not-Violent Both Violent and Not-Violent pathwayspathways
Actively Actively disengage internal moraldisengage internal moral control for justifying what they do control for justifying what they do and alleviate guilt feelingsand alleviate guilt feelings
Activelly associate with Activelly associate with deviant peers deviant peers