Childhood Adversity and Delinquency Among Youth in the Context of Child-to-Parent and Sibling-to-Sibling Violence

Background and Purpose: Much research has been dedicated to understanding how children are impacted by violence in the home, yet youth arrested for domestic battery are an understudied portion of that group. Adolescent perpetrators of family violence include child-to-parent violence (CPV) and sibling-to-sibling violence (SSV). The ways in which CPV is different than SSV remain unclear. If the correlates for and outcomes of aggressive behavior with parents and siblings are different, then different interventions are needed to help families end family violence.  The present study explored the prevalence of childhood adversity among CPV and SSV and examined whether there were group differences.         

Methods: Data were collected using a cross-sectional survey design.  127 youth ages 12-17 (M=15 year old) seeking services from a voluntary diversion program participated in the current study. There were 83 youth arrested for CPV and 44 youth arrested for SSV.  An 11 item Child Adversity scale was used and included Maltreatment, Witness to Family Conflict, and Dysfunctional Household indexes. 

Results: Nearly 96% (M=6.17, SD=2.87) of the sample of CPV and 89% (M=4.86, SD=2.69) of SSV had experienced at least one adverse event in childhood.  There were significant differences between perpetrator type and total childhood adversity score (CPV: M=6.17, SD=2.57; SSV: M=4.86 SD=2.69), t (125)=-2.50, p<.01. There were also significantly more youth with prior arrests (χ²=4.47, p=<.05), fighting in school (χ²=3.88, p=<.05), and substance use issues (χ²=22.50, p<.001) in the SSV group than the CPV group.  A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with perpetration type (CPV and SSV) as the independent variable revealed overall main effects of group for childhood adversity, λ=.922 F(3,123)=3.45, p<.05, η²=.078.  Univariate F values showed significant effects of group for Maltreatment F(1,125) =4.97, p<.025,η²=.038, and Witness Family Conflict F(1,125)=7.56, p<.01,η²=.057, but not Household Dysfunction F(1,125)=.55, p=.46, η²=.004.

Conclusions and Implications: Results revealed that both youth who perpetrate CPV and SSV experienced high levels of childhood adversity, with youth who perpetrate CPV reporting higher prevalence of childhood adversity than youth who perpetrate SSV.  Youth who perpetrate SSV had significantly more delinquent behaviors (i.e. prior arrests, substance use, fighting in school, and being suspended) than youth who perpetrate CPV. What differentiates both groups of offenders is CPV youth’s experience with personal abuse and witnessing conflict between parents in the home. Findings point to the need to identify the two types of youth perpetrated family violence as distinct groups when assessing and treating this population. Children who encounter childhood adversity are victims, and are at risk of repeating the cycle of violence.  The current study’s findings suggest that youth who perpetrated violence against a parent or sibling would benefit from trauma-informed practices. Childhood adversity that goes unrecognized and untreated has negative consequences, where trauma informed strategies with tailored intervention efforts can meet the needs of youth and families who are impacted by childhood adversity and subsequent perpetration of family violence.