Crime and substance abuse: risk and protective factors Concetta Pastorelli in collaboration with Laura Panerai, Valeria Castellani , Maria Gerbino, Giovanni Vecchio

1
Crime and substance abuse risk and protective
factorsConcetta Pastorelli in collaboration
with Laura Panerai, Valeria Castellani , Maria
Gerbino, Giovanni Vecchio

• Interuniversity Center for the Study of Prosocial
  and Antisocial Behavior, University of Rome,
  Sapienza
• Centro Italiano di Solidarieta,
• Rome - Italy

2
Interuniversity Center for the Study of
Development of Prosocial and Antisocial behavior

• UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA
• UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI NAPOLI FEDERICO II
• UNIVERSITA CATTOLICA DEL SACRO CUORE DI MILANO
• UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI FIRENZE
• UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI PADOVA
• UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI CATANIAUNVERSITADEGLI
  STUDI DI TORINO
• Promoting, Developing, Enhancing and Protecting
  Personal and Collective Resources through
  Research, Teaching, and Intervention

3
Acknowledgments

• The participants who so generously allowed us
  to interview and assess them for hours

Centro Italiano di Solidarietà di Roma
UNIVERSITA DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA

• The Interuniversity Center Team

• The Centro Italiano di Solidarieta Team, his
  President,Don Mario Picchi, and Vice President,
  Juan Pares

• The Sert ( territorial service)Team, their
  chiefs, psychologists and social workers
• The Funding Agencies, Regione Lazio

4
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
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
5
RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS
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
6
AIMS OF THE STUDY

• To examine the prevalence of crimes in a group
  of drug addicted adults
• To identify the most relevant risk and
  protective factors associated with crimes in a
  group of drug addicted adults

7
PARTICIPANTS

• 178 Young Adults and Adults receiving
  residential (49.4) or nonresidential (50.6)
  substance abuse treatment in the city of Rome
• Residential Community Treatment Progetto Uomo,
  CeIS
• Non-residential Treatment Local public
  facilities -Methadone delivery (2 centersSert)
• Participants were invited to complete the
  assessment during the first week of their entry
  to the program
• Approximately 22 refused to participate in the
  study.

8
PROCEDURE

• First session Informed consent, semi-structured
  interview
• Second session Self reported questionnaires
• Third Session Self reported questionnaires
• Average Hours 3.5

9
Crime-related Variables

• Violent criminality1 physical assault with and
  without a weapon, threatening someone, being
  involved in gang-fights
• Not violent criminality 1 stealing property,
  destroying property, shoplifting, or selling
  drugs
• Penal problems financial crimes, assalt against
  pubblic officer, illegal possesion of drug, drug
  pushing, physical violence, theft, ect.
• 1(Elliot, Huizinga, Ageton 1985)

10
Contextual Risk factors
Contextual and Psychosocial Variables/1

• Conditions of Neighborhood (crimes, drug
  addiction, minorile job, prostitution,
  illiteracy, etc)
• Substance Availability in the neighborhood

Interpersonal Risk factors

• Aggregationwith deviant peers 1
• Family problems (Penal problems, Substance
  problems, Use of violence)
• Family conflict 2
• 1( Capaldi Patterson, 1989)
• 2 (Honess, Charman, Zani,Cicognani, Xerri,
  Jackson, Bosma (1997)

11
Individual Risk Factors
Contextual and Psychosocial Variables/2

• Irritability tendency to react impulsively,
  controversially, or rudely at the slightest
  provocation or disagreement 1
• 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 2
• Moral disengagement tendency to disengage
  internal moral control that allows different
  types of mis-conducts while preserving ones own
  personal standards (moral justification,
  attribution of blame, etc.) 3
• 1(Caprara, Pastorelli, Perugini, Barbaranelli,
  1991)
• 2 (Caprara, 1985)
• 3 (Caprara, Pastorelli, Bandura 1995)

12
Protective Factors

• Education Level
• Personality traits Emotional Stability,
  Coscientiousness, Friendliness, Openess 1
• Self-Esteem 2
• Self efficacy beliefs in various domains 3
• beliefs in ones capabilities to organize
  and execute the courses of action required to
  produce given attainment
• a) in resisting transgressive peer
  pressures
• b) in establishing social relationships
• c) in regulating negative and positive
  affects
• d) in managing effectively their relations
• 1 (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, 1993)
• 2 (Rosenberg, 1965)
• 3( Pastorelli, Caprara, Barbaranelli, Rola,
  Rozsa, Bandura, 2001)

13
Sample

Age
18-35 57,5
gt35 42,5

Gender
Male 86
Female 14

Yearly Family Income (EURO)
lt16.000 24
16-30.000 34
31-40.000 22
gt40.000 euro 20
14
Sample

Education
lt High School Diploma 64
High School Diploma 31
University 5

School-Problems
Disciplinary Problems 45,8
Expulsions from schools 10,4

Family History
Family Substance abuse 55,6
Family crimes 28
15
Primary, secondary, tertiary substance
Primary substance Secondary substance Tertiary substance
Cocaine 23 41 20,4
Heroine 44 20 11,2
Cannabis 18 20 33
Alcohol 12,2 10 17
Other Substances 2,8 9 18,4
82.4 OF THE SAMPLE USES MULTIPLE DRUGS
16
Age of First Use of Drugs
lt11 years 11-14 years 14-16 years 16-20 years gt20 years
Alcohol 20 16 28 25 11
Heroine 1 13 22 33 31
Oppiate 3 16 24 27 30
Depressant - 10 21 31,5 37,5
Cocaine - 13,6 32 29 25,4
Amphetamines - 11 26 49 14
Cannabis 6 46 31 15 2
hallucinogens 7,7 12,3 23 42 15
Inhalant 9 27 14 32 18
17
Crimes
Violent crimes in the last 6 months Not violent crimes in the last 6 months Penal Problems across life
48.7 68.7 60
18
Types of Penal Problems across Life
19
CONTEXTUAL, INTERPERSONAL AND INDIVIDUAL RISK
AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS FOR CRIME
20
Significant Relations Contextual-Interpersonal
and Individual Risk/Protective Factors
Age of use of drugs Irritability Hostile Rumination Moral disengagement S. Efficacy in regulating transgressive pressures
Risky neighborhood ? ? ?
Substance availability ?
Deviant friends ? ? ? ?
Family problems with law ?
Family substance abuse ? ? ? -
?lt.25 ? ?gt.25
21
Significant Relations between Risk Factors and
Crimes
Violent Criminal acts Not Violent Criminal Acts Penal Problems
Risky neighborhood ? ?
Substance availability ? ?
Deviant friends ? ? ? ?
Family legal problems ?
Family substance abuse ?
Age of first use of drugs ?
Irritability ? ?
Moral disengagement ? ? ? ? ?
?lt.25 ? ?gt.25
22
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONS PROTECTIVE FACTORS AND
CRIMES
Violent Criminal acts Not Violent Criminal Acts Penal Problems
Father Education - -
Mother education -
Self efficacy beliefs in Resisting to transgressive pressures - -
Self efficacy beliefs in Regulating negative affect -
-lt.25
23
MAIN FACTORS THAT DISCRIMINATE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT
OR DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES
Violent Criminal acts Not Violent Criminal Acts Penal Problems
RISKY NEIGHBORHOOD III
DEVIANT FRIENDS I I
DISAPPROVAL OF DRUG USE IV
MORAL DISENGAGEMENT II III
IRRITABILITY IV
HOSTILE RUMINATION III IV
FRIENDLINESS/HOSTILITY II
CONSCIENTOUNESS V
CONFLICT WITH MOTHER I V
S. EFFICACY IN REGULATING TRANSGRESSIVE PRESSURES V II
24
Violent profile
25
Not violent profile
26
Penal Problems Profile
Yes Not
27
Summing Up

• Regarding the typology of drugs
• Multiple drugs
• Decrease of heroin and parallel increase of
  cocaine
• Regarding the typology of individuals and their
  contexts in relation of criminal activity we may
  sustain they follow distint pathways
• Violent pathway
• Not Violent pathway

28
Summing Up

• Violent pathways
• More importance of personality characteristics
  related to emotional control (more irritable and
  hostile, more incline to revenge -hostile
  rumination)
• They lack of regulatory capacity both emotionally
  and interpersonally

29
Summing Up

• Not-Violent pathways
• Less importance of personality-temperamental
  characteristics
• More importance of intrafamilial and
  interpersonal experiences that relate to
  individuals capacity regulate themselves morally
  and in the peer-context.

30
Summing Up

• Both Violent and Not-Violent pathways
• Actively disengage internal moral control for
  justifying what they do and alleviate guilt
  feelings
• Activelly associate with deviant peers