- Email: [email protected]
Gifted delinquents: What do we know about them?
ChAiren and Youth Smcn Rmtm., Vol. 2, pp. 915-329. Printed in the USA. All righa reserved.
198lJ
Gifted Delinquents: What Do We Know About Them? Anne Rankin Mahoney University
of Denver
Gifted and talented youths-defined as youths who show achievement or potential ability in regard to general intelligence, a specific academic area, creative or productive thinking, leadership, visual or performing arts, or psychomotor actilities-constitute one of the nation’s most vital resources. Some portion of these youths come in contact with the juvenile court. This article reviews the research on gifted delinquents with particular attention to four longitudinal studies, three British and one American. The research is examined in order to ascertain whether it lends support to the thesis that bright youths are more vulnerable to delinquency because they are more sensitive to an unfavorable environment, or to the thesis that they are protected against delinquency because of their greater ability to understand and cope with environmental conditions. The findings indicate that bright youths are less likely to appear in delinquent populations than others and more likely to come from disrupted and unstable homes. To some extent they support the thesis that bright children are protected from delinquency by their intelligence except in extreme family circumstances. School performance for most bright delinquents is far below capacity, although there is evidence that some youths become disruptive outside of school before their school performance deteriorates. Anne Rankin Mahoney, Department of Sociology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 80208. 315
Mahoney Gifted and talented youths-defined as youths who show achievement or potential ability in regard to general intelligence, a specific academic area, creative or productive thinking, leadership, visual or performing arts, or psychomotor activities-constitute one of the nation’s most vital resources. Yet little attention has been paid to identification and treatment of those gifted youths who turn up in juvenile courts, and we have almost no information about them. One reason for this lack of knowledge is that gifted and talented youths make up a small percentage of even a general school population-an estimated 3-5%. As a result, they rarely appear in delinquent populations in large enough percentages to attract attention unless one is particularly looking for them. Although there is disagreement as to whether youths of high intelligence are as likely to appear in juvenile court as duller youths, (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977) there is no doubt that they do exist and find their way into the juvenile justice system. Studies which include data on delinquent youths with high general intelligence have been conducted in the United States and Britain, and a special correctional facility for such youths was maintained in England for over twenty years (Brooks, 1972; Gath & Tennent, 1972). The existence of gifted delinquents, even though they are only a small percentage of all delinquents, involves serious costs to society. Gifted delinquents represent a loss of scarce resources through their failure to fulfill their potential for creative and productive work, a depletion of resources by their victimization of others and their need for state support, and personal waste because of their own inability to develop and enjoy their gifts. The identification of youths with special abilities is important from a rehabilitation perspective as well. In contrast to youths with subnormal intelligence or serious learning disabilities, the gifted or talented delinquent may find a wide range of work opportunities open to him if his potential can be developed. One can view gifted delinquents from two perspectives: by focusing on gifted children who are delinquent or by focusing on delinquents who happen to be gifted. From the first perspective, the gifted delinquent is compared with other
Gifted Delinquents
317
gifted children in an effort to understand how he becomes delinquent. The focus is on causation and the factors which increase the child’s risk of becoming delinquent. The second perspective focuses upon the delinquent who happens to be gifted and compares him with delinquents of average or below average abilities in order to learn whether he differs from non-gifted delinquents in ways that are relevant to the study of delinquency. Most of the empirical work that has been done has taken the latter approach. It has also centered upon youths with high general intelligence as measured by IQ scores, rather than on the full range of gifted or talented children. There are two perspectives on the relationship between intelligence and delinquency. One is that the bright child, because of his greater perceptuai acuity and ease of learning, is more sensitive to environmental factors than other children, and as a result is more affected by an unfavorable environment. This approach is in keeping with much of the educational literature on gifte.d children which stresses the gifted child’s difference from other children and his/her need for special educational programs and home enrichment (Gallagher, 1976; Marland, 19’71). This “vuinerability” thesis sug gests that bright youths are more likely to become delinquent than other youths because they are more likely to be adversely affected by problems at home or school. The second perspective sees high intelligence as a protection against delinquency. Because of it, a youth has greater insight into his own actions and those of others, and can see the long range consequences of his behavior. As a result he is more able to understand and cope with environmental conditions and move away from them. This “protection” thesis implies that gifted youths are less likely than others to become delinquent because their high ability gives them a means of mitigating the effect of a bad environment as well as expanded opportunities to move out of it. Therefore, gifted youths become delinquent only when environmental conditions are exceptionally unfavorable. The purpose of this article is to review the research on gifted delinquents in light of these two perspectives. We will
318
Mahoney
discuss the available data concerning the extent and incidence of giftedness among delinquents, the criminal activity of gifted delinquents and their treatment by courts, the causes of delinquent behavior among gifted youths, the prognosis for treatment, and the research and policies which are necessary in order to extend otlr knowledge in this area. The review will rely heavily upon data from four longitudinal studies, which are described in the following. Three of them are British; the fourth is American. The populations and methodologies of the studies differ in important ways and are presented, not for comparison, but for the insights they may give us concerning research on or work with gifted delinquents. BTight Delinquents by R. Brooks is the story of Kneesworth Hall, a correctional school in Britain for boys age 13- 15 years with IQ’s over 120 (Brooks, 1972). The study includes data on 135 “graduates” who were admitted after 1952, released before 1961, and followed for a ten-year period. Information on the boys was gathered from school and court records. interviews, and the Criminal Records Office. The author worked in the school for several years and the book is rich in case material as well as a detailed description of the history and treatment program of the school. In an effort to learn what factors are associated with “successful” or law abiding behavior after release from Kneesworth Hall, Brooks compares two groups 67 boys who had not been found guilty of any of “graduates”further offenses or of only one minor misdemeanor during the ten year follow-up period and 68 reoffenders who had been rearrested for at least one serious offense or for more than one offense during the period. A second study by Gath and Tennent, compares two groups of boys (aged between 12 and 17 years) who were referred for assessment from 13 Inner London Juvenile Courts to the London Remand Home during May to November 1967 (Gath, Tennent, & Pidduck, 1970a, 1970b, 1971; Tennent & Gath, 1975). One group consists of a consecutive series of 50 boys who achieved a full scale IQ score of 115 or over on an age appropriate form of the Wechsler scale. The control group was selected by choosing the next boy of average intelligence (90-105 IQ) who was admitted and could be matched in respect to age, ethnic origin and
Gifted Delinquents
319
court of referral. Information on the two groups of 50 boys was obtained from court reports, school and probation reports, and standardized interviews with each boy and each boy’s parents. Three years later follow-up information was obtained on all but one of the 100 boys from the Home Office Statistical Department and the National Health Service Central Register. The third study, by Caplan and Powell (1964) compares two groups of boys and girls brought to the attention of the Juvenile Court in Cleveland, Ohio, between 1954 and 1959. The experimental group (n = 100) includes white first offenders with an IQ of 120 or over, 90% of which were obtained from either a Beta or a Gamma form of the Otis Mental Ability Test. The control group includes 100 white boys and girls with IQ’s between 90 and 109. Data was collected from the case records of the 200 children without the investigator’s awareness as to which group the child belonged. It included data on offenses for at least two years beyond the first offense and in most cases covered the period from first offense until the child was beyond juvenile court age of 17 years. The fourth study, the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (West, 1969; West & Farrington, 1973), hereafter referred to as the Cambridge Study, in contrast to the first three studies described here, does not single out bright youths for study. It does, however, include data on delinquency and intelligence. Cambridge Institute researchers investigated the development of juvenile delinquency in a population of 411 boys drawn from six state primary schools in a crowded working class area of London. Most of the boys were white and their parents had been reared in the United Kingdom or Ireland. They were brought into the study at age 8 and information was obtained on them and their families between the time they were 8 and 10. IQ scores were obtained through use of the Ravens Progressive Matrices. They were then followed over a span of 10 years and 97% were interviewed on one or more occasions after leaving school. Onefifth of these boys became involved with the law and the 1973 report is a comparison between the boys who got in trouble and those who did not.
Mahoney
320 Incidence
of Gifledness
Among
Deiinquents
How frequently are gifted children referred to juvenile court? Hirschi and Hindelang in their 1977 review of research on intelligence and delinquency, as well as most early investigators who studied bright delinquents, agree that highly intelligent individuals are less likely to appear in delinquent populations than they are in the population as a whole. Gath et al. ( 197 1) in their study of boys referred from Inner London Juvenile Courts. found that boys with an IQ of 115 and over comprised 7.8% of all those tested, whereas one would expect to find 16.5.010 on the basis of a normal distribution of intelligence. In their general review of research on high intelligence and delinquency Gath and Tennent (1971) showed that the proportion of bright offenders is below expectation in all but one of the reviewed investigations in the U.S. and the United Kingdom between 1930 and 1967. The Cambridge Study also shows that delinquents were significantly underrepresented among study youths with IQ’s of over 110. Although 25% (102) of the boys had an IQ of 110 or over, only 17% of the ones who got in trouble-either police contact, one-time delinquency, or recidivismhad IQ’s of 110 or over. The differences in regard to boys classified as recidivist is even more striking. Only 2% of the boys with IQ’s of 110 or over were classified as recidivist compared to 7% of the average boys and 20% of the boys with IQ’s under 90 (West 8c Farrington, 1973). Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) show that IQ is also related to self-reported delinquency. Twice the proportion of boys in the lowest as in the highest IQ group in Hirschi’s self report data from Contra Costa, California indicate involvement in two or more of a possible six delinquent acts. These studies, based on IQ scores, generally lend support to the protection thesis that high intelligence insulates juveniles from becoming involved in delinquent behavior. However. it is important to keep in mind as we discuss gifted children that group IQ tests measure only one kind of giftedness-general intelligence. The incidence of delinquency among youths gifted in other ways has not been ascertained. Furthermore, there continues to be dissatisfaction among researchers and educators about the accuracy of
Gifted Delinquents
321
group IQ tests for identification of bright minority or lowerclass youths, especially for youths who are anxious or hostile. One study of 468 children referred to a child guidance clinic for testing because of school problems, shows how a child’s potential can be masked by his or her emotional state or even physical handicap. Twenty-three percent of the children (103) were found by the clinic to have IQ’s of 120 and above, with several ranging close to 200. Yet less than half of the 103 children had been judged by their schools to have good or very good ability. The majority were thought to be average or even below average (Cringle, 1970). Few of the children in this study had reached the juvenile court and one can only surmise how much more difficult identification could be among a population of children with behavioral problems severe enough to bring them to the attention of the juvenile justice system. In addition, gifted children, like other children, may have learning disabilities and as a result may perform poorly on group tests, especially if their deficiency is in the area of visual perception and they cannot read with understanding. Regardless of whether the proportion of delinquent youths is lower or comparable to the number of youths who are nondelinquent, it represents a serious personal and societal loss. If we assume that gifted individuals contribute disproportionately to our culture and social life through participation in professional and creative activities, then the loss of even a small percentage of gifted individuals to antisocial behavior is a cause for community and national concern and takes on a significance far beyond actual statistical incidence. Criminal Activity of Gifted Delinquents and Their Treatment by the Courts We might expect bright adolescents to engage in more lucrative or exotic delinquency than their less imaginative peers. The studies examined here do not show this for youths who appear in the juvenile court (Gath et al., 1971). In the American study, many children came to court as the result of family offenses. They were more likely than the less intelligent offenders to be runaways (13% compared to 2%) or to be
322
Mahoney
brought to court by their parents (30% compared to 13%). They were also more likely to commit their first offense alone (60% compared to 45%) (Caplan & Powell, 1964). Gath et al. (197Oa) found some evidence, from the extensive psychiatric examinations his team conducted on each boy, that the bright adolescents were somewhat more likely to commit offenses that were associated with psychological problems. Brooks (1972) also notes a high degree of emotional disturbance among the Kneesworth boys. The case studies of Kneesworth boys also indicate that at least a few of the reoffenders utilized their talents in rather innovative ways to further their criminal careers after they left the school (Brooks, 1972; Simmons, 1956). It seems likely that judges might be more lenient with youths who are known to be intelligent. This is not necessarily the case, however. Of the two studies which provide data on court treatment of bright youths, one finds greater leniency, and the other finds greater severity. Gath found that up to the point of first incarceration, bright youths were more likely to receive milder alternatives, i.e., discharges, fines, or probation. After they had been sent to a correctional institution, however, they were no longer given preferential treatment (Tennent & Gath, 1975). On the other hand, high IQ adolescents in Caplan and Powell’s study were much more likely than others to be placed out of the home. Thirteen of the bright youths compared to eleven of the others were committed to correctional schools. An additional 20 intelligent adolescents compared to only four of the others were placed in “residential non-correctional” schools. It is unclear from the research report just what these latter schools were. Presumably they are private schools for disturbed adolescents (Caplan & Powell, 1964). The higher out-of-home placement of the bright youths may be related to their having a higher incidence of family related offenses such as running away. Nevertheless, if by leniency we mean no or minimal court intervention into a child’s life, then we would have to conclude that the average children received more lenient treatment since they were more likely to receive no intervention or to be placed on probation rather than sent away from home.
Gifted Delinquents
323
Causes of Delinquent Behavior Among Gifted Youths A study of the causation of delinquent behavior among gifted youths requires accurate identification and classification of gifted children. It also requires appropriate comparison groups. Ideally, research on causation should start with a group of gifted youths and compare the backgrounds of delinquents and non-delinquents to see what differentiates them from one another. For understandable and unavoidable reasons, research to date has not been able to do this. Causative factors upon which data is available cluster primarily around family and school. Delinquency among bright youths appears to become more intense as the child’s family situation becomes more severe, and to be associated with underachievement and hostility to school. Family. Three of the four studies provide information about family backgrounds and two of the three provide some evidence that family problems are particularly relevant to bright delinquents. In general, bright delinquents are more likely to have experienced separation from their parents, especially their fathers, than average delinquents, and are more likely to have come from a highly unstable family and to have been subjected to overly strict or inconsistent discipline. Caplan and Powell (1964) found that bright delinquents are significantly less likely than average delinquents to live with both natural parents (38% compared to 55%) and twice as likely to come from single parent families (35% compared to 17%). They are also more likely to be runaways and to be brought to court by a parent, as was mentioned earlier. One English study of delinquent girls reported that 53 girls with IQ’s of 114-149 had been subjected to much more environmental stress than the other girls. They were more likely to have been illegitimate, adopted, or have suffered separation from their mothers (Cowie & Cowie, 1962). Brooks (1972) found these same factors were significant in differentiating between the Kneesworth Hall reoffenders and non-reoffenders. Sixty-two percent of the boys who had had interrupted relationships with their parents reoffended compared to only 38% of the boys without interrupted relationships. A
324
Mahoney
boy’s contact with his father seemed to be particularly salient. Sixty-seven percent of the boys who suffered interruption of relationships with their father reoffended compared to only 14% of those who had not. Generally, unstable homes also posed problems for the youths. Brooks (1972) classified 75% of the 135 Kneesworth boys as coming from unstable homes and of these, 63% were reoffenders compared to 35% of the others. Caplan and Powell (1964) found that 11 parents of bright children had been officially convicted of neglect of their children at least once. The quality of discipline-reasonable, over-strict, overlenient, inconsistent-stands out as a particularly important variable. Brooks (1972) found that of the 24 youths whose families were over-strict, 71% were reoffenders and of the 49 whose families were inconsistent, 63% were reoffenders. By comparison, only 32% of the 62 youths with normal or lenient discipline were reoffenders. Inconsistent discipline was particularly common among the most persistent and difficult reoffenders. Fourteen of the 17 persistent reoffenders came from homes with inconsistent discipline. Inconsistent discipline was also a recurrent pattern among the bright underachievers who showed behavior problems in Pringle’s (1970) study. One wonders whether a child’s perception of his own intelligence, relative to that of his parents, influences patterns of discipline. None of the studies provide any information on this, but Gath et al. (1970b) mentions that 26% of the bright delinquents considered themselves more intelligent than their fathers and 41% considered themselves more intelligent than their mothers, whereas none of the average delinquents said they were brighter than their parents. The relative intelligence of parents and child as well as the perception of such difference could well contribute to family conflict and would be an interesting area for further study. Cultural deprivation and low social status are usually associated with both delinquency and poor performance of bright children. High social status, however, does not by itself protect a child from delinquency. The fathers of a quarter of the bright delinquents in Caplan and Powell’s study (1964) were executives or professionals. Several had assets over a
Gifted Delinquents
325
million dollars. The majority of the children in Pringle’sstudy (1970) came from upper status families, yet of these, 21% were classified as below average in their provision of cultural and school opportunities for their children. On the whole, the research on the family experience of bright and average delinquents described here would tend to support the protection thesis. Bright children who get in trouble appear to come from particularly unstable homes and to have been subjected to more family separation, extreme forms of discipline, and family conflict than other delinquent youths. School. There is a well-documented association between school problems and delinquency, but it has not been clearly determined, either for bright delinquents or delinquents in general, whether school failure itself is a cause of delinquent behavior or is simply an associated problem. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) argue that IQ affects school experience, which in turn is related to delinquent behavior. However, if the genesis of a child’s difficulties lies in the family, then difficulties there could cause both school difficulties and delinquent behavior. Clearly, most of the youths in the studies examined here had school problems in spite of high IQ’s. Most of the youths were often truant, had educational aspirations below their potential, and were working considerably below capacity, although they were in general far less behind than other delinquents. Brooks (1972) divided Kneesworth Hall boys-almost all of whom had had unhappy school experiences-into three groups: those who entered the school with an attainment commensurate with the level of their measured intelligence (16%), underachievers (57%), and youths who were extremely hostile to school (27%). The predictive utility of this classification is striking. Nineteen percent of the achievers, 44% of the underachievers, and 81% of the youths hostile to school reoffended after leaving Kneesworth. Cowie and Cowie’s (1962) data on bright female delinquents presents an even gloomier picture of achievement. Of 122 girls with an IQ of 100 or over, only three girls were level with or ahead of their chrono-
326
Mahoney
logical age in reading and only 14 were equal to or ahead of their chronological age in arithmetic. This educational lag persisted even for the girls with IQ’s of over 140. In spite of this general picture of educational deprivation, there are some positive differences between bright and average delinquents that may point directions for educational intervention. Even though less than half of the bright boys in Gath et al.‘s study (1970b) regarded themselves as above average in intelligence they were in general more likely than the less able boys to read at a level at or about their chronological age (54% compared to 10%). They were also more likely to stay in school for an extra year or two after school-leaving age (42% of 31 compared to 13% of 30). The results of Caplan and Powell’s study are in marked contrast to results from the two English studies. On the basis of their findings, Caplan and Powell ( 1964) argue that underachievement and low status in school is not a problem for most bright delinquents. On the contrary, they argue, many tend to be overachievers, channeling their frustrations into school success. They show that 38% of the bright youths compared to 2% of the average youths were classified as “excellent” or “good” in regard to school conduct and citizenship, whereas 38% of the average delinquents and none of the bright delinquents were rated “very poor.” The more intelligent youths also had somewhat better academic records and only 3% of them compared to 26% of the average youths were retarded in grade placement. Caplan’s findings may be in part the result of the high percentage of upper-middle class children among the bright delinquents in his sample. Nevertheless, they should remind us that even high achievers may get into trouble. A child, especially a bright child, may exhibit behavioral problems outside of school before he exhibits them in school (Offord et al., 1978). It is difficult to find any clear support for either the vulnerability thesis or the protection thesis in these results regarding school experience. The difference between bright delinquents and many of their less able peers is that the bright delinquents have the intellectual capacity to do well in school, and many of them know it. Yet they choose not to do so.
Gifted Delinquents
327 Prognosis
The prognosis for gifted delinquents who reach the point of adjudication by the juvenile court is generally pessimistic. It may be a telling commentary upon our knowledge about intervention with these youths that the Kneesworth Hall study analyzed the effect of antecedent variables upon recidivism rather than the effect of treatment variables. The school, which attempted to develop an open, therapeutic community and a sense in the boys of being secure and loved, had a 50% success rate among its “graduates,” a fairly selective group. Yet the study leaves one with the impression that the key variable in the boy’s ability to benefit from the school’s program was, in the final analysis, the extent of damage that the boy had suffered before he arrived. Prognosis was less determined by the kind of treatment or even his IQ than by his background. Although the Kneesworth Hall recidivists were nearly the same age as the non-recidivists when they were first committed, they were nearly a year younger--only 12-when they were first found guilty of an offense (Brooks, 1972). One can ask whether the earlier age of first adjudication was symptomatic of greater disturbance or whether the longer time period between first adjudication and first commitment played any role in the differential success rate of the two groups. Both possibilities should be subject to empirical investigation. Tennent and Gath’s (1975) sample is less selective than Brooks’; the prognosis is even worse. Bright and average boys in the Tennent and Gath follow-up reoffended in similar ways and at a similar rate-74-80%. Furthermore, the offense rate continued unabated into the third year. Caplan and Powell’s data (1964) includes follow-up on most youths until they were at least 17 years old and beyond juvenile court jurisdiction. There was no difference between bright and average delinquents in regard to second offensesalmost a third of them returned to court at least once. But there was a significant difference between the two groups in regard to the number who had three or more offenses. Only 3% of the bright children were apprehended three or more times compared to 20% of the average children. Although those offense figures might have been affected by the number
Mahoney
328
of children at risk in the community, since a substantially higher number of bright youths were sent to residential schools, they are in close agreement with figures from the Cambridge Study which found that only 2% of the bright youths compared to 7% of the average and 20% of the dull boys were recidivists (West & Farrington, 1973). It appears from these studies that once a youth gets deeply into the juvenile justice system, his chances of extricating himself are low, even if he is bright. If intelligence “protects” a youth from delinquency, it must do so either before the youth gets into the system or early in the juvenile justice process. Conclusion What we know about gifted delinquents comes primarily from comparisons of bright delinquents with average delinquents. The studies examined here generally show that more intelligent youths are less likely to appear in delinquent populations than others and more likely to come from disrupted and unstable homes. Both findings support the thesis that bright youths are protected from delinquency by their intelligence except in extreme family circumstances. The school performance of most bright delinquents is far below their capacity, although it is generally not as poor as it is for delinquents of average intelligence. In general, this review of research on gifted delinquents points out the dearth of information about a group of youths who hold potential for highly creative and positive contributions to their communities. It would be useful to learn how many gifted youths of different types are coming into the nation’s juvenile courts and how they differ from one another and from other delinquents. Are they more affected than other youths by negative labeling? Do they show any common background characteristics in regard to home or school experiences? Do they tend to have learning disabilities? Such information would be useful to court workers and policv makers who are responsible for planning and implementing court, probation and correctional services for youths. Identification of gifted delinquents should also facilitate research on the difference between delinquent and non-delinquent gifted chil-
Gifted Delinquents
329
dren so that causal factors can be explored and gifted children with problems can be identified and helped before they find themselves in the juvenile justice system. References Brooks, R. Bright delinquents: The story of a unique school. England: The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1972. Caplan, N.S., & Powell, M. A cross comparison of average and superiorI.Q. Delinquents. The Journal of Psychology, 1964, 57, 307-318. Cowie, J., 8c Cowie, V. Delinquency in girk London: Macmillan & Co., 1962. Gallagher, J-J. Teaching the gifted chiid. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Gath, D., & Tennent, G. High intelligence and delinquency: A review. Brittih Journal of Criminology, 1972,12, 174-181. Gath, D., Tennent, G., & Pidduck, R. Psychiatric and socia1 characteristics of bright delinquents. British Journal of P~~~t~, 1970, 116, 151-160. (a) Gath, D., Tennent, G., & Pidduck, R. Educational characteristics of bright delinquents. British Journal of Educational PsycholoB, 1970, 40, 1-4. (b) Gath, D., Tennent, G., & Pidduck, R. Criminological characteristics of bright delinquents. British Journal of Criminology, 197 1, 11, 275-279. Hirschi, T., & HindeIang, M.J. Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist’s review. American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 571-587. Mat-land, M. Report to Congress on education of gified and talented children in the United States, 197 1. Offord, D.R. et al. School performance, I.Q. and delinquency. British Journal of Criminoba, 1978,18, 111-124. Pringle, M.K. Abie m@s: The educational and behavioral dijjicu2tiesof intelligent children. London: Longman, 1970. Simmons, M.M. Intelligent delinquents. Times Education& Su~~t, March, f956,2. Tennent, G., & Gath, D. Bright delinquents: A three year follow-up study. British Journal of Criminobqy, 1975,15, 386. West, D.J. Present conduct and future delinquency London: Heinemann, 1969. West, D.J., & Farrington, D.P. Who becomes d&nquent: Second report of the Cambridge study in delinqwnt development. London: Heinemann, 1973.
198lJ
Gifted Delinquents: What Do We Know About Them? Anne Rankin Mahoney University
of Denver
Gifted and talented youths-defined as youths who show achievement or potential ability in regard to general intelligence, a specific academic area, creative or productive thinking, leadership, visual or performing arts, or psychomotor actilities-constitute one of the nation’s most vital resources. Some portion of these youths come in contact with the juvenile court. This article reviews the research on gifted delinquents with particular attention to four longitudinal studies, three British and one American. The research is examined in order to ascertain whether it lends support to the thesis that bright youths are more vulnerable to delinquency because they are more sensitive to an unfavorable environment, or to the thesis that they are protected against delinquency because of their greater ability to understand and cope with environmental conditions. The findings indicate that bright youths are less likely to appear in delinquent populations than others and more likely to come from disrupted and unstable homes. To some extent they support the thesis that bright children are protected from delinquency by their intelligence except in extreme family circumstances. School performance for most bright delinquents is far below capacity, although there is evidence that some youths become disruptive outside of school before their school performance deteriorates. Anne Rankin Mahoney, Department of Sociology, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado 80208. 315
Mahoney Gifted and talented youths-defined as youths who show achievement or potential ability in regard to general intelligence, a specific academic area, creative or productive thinking, leadership, visual or performing arts, or psychomotor activities-constitute one of the nation’s most vital resources. Yet little attention has been paid to identification and treatment of those gifted youths who turn up in juvenile courts, and we have almost no information about them. One reason for this lack of knowledge is that gifted and talented youths make up a small percentage of even a general school population-an estimated 3-5%. As a result, they rarely appear in delinquent populations in large enough percentages to attract attention unless one is particularly looking for them. Although there is disagreement as to whether youths of high intelligence are as likely to appear in juvenile court as duller youths, (Hirschi & Hindelang, 1977) there is no doubt that they do exist and find their way into the juvenile justice system. Studies which include data on delinquent youths with high general intelligence have been conducted in the United States and Britain, and a special correctional facility for such youths was maintained in England for over twenty years (Brooks, 1972; Gath & Tennent, 1972). The existence of gifted delinquents, even though they are only a small percentage of all delinquents, involves serious costs to society. Gifted delinquents represent a loss of scarce resources through their failure to fulfill their potential for creative and productive work, a depletion of resources by their victimization of others and their need for state support, and personal waste because of their own inability to develop and enjoy their gifts. The identification of youths with special abilities is important from a rehabilitation perspective as well. In contrast to youths with subnormal intelligence or serious learning disabilities, the gifted or talented delinquent may find a wide range of work opportunities open to him if his potential can be developed. One can view gifted delinquents from two perspectives: by focusing on gifted children who are delinquent or by focusing on delinquents who happen to be gifted. From the first perspective, the gifted delinquent is compared with other
Gifted Delinquents
317
gifted children in an effort to understand how he becomes delinquent. The focus is on causation and the factors which increase the child’s risk of becoming delinquent. The second perspective focuses upon the delinquent who happens to be gifted and compares him with delinquents of average or below average abilities in order to learn whether he differs from non-gifted delinquents in ways that are relevant to the study of delinquency. Most of the empirical work that has been done has taken the latter approach. It has also centered upon youths with high general intelligence as measured by IQ scores, rather than on the full range of gifted or talented children. There are two perspectives on the relationship between intelligence and delinquency. One is that the bright child, because of his greater perceptuai acuity and ease of learning, is more sensitive to environmental factors than other children, and as a result is more affected by an unfavorable environment. This approach is in keeping with much of the educational literature on gifte.d children which stresses the gifted child’s difference from other children and his/her need for special educational programs and home enrichment (Gallagher, 1976; Marland, 19’71). This “vuinerability” thesis sug gests that bright youths are more likely to become delinquent than other youths because they are more likely to be adversely affected by problems at home or school. The second perspective sees high intelligence as a protection against delinquency. Because of it, a youth has greater insight into his own actions and those of others, and can see the long range consequences of his behavior. As a result he is more able to understand and cope with environmental conditions and move away from them. This “protection” thesis implies that gifted youths are less likely than others to become delinquent because their high ability gives them a means of mitigating the effect of a bad environment as well as expanded opportunities to move out of it. Therefore, gifted youths become delinquent only when environmental conditions are exceptionally unfavorable. The purpose of this article is to review the research on gifted delinquents in light of these two perspectives. We will
318
Mahoney
discuss the available data concerning the extent and incidence of giftedness among delinquents, the criminal activity of gifted delinquents and their treatment by courts, the causes of delinquent behavior among gifted youths, the prognosis for treatment, and the research and policies which are necessary in order to extend otlr knowledge in this area. The review will rely heavily upon data from four longitudinal studies, which are described in the following. Three of them are British; the fourth is American. The populations and methodologies of the studies differ in important ways and are presented, not for comparison, but for the insights they may give us concerning research on or work with gifted delinquents. BTight Delinquents by R. Brooks is the story of Kneesworth Hall, a correctional school in Britain for boys age 13- 15 years with IQ’s over 120 (Brooks, 1972). The study includes data on 135 “graduates” who were admitted after 1952, released before 1961, and followed for a ten-year period. Information on the boys was gathered from school and court records. interviews, and the Criminal Records Office. The author worked in the school for several years and the book is rich in case material as well as a detailed description of the history and treatment program of the school. In an effort to learn what factors are associated with “successful” or law abiding behavior after release from Kneesworth Hall, Brooks compares two groups 67 boys who had not been found guilty of any of “graduates”further offenses or of only one minor misdemeanor during the ten year follow-up period and 68 reoffenders who had been rearrested for at least one serious offense or for more than one offense during the period. A second study by Gath and Tennent, compares two groups of boys (aged between 12 and 17 years) who were referred for assessment from 13 Inner London Juvenile Courts to the London Remand Home during May to November 1967 (Gath, Tennent, & Pidduck, 1970a, 1970b, 1971; Tennent & Gath, 1975). One group consists of a consecutive series of 50 boys who achieved a full scale IQ score of 115 or over on an age appropriate form of the Wechsler scale. The control group was selected by choosing the next boy of average intelligence (90-105 IQ) who was admitted and could be matched in respect to age, ethnic origin and
Gifted Delinquents
319
court of referral. Information on the two groups of 50 boys was obtained from court reports, school and probation reports, and standardized interviews with each boy and each boy’s parents. Three years later follow-up information was obtained on all but one of the 100 boys from the Home Office Statistical Department and the National Health Service Central Register. The third study, by Caplan and Powell (1964) compares two groups of boys and girls brought to the attention of the Juvenile Court in Cleveland, Ohio, between 1954 and 1959. The experimental group (n = 100) includes white first offenders with an IQ of 120 or over, 90% of which were obtained from either a Beta or a Gamma form of the Otis Mental Ability Test. The control group includes 100 white boys and girls with IQ’s between 90 and 109. Data was collected from the case records of the 200 children without the investigator’s awareness as to which group the child belonged. It included data on offenses for at least two years beyond the first offense and in most cases covered the period from first offense until the child was beyond juvenile court age of 17 years. The fourth study, the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (West, 1969; West & Farrington, 1973), hereafter referred to as the Cambridge Study, in contrast to the first three studies described here, does not single out bright youths for study. It does, however, include data on delinquency and intelligence. Cambridge Institute researchers investigated the development of juvenile delinquency in a population of 411 boys drawn from six state primary schools in a crowded working class area of London. Most of the boys were white and their parents had been reared in the United Kingdom or Ireland. They were brought into the study at age 8 and information was obtained on them and their families between the time they were 8 and 10. IQ scores were obtained through use of the Ravens Progressive Matrices. They were then followed over a span of 10 years and 97% were interviewed on one or more occasions after leaving school. Onefifth of these boys became involved with the law and the 1973 report is a comparison between the boys who got in trouble and those who did not.
Mahoney
320 Incidence
of Gifledness
Among
Deiinquents
How frequently are gifted children referred to juvenile court? Hirschi and Hindelang in their 1977 review of research on intelligence and delinquency, as well as most early investigators who studied bright delinquents, agree that highly intelligent individuals are less likely to appear in delinquent populations than they are in the population as a whole. Gath et al. ( 197 1) in their study of boys referred from Inner London Juvenile Courts. found that boys with an IQ of 115 and over comprised 7.8% of all those tested, whereas one would expect to find 16.5.010 on the basis of a normal distribution of intelligence. In their general review of research on high intelligence and delinquency Gath and Tennent (1971) showed that the proportion of bright offenders is below expectation in all but one of the reviewed investigations in the U.S. and the United Kingdom between 1930 and 1967. The Cambridge Study also shows that delinquents were significantly underrepresented among study youths with IQ’s of over 110. Although 25% (102) of the boys had an IQ of 110 or over, only 17% of the ones who got in trouble-either police contact, one-time delinquency, or recidivismhad IQ’s of 110 or over. The differences in regard to boys classified as recidivist is even more striking. Only 2% of the boys with IQ’s of 110 or over were classified as recidivist compared to 7% of the average boys and 20% of the boys with IQ’s under 90 (West 8c Farrington, 1973). Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) show that IQ is also related to self-reported delinquency. Twice the proportion of boys in the lowest as in the highest IQ group in Hirschi’s self report data from Contra Costa, California indicate involvement in two or more of a possible six delinquent acts. These studies, based on IQ scores, generally lend support to the protection thesis that high intelligence insulates juveniles from becoming involved in delinquent behavior. However. it is important to keep in mind as we discuss gifted children that group IQ tests measure only one kind of giftedness-general intelligence. The incidence of delinquency among youths gifted in other ways has not been ascertained. Furthermore, there continues to be dissatisfaction among researchers and educators about the accuracy of
Gifted Delinquents
321
group IQ tests for identification of bright minority or lowerclass youths, especially for youths who are anxious or hostile. One study of 468 children referred to a child guidance clinic for testing because of school problems, shows how a child’s potential can be masked by his or her emotional state or even physical handicap. Twenty-three percent of the children (103) were found by the clinic to have IQ’s of 120 and above, with several ranging close to 200. Yet less than half of the 103 children had been judged by their schools to have good or very good ability. The majority were thought to be average or even below average (Cringle, 1970). Few of the children in this study had reached the juvenile court and one can only surmise how much more difficult identification could be among a population of children with behavioral problems severe enough to bring them to the attention of the juvenile justice system. In addition, gifted children, like other children, may have learning disabilities and as a result may perform poorly on group tests, especially if their deficiency is in the area of visual perception and they cannot read with understanding. Regardless of whether the proportion of delinquent youths is lower or comparable to the number of youths who are nondelinquent, it represents a serious personal and societal loss. If we assume that gifted individuals contribute disproportionately to our culture and social life through participation in professional and creative activities, then the loss of even a small percentage of gifted individuals to antisocial behavior is a cause for community and national concern and takes on a significance far beyond actual statistical incidence. Criminal Activity of Gifted Delinquents and Their Treatment by the Courts We might expect bright adolescents to engage in more lucrative or exotic delinquency than their less imaginative peers. The studies examined here do not show this for youths who appear in the juvenile court (Gath et al., 1971). In the American study, many children came to court as the result of family offenses. They were more likely than the less intelligent offenders to be runaways (13% compared to 2%) or to be
322
Mahoney
brought to court by their parents (30% compared to 13%). They were also more likely to commit their first offense alone (60% compared to 45%) (Caplan & Powell, 1964). Gath et al. (197Oa) found some evidence, from the extensive psychiatric examinations his team conducted on each boy, that the bright adolescents were somewhat more likely to commit offenses that were associated with psychological problems. Brooks (1972) also notes a high degree of emotional disturbance among the Kneesworth boys. The case studies of Kneesworth boys also indicate that at least a few of the reoffenders utilized their talents in rather innovative ways to further their criminal careers after they left the school (Brooks, 1972; Simmons, 1956). It seems likely that judges might be more lenient with youths who are known to be intelligent. This is not necessarily the case, however. Of the two studies which provide data on court treatment of bright youths, one finds greater leniency, and the other finds greater severity. Gath found that up to the point of first incarceration, bright youths were more likely to receive milder alternatives, i.e., discharges, fines, or probation. After they had been sent to a correctional institution, however, they were no longer given preferential treatment (Tennent & Gath, 1975). On the other hand, high IQ adolescents in Caplan and Powell’s study were much more likely than others to be placed out of the home. Thirteen of the bright youths compared to eleven of the others were committed to correctional schools. An additional 20 intelligent adolescents compared to only four of the others were placed in “residential non-correctional” schools. It is unclear from the research report just what these latter schools were. Presumably they are private schools for disturbed adolescents (Caplan & Powell, 1964). The higher out-of-home placement of the bright youths may be related to their having a higher incidence of family related offenses such as running away. Nevertheless, if by leniency we mean no or minimal court intervention into a child’s life, then we would have to conclude that the average children received more lenient treatment since they were more likely to receive no intervention or to be placed on probation rather than sent away from home.
Gifted Delinquents
323
Causes of Delinquent Behavior Among Gifted Youths A study of the causation of delinquent behavior among gifted youths requires accurate identification and classification of gifted children. It also requires appropriate comparison groups. Ideally, research on causation should start with a group of gifted youths and compare the backgrounds of delinquents and non-delinquents to see what differentiates them from one another. For understandable and unavoidable reasons, research to date has not been able to do this. Causative factors upon which data is available cluster primarily around family and school. Delinquency among bright youths appears to become more intense as the child’s family situation becomes more severe, and to be associated with underachievement and hostility to school. Family. Three of the four studies provide information about family backgrounds and two of the three provide some evidence that family problems are particularly relevant to bright delinquents. In general, bright delinquents are more likely to have experienced separation from their parents, especially their fathers, than average delinquents, and are more likely to have come from a highly unstable family and to have been subjected to overly strict or inconsistent discipline. Caplan and Powell (1964) found that bright delinquents are significantly less likely than average delinquents to live with both natural parents (38% compared to 55%) and twice as likely to come from single parent families (35% compared to 17%). They are also more likely to be runaways and to be brought to court by a parent, as was mentioned earlier. One English study of delinquent girls reported that 53 girls with IQ’s of 114-149 had been subjected to much more environmental stress than the other girls. They were more likely to have been illegitimate, adopted, or have suffered separation from their mothers (Cowie & Cowie, 1962). Brooks (1972) found these same factors were significant in differentiating between the Kneesworth Hall reoffenders and non-reoffenders. Sixty-two percent of the boys who had had interrupted relationships with their parents reoffended compared to only 38% of the boys without interrupted relationships. A
324
Mahoney
boy’s contact with his father seemed to be particularly salient. Sixty-seven percent of the boys who suffered interruption of relationships with their father reoffended compared to only 14% of those who had not. Generally, unstable homes also posed problems for the youths. Brooks (1972) classified 75% of the 135 Kneesworth boys as coming from unstable homes and of these, 63% were reoffenders compared to 35% of the others. Caplan and Powell (1964) found that 11 parents of bright children had been officially convicted of neglect of their children at least once. The quality of discipline-reasonable, over-strict, overlenient, inconsistent-stands out as a particularly important variable. Brooks (1972) found that of the 24 youths whose families were over-strict, 71% were reoffenders and of the 49 whose families were inconsistent, 63% were reoffenders. By comparison, only 32% of the 62 youths with normal or lenient discipline were reoffenders. Inconsistent discipline was particularly common among the most persistent and difficult reoffenders. Fourteen of the 17 persistent reoffenders came from homes with inconsistent discipline. Inconsistent discipline was also a recurrent pattern among the bright underachievers who showed behavior problems in Pringle’s (1970) study. One wonders whether a child’s perception of his own intelligence, relative to that of his parents, influences patterns of discipline. None of the studies provide any information on this, but Gath et al. (1970b) mentions that 26% of the bright delinquents considered themselves more intelligent than their fathers and 41% considered themselves more intelligent than their mothers, whereas none of the average delinquents said they were brighter than their parents. The relative intelligence of parents and child as well as the perception of such difference could well contribute to family conflict and would be an interesting area for further study. Cultural deprivation and low social status are usually associated with both delinquency and poor performance of bright children. High social status, however, does not by itself protect a child from delinquency. The fathers of a quarter of the bright delinquents in Caplan and Powell’s study (1964) were executives or professionals. Several had assets over a
Gifted Delinquents
325
million dollars. The majority of the children in Pringle’sstudy (1970) came from upper status families, yet of these, 21% were classified as below average in their provision of cultural and school opportunities for their children. On the whole, the research on the family experience of bright and average delinquents described here would tend to support the protection thesis. Bright children who get in trouble appear to come from particularly unstable homes and to have been subjected to more family separation, extreme forms of discipline, and family conflict than other delinquent youths. School. There is a well-documented association between school problems and delinquency, but it has not been clearly determined, either for bright delinquents or delinquents in general, whether school failure itself is a cause of delinquent behavior or is simply an associated problem. Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) argue that IQ affects school experience, which in turn is related to delinquent behavior. However, if the genesis of a child’s difficulties lies in the family, then difficulties there could cause both school difficulties and delinquent behavior. Clearly, most of the youths in the studies examined here had school problems in spite of high IQ’s. Most of the youths were often truant, had educational aspirations below their potential, and were working considerably below capacity, although they were in general far less behind than other delinquents. Brooks (1972) divided Kneesworth Hall boys-almost all of whom had had unhappy school experiences-into three groups: those who entered the school with an attainment commensurate with the level of their measured intelligence (16%), underachievers (57%), and youths who were extremely hostile to school (27%). The predictive utility of this classification is striking. Nineteen percent of the achievers, 44% of the underachievers, and 81% of the youths hostile to school reoffended after leaving Kneesworth. Cowie and Cowie’s (1962) data on bright female delinquents presents an even gloomier picture of achievement. Of 122 girls with an IQ of 100 or over, only three girls were level with or ahead of their chrono-
326
Mahoney
logical age in reading and only 14 were equal to or ahead of their chronological age in arithmetic. This educational lag persisted even for the girls with IQ’s of over 140. In spite of this general picture of educational deprivation, there are some positive differences between bright and average delinquents that may point directions for educational intervention. Even though less than half of the bright boys in Gath et al.‘s study (1970b) regarded themselves as above average in intelligence they were in general more likely than the less able boys to read at a level at or about their chronological age (54% compared to 10%). They were also more likely to stay in school for an extra year or two after school-leaving age (42% of 31 compared to 13% of 30). The results of Caplan and Powell’s study are in marked contrast to results from the two English studies. On the basis of their findings, Caplan and Powell ( 1964) argue that underachievement and low status in school is not a problem for most bright delinquents. On the contrary, they argue, many tend to be overachievers, channeling their frustrations into school success. They show that 38% of the bright youths compared to 2% of the average youths were classified as “excellent” or “good” in regard to school conduct and citizenship, whereas 38% of the average delinquents and none of the bright delinquents were rated “very poor.” The more intelligent youths also had somewhat better academic records and only 3% of them compared to 26% of the average youths were retarded in grade placement. Caplan’s findings may be in part the result of the high percentage of upper-middle class children among the bright delinquents in his sample. Nevertheless, they should remind us that even high achievers may get into trouble. A child, especially a bright child, may exhibit behavioral problems outside of school before he exhibits them in school (Offord et al., 1978). It is difficult to find any clear support for either the vulnerability thesis or the protection thesis in these results regarding school experience. The difference between bright delinquents and many of their less able peers is that the bright delinquents have the intellectual capacity to do well in school, and many of them know it. Yet they choose not to do so.
Gifted Delinquents
327 Prognosis
The prognosis for gifted delinquents who reach the point of adjudication by the juvenile court is generally pessimistic. It may be a telling commentary upon our knowledge about intervention with these youths that the Kneesworth Hall study analyzed the effect of antecedent variables upon recidivism rather than the effect of treatment variables. The school, which attempted to develop an open, therapeutic community and a sense in the boys of being secure and loved, had a 50% success rate among its “graduates,” a fairly selective group. Yet the study leaves one with the impression that the key variable in the boy’s ability to benefit from the school’s program was, in the final analysis, the extent of damage that the boy had suffered before he arrived. Prognosis was less determined by the kind of treatment or even his IQ than by his background. Although the Kneesworth Hall recidivists were nearly the same age as the non-recidivists when they were first committed, they were nearly a year younger--only 12-when they were first found guilty of an offense (Brooks, 1972). One can ask whether the earlier age of first adjudication was symptomatic of greater disturbance or whether the longer time period between first adjudication and first commitment played any role in the differential success rate of the two groups. Both possibilities should be subject to empirical investigation. Tennent and Gath’s (1975) sample is less selective than Brooks’; the prognosis is even worse. Bright and average boys in the Tennent and Gath follow-up reoffended in similar ways and at a similar rate-74-80%. Furthermore, the offense rate continued unabated into the third year. Caplan and Powell’s data (1964) includes follow-up on most youths until they were at least 17 years old and beyond juvenile court jurisdiction. There was no difference between bright and average delinquents in regard to second offensesalmost a third of them returned to court at least once. But there was a significant difference between the two groups in regard to the number who had three or more offenses. Only 3% of the bright children were apprehended three or more times compared to 20% of the average children. Although those offense figures might have been affected by the number
Mahoney
328
of children at risk in the community, since a substantially higher number of bright youths were sent to residential schools, they are in close agreement with figures from the Cambridge Study which found that only 2% of the bright youths compared to 7% of the average and 20% of the dull boys were recidivists (West & Farrington, 1973). It appears from these studies that once a youth gets deeply into the juvenile justice system, his chances of extricating himself are low, even if he is bright. If intelligence “protects” a youth from delinquency, it must do so either before the youth gets into the system or early in the juvenile justice process. Conclusion What we know about gifted delinquents comes primarily from comparisons of bright delinquents with average delinquents. The studies examined here generally show that more intelligent youths are less likely to appear in delinquent populations than others and more likely to come from disrupted and unstable homes. Both findings support the thesis that bright youths are protected from delinquency by their intelligence except in extreme family circumstances. The school performance of most bright delinquents is far below their capacity, although it is generally not as poor as it is for delinquents of average intelligence. In general, this review of research on gifted delinquents points out the dearth of information about a group of youths who hold potential for highly creative and positive contributions to their communities. It would be useful to learn how many gifted youths of different types are coming into the nation’s juvenile courts and how they differ from one another and from other delinquents. Are they more affected than other youths by negative labeling? Do they show any common background characteristics in regard to home or school experiences? Do they tend to have learning disabilities? Such information would be useful to court workers and policv makers who are responsible for planning and implementing court, probation and correctional services for youths. Identification of gifted delinquents should also facilitate research on the difference between delinquent and non-delinquent gifted chil-
Gifted Delinquents
329
dren so that causal factors can be explored and gifted children with problems can be identified and helped before they find themselves in the juvenile justice system. References Brooks, R. Bright delinquents: The story of a unique school. England: The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, 1972. Caplan, N.S., & Powell, M. A cross comparison of average and superiorI.Q. Delinquents. The Journal of Psychology, 1964, 57, 307-318. Cowie, J., 8c Cowie, V. Delinquency in girk London: Macmillan & Co., 1962. Gallagher, J-J. Teaching the gifted chiid. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976. Gath, D., & Tennent, G. High intelligence and delinquency: A review. Brittih Journal of Criminology, 1972,12, 174-181. Gath, D., Tennent, G., & Pidduck, R. Psychiatric and socia1 characteristics of bright delinquents. British Journal of P~~~t~, 1970, 116, 151-160. (a) Gath, D., Tennent, G., & Pidduck, R. Educational characteristics of bright delinquents. British Journal of Educational PsycholoB, 1970, 40, 1-4. (b) Gath, D., Tennent, G., & Pidduck, R. Criminological characteristics of bright delinquents. British Journal of Criminology, 197 1, 11, 275-279. Hirschi, T., & HindeIang, M.J. Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist’s review. American Sociological Review, 1977, 42, 571-587. Mat-land, M. Report to Congress on education of gified and talented children in the United States, 197 1. Offord, D.R. et al. School performance, I.Q. and delinquency. British Journal of Criminoba, 1978,18, 111-124. Pringle, M.K. Abie m@s: The educational and behavioral dijjicu2tiesof intelligent children. London: Longman, 1970. Simmons, M.M. Intelligent delinquents. Times Education& Su~~t, March, f956,2. Tennent, G., & Gath, D. Bright delinquents: A three year follow-up study. British Journal of Criminobqy, 1975,15, 386. West, D.J. Present conduct and future delinquency London: Heinemann, 1969. West, D.J., & Farrington, D.P. Who becomes d&nquent: Second report of the Cambridge study in delinqwnt development. London: Heinemann, 1973.