Introduction

Child welfare caseworkers play an integral role in youths’ experiences in the child welfare system (Strolin-Goltzman et al. 2010). When children and youth experience maltreatment and enter the child welfare system, they are assigned a caseworker who then becomes the gatekeeper of services, informs decisions about if and where a child or youth will be placed outside the home (Ryan et al. 2006), controls access to often much-needed resources (Bunger et al. 2010), and organizes family visits. The role of the caseworker in the child welfare system, particularly in the wake of policies such as the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (1997) is to strive for the safety, permanency, and well-being of young people, and also often includes serving as a child advocate, mentor, and guardian. Caseworkers can serve additional functions, such as being the communicative link to a young person’s family and friends, particularly if a young person in the child welfare system is placed outside of the home. For children and youth, relationships with caseworkers are especially important in influencing a variety of outcomes, including emotional and physical stability and trust in relationships (Strolin-Goltzman et al. 2010).

Given existing evidence regarding the importance of caseworkers in a child’s life, there is a need for a better understanding of whether and how the interactions of caseworkers with young people are linked to specific outcomes and experiences. This is particularly true for children who experience involvement in multiple systems, such as the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Children who experience maltreatment and trauma are likely to become involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Children involved in the child welfare system are at about twice the risk of having juvenile court contact than those not involved in child welfare (Stouthamer-Loeber et al. 2001). Their long-term outcomes include higher rates of substance abuse and mental health issues, increased likelihood of criminal involvement, and higher likelihood of being a perpetrator of maltreatment (Herz et al. 2012). Existing research supports that youth with child welfare and justice system involvement are a distinct group of young offenders (Onifade et al. 2014) and that their depth of justice system involvement varies (Kolivoski et al. 2014). Although the numbers for those with psychopathic traits are small, psychopathy and chronic offending are linked (Piquero et al. 2012). Research seeking to explain delinquent behavior outcomes among child welfare-involved youth has generally used ecological or social learning explanations (e.g., Dishion et al. 1999; Jonson-Reid 2004). Several scholars have argued that experiences in the child welfare system also play a role in shaping these outcomes (e.g., Jonson-Reid 2004; Maschi et al. 2008). Recent research has increasingly emphasized the importance of developmental theory in helping to explain delinquent behavior (Scott and Steinberg 2008).

Despite this link, there has been relatively little research documenting the mechanisms through which child welfare experiences, especially interactions with caseworkers, are related to subsequent outcomes such as delinquency. The goal of this article, then, is to expand on existing research in two ways. First, it examines how perceptions of interactions with a youth’s caseworker are related to beliefs toward the legitimacy of the law and legal system (e.g., legal socialization). Second, it examines whether these views are related to delinquent behavior, and, in so doing, identifies one potential process through which experiences in the child welfare system may influence the delinquency of young people.

Caseworkers and Legal Socialization

A number of studies suggest that the way youth view their relationships with caseworkers is related to their experiences in the system, and, potentially, their subsequent outcomes. In a study of youth in foster care, Strolin-Goltzman et al. (2010) found that youth perceptions of caseworker turnover were viewed negatively by the majority of youth, regardless of the reason for turnover. Caseworker turnover also contributed to delays in finding permanent placements for children and contributed to an overall lack of trust by youth. In another qualitative study of twenty children in foster care, themes emerged regarding the importance of positive relationships between child welfare workers and young people, including the need for a supportive relationship with the caseworker and offering compassion and support during the child’s transition to out-of-home care (Mitchell et al. 2010). Interviews with former foster care youth indicate the need for caseworkers to have increased contact with children and to acquire skills to help them establish trusting relationships with youth (Fanshel et al. 1990). Despite these findings, there has been relatively little research examining the mechanisms through which interactions with child welfare caseworkers are related to outcomes such as delinquency (Johnson et al. 1995; Mitchell et al. 2010). Clearly, youths’ perceptions of the willingness or ability of a caseworker to help a youth access needed services or find a stable placement, among other services, can influence a youth’s trajectory.

Yet, there are also other mechanisms through which caseworkers can influence outcomes such as delinquency. One potential mechanism is through the concept of legal socialization. Legal socialization is defined as “the process through which individuals acquire attitudes and beliefs about the law, legal authorities, and legal institutions” (Piquero et al. 2005, p. 267). These attitudes and beliefs become internalized, which subsequently shapes behavior compliance with rules, norms, and the institutions and authorities charged with enforcing them (Fagan and Tyler 2005). It is a developmental process, as individuals begin to acquire these attitudes during childhood and adolescence and these views shape beliefs in adulthood (Cohn et al. 2010; Fagan and Tyler 2005). These attitudes are important because numerous studies have found that beliefs in the legitimacy of the law and legal system shape an individual’s law abiding or violating behavior (Tyler 2006; Tyler and Huo 2002).

There are two main theoretical perspectives that explain the process through which individuals acquire attitudes and beliefs about the law and legal system. Cohn and her colleagues (1990; 2010; 2012) have furthered a cognitive developmental approach that emphasizes the importance of moral and legal reasoning in explaining legal socialization. Both forms of reasoning are distinct cognitive parts that affect adolescent behavior, and may affect youth behavior differently depending on a youth’s age (Cohn et al. 2010). Compared to younger adolescents, older adolescents, who may understand abstract concepts better, may more clearly recognize why laws need to be obeyed, thus affecting their law-abiding behavior (Cohn et al. 2010). Fagan and Tyler (2005) have argued for a social learning or interaction approach (see also Fagan and Piquero 2007; Piquero et al. 2005). This approach asserts that legal socialization is influenced by perceptions of interactions with authority figures including police, judges, school officials, and store security guards. A recent study also pointed to the importance of a youth’s attorney in shaping attitudes about the law and legal system (Shook, in preparation). Drawing on work on the concept of procedural justice (Fagan and Piquero 2007), the idea is that an individual’s direct experiences influence one’s more global views about the law, legal system, and norms and rules that underlie it. Other factors also contribute to shaping one’s views, including contextual characteristics such as peers, families, and neighborhoods (Fagan and Tyler 2005). These views are related to rule abiding or violating behavior and a number of studies have found relationships between legal socialization and delinquent behavior among young people (Cohn et al. 2010, 2012; Fagan and Piquero 2007; Fagan and Tyler 2005; Piquero et al. 2005). One study found a key factor in the presence or absence of guilt for delinquent behavior among incarcerated adolescents was whether they viewed the legal procedures through which they were processed as fair (Otto and Dalbert 2005). Legal socialization in adolescence is particularly important because it is a time when youth “venture outside the closed systems of family and schools to experience laws and rules in a variety of social contexts where rule enforcement is more integrated with the adult world” (Piquero et al. 2005, p. 268).

The goal of this study is to expand the research on legal socialization by examining the relationships among perceptions of a youth’s caseworker, legal socialization, and delinquency in a sample of incarcerated juveniles. Specifically, the study addresses two questions: (1) How do youths’ perceptions of interactions with their caseworker relate to their beliefs about the legitimacy of the law and legal system (legal socialization)? and (2) Are these beliefs about the law and legal system related to their delinquent behavior? In addressing these questions, our study, albeit incrementally, contributes to understandings of the processes through which experiences in the child welfare system may influence the delinquency of young people. Other studies have examined how perceptions of child welfare caseworkers relate to other youth experiences and outcomes. None, however, have focused on how perceptions of caseworkers are related to legal socialization. Additionally, studies of legal socialization have examined individuals as related to the law and authority figures, but no study has specifically addressed caseworkers as somewhat related figures of authority within the child welfare system.

Studies of legal socialization have used both community and delinquent samples (Cohn et al. 2010; Fagan and Piquero 2007; Fagan and Tyler 2005; Piquero et al. 2005). Recent work on delinquent samples focuses on a sample of violent and serious juvenile offenders from Philadelphia and Arizona (Fagan and Piquero 2007; Piquero et al. 2005). Additional research is needed on legal socialization among juvenile offenders, however, because, as Fagan and Piquero (2007) argue, this group commits a substantial amount of delinquent behavior. Although estimates vary, many young people who exhibit delinquent behavior have a history of child welfare system contact. One study found that nearly two-thirds of youth with juvenile justice system contact had prior child welfare system contact, ranging from very limited and brief to extensive out-of-home placement (Halemba and Siegel 2011). Thus, similar to other authority figures, it is likely that a youth’s perceptions of his or her caseworker are linked to their views about the law and legal system. Thus, regarding the first research question, we adopt a social learning/interaction framework and hypothesize that more negative perceptions of a youth’s caseworker are associated with less belief in the legitimacy of the law, legal system and norms and rules that underlie it. Related to the second research question, we further hypothesize that youth who view the law, legal system, and the rules and norms that underlie it as less legitimate will have higher rates of delinquent behavior.

Methods

Participants

The data for this study draw from a non-probability sample of 14–19 year old youth (N = 227) in two (one all-male and one all-female) private, non-profit long-term residential placement facilities for juvenile offenders in Western Pennsylvania. For the boys’ facility, data collection occurred from June 2009 to August 2009 (n = 126) and individuals were included if they were between ages 14 and 18 and had been at the facility for 3–12 months at the start of recruitment. For the girls’ facility, data collection occurred from October 2009 to February 2010 (n = 101). The girls’ facility is much smaller than the boys’, so we sought to include all the residents in the facility and all of those that entered during data collection. Between the two facilities utilized for this study, over 95 % of youth referred to the research team regarding participation in the study assented and completed an interview. The sample for the present study is a subsample of those who responded affirmatively that they had experienced child welfare system involvement (i.e., had a child welfare caseworker at some point). This comprised just less than fifty percent (n = 113; 49.8 %) of the larger sample. Given our interest in examining the relationship between perceptions of one’s child welfare caseworker and legal socialization, we use this subsample for all analyses. The descriptive statistics of the subsample are presented in Table 1. Nearly half of the subsample was male (48.7 %). White youth comprised 16.8 % of the subsample, and 83.2 % were youth of color. The average age of these youth was 16.08 (SD = 1.25) years old.

Table 1 Sample descriptives (n = 113)
Full size table

Procedure

The study received approval from the university Institutional Review Board and data collection procedures were followed according to the established protocol. Prior to the study, information was mailed to parents and guardians of youths at the facility. Staff described the study, and if a youth expressed interest in participating, a supervisor would refer the youth to research staff. Interviewers explained the purpose of the study and obtained either assent (for those under 18 years old) or consent (for those over 18 years old). Trained graduate students and professors conducted structured one-on-one interviews using Computer-Assisted Survey Interview (CASI) techniques. Interviewers completed a 1-day training session on utilizing the computer equipment. All interviewers had training on and experience with working with justice system-involved youth. Data were collected on a variety of measures including perceptions of child welfare caseworkers, measures of procedural justice and legal socialization, personality characteristics, delinquent behaviors, peers, neighborhood context, and demographic characteristics. Interviewers collected data from youth in areas private enough for confidential meetings, yet with facility space so that between three and five youth could be interviewed concurrently by separate interviewers. Data collection procedures involved interviewers asking computer-based questions, and participants answering, assisted by response cards. To ensure quality control and to troubleshoot any computer issues, an on-site data editor was available during interviews.

Measures

Legal Socialization

Legal socialization is measured by assessing three domains—Legitimacy, Legal Cynicism and Moral Disengagement (Fagan and Tyler 2005). Legitimacy measures perceptions of fairness of the police and courts on a 4-point scale from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (4) and includes statements such as “I have a great deal of respect for the police” and “Overall, judges in the courts here [indicating the jurisdiction where they were processed] are honest.” The overall Legitimacy scale is a sum of the 11 items, where higher scores indicate greater views of legitimacy (α = .746; Fagan and Tyler 2005).

Legal Cynicism is adopted from Fagan and Tyler’s (2005) modification of Srole’s (1956) legal anomie scale. It measures an individual’s overall assessment of the normative basis of law (Sampson and Bartusch 1998). The Legal Cynicism scale consists of 5 items asking respondents on a 5-point scale ranging from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5) statements including “Laws are made to be broken” and “Nowadays a person has to pretty much live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.” The level of legal cynicism is calculated as a sum of 5 items where higher scores indicate greater legal cynicism (α = .735; Fagan and Tyler 2005).

Moral Disengagement assesses attitudes regarding the treatment of others. It was modified for this study and consists of the sum of 15 items drawn from Bandura and colleagues’ survey (1996). It includes questions such as “Kids who get mistreated usually do things to deserve it” and “Some people deserve to be treated like animals.” The items are assessed on a 5-point scale from Strongly agree (1) to Strongly disagree (5) (α = .882).

Self-Reported Delinquent Behavior

Self-reports of delinquent behavior were assessed with the modified Self-Reported Delinquency (SRD) scale used in the National Youth Survey (Elliott et al. 1985, 1989). We employed 14 items that asked youth to respond to the frequency of each delinquent behavior, such as stealing items valued at over $50, attacking another person, and stealing a motor vehicle. Answer choices ranged from Never (0) to 2–3 times per day (8). The instrument is well documented and used extensively in previous research. The measure is the mean score of 14 items (α = .797).

Child Welfare Caseworker

The Child Welfare Caseworker variable for this study is the mean score of a series of six statements with Likert-type responses about youths’ impressions of their most recent child welfare caseworker. Responses ranged from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating Strongly agree and 5 indicating Strongly disagree. Based on the work of Johnson et al. (1995), as well as modifying procedural justice questions asking about a youth’s relationship with his or her lawyer, statements included, “My child welfare caseworker was important to me,” “My child welfare caseworker was helpful to me,” and “My child welfare caseworker told me the truth” (α = .807).

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice was assessed by asking youth about their perceptions of interactions with the police officer(s) who arrested them in their most recent case, the judge who presided over the case, and their defense attorney. The questions were adapted from questions on procedural justice that had been adopted for the justice system by Paternoster et al. (1997) and tap into domains of ethicality, fairness, and respect with regard to a youth’s interactions with the police who arrested them, the judge in their case, and their lawyer. Questions were all asked on a 5-point scale from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. An overall Procedural Justice measure was created by assessing the mean responses of the combined scales (α = .787).

Demographic Characteristics

Demographic measures include dichotomous variables representing gender and race/ethnicity and a continuous variable representing an individual’s age. Because of sample considerations (specifically, the very small size of racial/ethnic groups other than White and African American), and because there is considerable evidence that White youth and youth of color have different experiences with the justice system (Hagan et al. 2005), we collapse our race/ethnicity measure into White compared to youth of color.

Contextual and Peer Influences

Informal social control assesses the likelihood that neighbors will intervene in instances such as when children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner or a fight broke out in front of their house (Sampson et al. 1997). This measure utilized 4 of the 5 original items and is based on a 5-point scale from Very likely to Very unlikely (α = .698). It is intended to assess the degree that norms exist in a community that sanction disorderly or delinquent behavior. Friends assesses the influence of peers by asking about the degree to which a youth’s friends are involved in substance use (“In the past 6 months, how many of your friends have smoked cigarettes?”) and other behaviors (“How many of your friends sell drugs or trade things for drugs?”). It includes 7 items that are assessed on a 4-point scale from None of them to All of them (α = .742).

Childhood Trauma

Childhood trauma is measured using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ), 34-item version (Bernstein et al. 1997, 1994). It assesses the degree to which youth have experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect and lack of family support (i.e., dysfunction). Items begin with the phrase, “When I was growing up,” and are rated on a 5-point scale with response options indicating the frequency of occurrence, ranging from 0 = Never true to 4 = Very often true. The measure demonstrates high reliability and validity (α = .913). Lower scores indicate fewer experiences of trauma, and the measure was scored by calculating the mean of responses. The CTQ is used in this study to examine how maltreatment by family members or other close individuals influences attitudes regarding the law and legal system.

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by deficits in interpersonal, affective, behavioral, and lifestyle areas and is an important correlate of conduct problems, delinquency/crime, and juvenile/criminal justice involvement (DeLisi 2009; Ribeiro da Silva et al. 2012; Vaughn and Howard 2005) and was assessed using the 50-item Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory (YPI; Andershed et al. 2002) total score (M = 105.74, SD = 20.92). The measure consists of ten scales aimed at addressing the core components of psychopathy: dishonest charm (e.g. “I have the ability to con people by using my charm and smile”), grandiosity, lying, manipulation, remorselessness, callousness, unemotionality, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, and thrill seeking. Respondents answered on a 4-point scale regarding the degree that each item applies to them, ranging from Not at all to Very much/Definitely, with higher scores indicating more psychopathic characteristics. Reliability and validity of this instrument in assessing psychopathic features in children and adolescents is strong (α = .886; Poythress et al. 2006; Vaughn and Howard 2005; Vaughn et al. 2008; Vaughn et al. 2011).

Analytic Strategy

Due to sample size and presence of influential outliers, a robust least trimmed square (LTS; Rousseeuw 1984) regression was used to examine the relationship between perceptions of child welfare caseworkers and legal socialization as a composite measure and as individual components—legitimacy, legal cynicism, and moral disengagement—while controlling for demographic, procedural justice, personality, and contextual characteristics. We modeled the analysis after the work of Fagan and Tyler (2005), first examining the relationship between perceptions of child welfare caseworkers and the individual components and composite measure of legal socialization, and then the overall measure and individual components of legal socialization are regressed on self-reports of delinquent behaviors. We also chose this analysis plan due to the small sample size. Least trimmed square regression has an advantage over OLS in that it is robust to outliers. Given the sample size, we used LTS instead of deleting outlier variables (Rousseeuw 1984).

We conducted all data management in SPSS and analyses in SAS. A robust LTS regression was performed predicting overall legal socialization by youth perceptions of child welfare caseworkers, controlling for a number of factors including demographic, neighborhood level, and personal perceptions of procedural justice. Variables were transformed to satisfy assumptions of normality and linearity. An influential case analysis provided evidence of variables with an undue influence on statistics. All other assumptions were met. A series of regression models examined demographic and contextual characteristics on each of the three individual components that make up legal socialization as well as legal socialization as a composite measure. Then, we ran two regression models that tested how legal socialization (i.e., one on its components, one as a composite measure) predicts self-reports of delinquent behavior, after controlling for covariates.

Results

Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations. As is evident from the table, child welfare caseworker is related to a number of components of legal socialization, as more negative views of a youth’s caseworker are related to more negative attitudes towards the legal system, more cynicism toward the law and the overall legal socialization measure. Although more negative perceptions of a youth’s child welfare caseworker are also related to more negative perceptions of the overall procedural justice measure, the strength of this relationship suggests that these measures are tapping into distinct assessments of the role of the child welfare caseworker and other legal actors. As is evident, the overall legal socialization measure and the individual components are all significantly related to delinquent behavior.

Table 2 Correlations among study variables
Full size table

In regards to our first research question, Table 3 presents the results of the regression models examining the relationship between perceptions of a youth’s child welfare caseworker and legal socialization. The first set of results report on beliefs in the legitimacy of the legal system. As evident, perceptions of the child welfare caseworker are significantly related to beliefs in legitimacy (p < .001), meaning that youth who view their caseworker more negatively attribute less legitimacy to the legal system, providing some support for our first hypothesis. The overall procedural justice measure is also significant (p < .001), showing that youth who have more negative perceptions of their treatment by the police, their lawyer, and the judge in their case also view the system as less legitimate. White youth attribute more legitimacy to the system than do youth of color (p < .05), and youth who have experienced more childhood maltreatment attribute less legitimacy (p < .01). There is a marginally significant relationship between perceptions of informal social control in a youth’s neighborhood and beliefs that the legal system is legitimate (p < .10).

Table 3 LTS (robust) regression of demographic and contextual characteristics on components and composite legal socialization
Full size table

As shown in the next column, child welfare caseworker is not significantly related to moral disengagement, although procedural justice is related (p < .001). Among the control variables, psychopathy (p < .001), friends (p < .05), and informal social control (p < .05) are all significantly related to moral disengagement, as youth who exhibit more psychopathological characteristics, who have more peers engaged in substance use and drug dealing, and who perceive less social control in their neighborhoods all are less likely to agree with norms and rules regarding the treatment of others. Similarly, child welfare caseworker is not significantly related to legal cynicism (next column) but procedural justice is related (p < .05). White youth express less cynicism toward that law than do youth of color (p < .001), and girls express more cynicism than do boys (p < .05). Youth who exhibit more psychopathic traits (p < .001) and youth with more delinquent peers (p < .05) also express more cynicism.

The last column presents the results for the legal socialization composite measure. Child welfare caseworker is significantly related to the overall legal socialization measure, as youth with more negative perceptions of their caseworker view the law and legal system as less legitimate (p < .001). The procedural justice measure is also significant in this model (p < .001). White youth (p < .01) view laws and the legal system as more legitimate than do youth of color, whereas youth who exhibit more psychopathic features (p < .001) and youth who experienced more childhood maltreatment (p < .01) view laws and the legal system as less legitimate.

To answer the second research question, Table 4 presents the results for the models predicting delinquent behavior. Following Fagan and Tyler (2005), the first set of results includes all three of the legal socialization components. As is evident from the table, legitimacy is significantly related to self-reports of delinquent behavior (p < .01), whereas moral disengagement and legal cynicism are not significantly related. The peer measure is related (p < .01), meaning that youth with friends who use substances and deal drugs commit more delinquent behavior. White youth (p < .05) commit less delinquent behavior than do youth of color. The final set of results includes the model that incorporates the overall legal socialization measure instead of the individual components. Youth who view the law and legal system as less legitimate report engaging in more delinquent behavior (p < .01), thus lending some support for our second hypothesis. Additionally, similar to the previous results, the peer measure is related to self-reports of delinquent behavior (p < .01).

Table 4 LTS (robust) regression of demographics, contextual characteristics, and composite legal socialization on delinquent behavior
Full size table

Discussion

The goal of this article was twofold. First, we sought to examine the relationship between perceptions of a youth’s child welfare caseworker and measures of legal socialization, controlling for other theoretically relevant predictors of legal socialization. Second, we sought to identify whether legal socialization was related to self-reports of delinquent behavior. Identifying relationships between perceptions of caseworkers and legal socialization can help identify a mechanism through which relationships between caseworkers and young people can influence their outcomes. Linking legal socialization to delinquent behavior further underscores the importance of these relationships.

With regard to the first goal, perceptions of the fairness and ethicality of caseworkers were related to one of the individual components of legal socialization, perceptions of legitimacy of courts and police, as well as the overall measure of legal socialization. This finding suggests that perceptions of interactions with a specific actor, child welfare caseworkers, are associated with more global views on the fairness of the legal system. Although there was a relationship between these perceptions and the overall measure of legal socialization we employed, there was not a statistically significant relationship between perceptions of the fairness and ethicality of child welfare caseworkers and the other individual components of legal socialization, moral disengagement and legal cynicism. This suggests that views of caseworkers are linked to perceptions of the “system” but not of broader moral rules and norms regarding the treatment of others or toward the more general fairness of the law.

The relationship between perceptions of caseworkers and legal socialization indicates that perceptions of caseworkers have a somewhat similar relationship to legal socialization as perceptions of other authority figures, such as police and judges. As discussed previously, other studies have found that perceptions of the fairness of these actors, referred to as procedural justice, are related to legal socialization (Fagan and Tyler 2005). Our findings are similar, as our procedural justice measure is significantly related to each of the individual components of legal socialization and the overall legal socialization measure. Yet, as noted, even when controlling for procedural justice, perceptions of child welfare caseworkers are significantly related to aspects of legal socialization. This suggests that child welfare caseworkers are part of a continuum of authority figures that interact with young people and are tied to youths’ views of the legitimacy of the law and legal system. It is important because, per our second goal, beliefs in the legitimacy of the system and the overall legal socialization of youth are related to lower levels of delinquent behavior. These findings are consistent with other research that shows these same links (Fagan and Tyler 2005). In many respects, this is not surprising, because the youth in our sample have significant histories in the juvenile justice system, and youth in this subsample also have involvement in the child welfare system. Thus, these youth have had to comply with the dictates of these systems and it is clear that their compliance is associated with how legitimate they view the system to be.

The relationship between perceptions of a youth’s caseworker and legal socialization is also important because it suggests a possible mechanism through which caseworkers are associated with outcomes. As noted, explanations of higher rates of delinquency among child welfare involved youth generally focus on ecological or social learning explanations (Dishion et al. 1999; Jonson-Reid 2004). While some studies suggest that system involvement can also influence delinquency (Jonson-Reid 2004; Maschi et al. 2008), there has been relatively little theoretical development seeking to explain these relationships. While there are a variety of ways that systems can influence outcomes, our findings suggest that one mechanism may be beliefs about the legitimacy of the legal system. Perceptions of caseworkers as unfair or unethical are related to youths’ attitudes toward the system, and these attitudes are related to their rule abiding or violating behaviors.

Child welfare caseworkers encompass the dual roles of investigator of child maltreatment and helper in providing access to service, thus exhibiting a paradox (Roberts 2007) that may create conflicting feelings towards them. Foucault (1979) views social welfare systems as systems operating similarly to even more coercive systems like the justice and corrections systems. Because our sample has had contact with both, this link between them is worthy of continued study. Our study examines how the child welfare system is interrelated with legal socialization. The child welfare caseworker, as part of the child welfare system, becomes a well-wishing accomplice in a highly coercive system, with the power to remove children from families. Caseworkers are trained to become incisive observers and to make judgments based on such observations that can affect the freedoms of already disenfranchised individuals. This paper suggests that child welfare workers are a part of a continuum of authority figures, and that the impressions that children have of their caseworkers are related to a more general trust in the justice systems with which they may become involved. The link between these children’s legal socialization and behavior is important, and may show how a youth’s orientation toward authority is related to the behaviors that precipitate the involvement of more system operatives.

The relationships between other control variables and legal socialization are also important for understanding how young people view laws, moral codes and norms, and the system. Youth who experience higher levels of childhood maltreatment viewed the legal system as less legitimate and exhibited lower levels of legal socialization overall. Childhood maltreatment is something done to, not by, young people and this finding potentially suggests that the “system” has not adequately responded to the maltreatment experienced by these youth. Although substantial research exists that addresses maltreated children’s behavioral and emotional outcomes, few studies specifically examine the effects of the legal process on them (Melton et al. 1995). Future research needs to further examine this link. Negative peer behavior was also related to legal cynicism among this subsample. Previous research from Fagan and Tyler (2005) had somewhat similar results, in finding legal cynicism significantly related to negative peer behavior, as well as peer behavior not being related to the composite measure of legal socialization. Yet, our results also showed that youth who have more peers engaged in substance use and drug dealing were less likely to agree with norms and rules regarding the treatment of others (i.e., moral disengagement). Given the complex role of peer relationships, future research needs to also examine the role of peers further. Psychopathy was significantly related to moral disengagement, legal cynicism, and the overall legal socialization measure. Fagan and Tyler (2005) utilized measures of individual personality and temperament (e.g., aggression, alienation, self-control, and impulsivity), and found varied results, with aggression and alienation significantly related to overall legal socialization. Although our findings generally suggest that individual factors contribute to legal socialization and some of its components, these factors may be mediators in harmfully affecting the quality of interactions with authorities (Fagan and Tyler 2005).

White youth perceived the courts and police as having more legitimacy, were less cynical about the fairness of law, and exhibited higher scores on the overall legal socialization measure than youth of color. These findings are consistent with other research (Hagan et al. 2005; Woolard et al. 2008) and indicate that youth of color have different perceptions of the fairness and legitimacy of the law and legal system. Of course, these different perceptions are driven, at least in part, by the more negative experiences of youth of color in their interactions with the police and justice systems. A recent initiative by the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies acknowledges both the role of procedural justice and the different experiences of youth of color and seeks to create a National Center for Building Community Trust and Justice. Our results corroborate the importance of this initiative, the potential need to expand its focus beyond the police and court system, and the continued need to focus on differences in treatment by race and ethnicity.

Limitations and Future Directions

The present study provides a substantive contribution to existing research, including that perceptions of child welfare caseworkers are related to global views of systems and those in authority but generally not of moral rules and norms of how to treat others or regarding general fairness of the law. Also, our findings suggest that youths’ perceptions of caseworkers have a similar connection to legal socialization as perceptions of others in positions of authority. Yet, this study is not without limitation. One major limitation is the correlational design of the study. The relevant theoretical frameworks and literature review presented here (see Cohn et al. 2010, 2012; Fagan and Tyler 2005), inform the development of legal socialization. However, given the cross-sectional research design, the temporal nature of the relationship cannot be empirically demonstrated (i.e., that this occurred prior to one’s experiences with a child welfare caseworker). Thus, the possibility exists that legal socialization may have an undesirable influence on a youth’s perceptions of his or her caseworker. A youth’s delinquent behavior, then, may further damage the client–worker relationship, as possibly the cause or the result of negative legal socialization. Although we addressed the temporal order of variables through purposively sampling a group of incarcerated juveniles and asking about previous child welfare caseworkers, thus isolating that child welfare contact preceded juvenile justice involvement, additional studies could address temporal issues further, such as in further addressing how legal socialization varies longitudinally as children and youth further develop.

The study also has some other limitations that future studies should address. One limitation is that the sample size for analysis was relatively small. However, as quantitative research in this area is severely limited, the sample used for the current work is appropriate for the analyses conducted. Future research can utilize larger samples to further test the relationships indicated here. Using larger data sets will also allow for the testing of path models to determine whether the relationships between perceptions of child welfare caseworker and delinquency are moderated by legal socialization. Another limitation of the study is the lack of data further addressing characteristics of a youth’s child welfare caseworker. Turnover of caseworkers remains a substantial issue in the child welfare workforce (Zlotnik et al. 2005), and the number of caseworkers that a youth had was not asked. Young people’s dissatisfaction with workers may be related to turnover. Adolescents in particular may feel abandoned when their worker leaves and seem more likely to take it personally. It may be difficult for a youth to build a relationship with a caseworker if he or she does not think the worker is going to remain in their position. Evidence suggests that turnover is related to caseworkers being unable to establish successful relationships with clients in the child welfare system (CWLA 2002). Despite this limitation, a youth was asked about his or her most recent child welfare caseworker to provide a more accurate recall of experiences, and to help account for the variation among youth with multiple caseworker experiences. Given the important role of caseworkers, future research and policy needs to take this into consideration. Also regarding measurement, delinquency was measured through self-report data. More objective measures of delinquency, such as arrest records, may be more reliable methods. However, reports of behavior were collected from youths themselves due to the design of the study, and future research could include additional measures of delinquent behavior.

Conclusion

The results of this study show that the perceptions held by young people involved in child welfare of their caseworkers are related to their perceptions of the legitimacy of the police and judicial systems and that these perceptions are related to their delinquency. These findings contribute to a growing body of work on the legal socialization of young people. Our work suggests that the relationship of youths’ perceptions of caseworkers to their legal socialization is similar to those of their perceptions of other authority figures, such as those in the legal system. The essential component of legal socialization related to perceptions of youths’ caseworkers is their perceptions of the legitimacy of the system. Thus, we see that child welfare caseworkers’ interactions with young people may have repercussions beyond the relationship between them, as they are related to youths’ broader perceptions of the legitimacy of the systems with which they interact, including the legal systems, which are in turn related to their behavior. Young people who perceive the system as less legitimate and who score lower overall on measures of legal socialization are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors. Clearly, an important component of helping young people to have better perceptions of the system involves treating them more respectfully and fairly within the systems with which they become involved. This paper contributes to our knowledge in this area, by demonstrating the significance of youths’ relationships with their child welfare caseworkers as initial points of interaction with such systems. It also helps to elucidate our understandings of the links between child welfare and juvenile justice system involvement and highlights the need for future research in this area.