Empirical research has shown an elevated risk for externalizing behavior problems in international adoptees. To address the extent to which this risk exists for more serious externalizing problems we compared the rates of registered criminal offending of internationally adopted adolescents with those of non-adopted adolescents in the Netherlands. In a large population-based cohort study (N = 3,758,506 including n = 10,563 international adoptees) on Dutch youth with ages up to 19 years we examined registrations in the program on juvenile crime and in the national police system from 2005 to 2013. Controlling for time lapse and background variables we found that international adoptees had been in contact with the criminal justice system more frequently than non-adoptees. However, the findings differed across region of adoption: Adoptees from South America and from Africa had been in contact with the criminal justice system most frequently (and more often than non-adoptees), whereas adoptees from China (total n = 4569) had the least contacts (and less often than non-adoptees). The percentages of criminal offending of adoptees ranged between 1.16% and 15.83% across regions of adoption (versus 10.86% in non-adoptees). The large majority of adoptees – including those from South America and Africa – were not involved in criminal acts. We hypothesize that the higher and lower risks of criminal offending found for adoptees from certain countries are associated with the varying levels of pre-adoption adversity (e.g., neglect and abuse) that the adoptees have experienced.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Adolescents, Cohort study, Criminal offending, International adoption
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.009, hdl.handle.net/1765/111704
Journal Children and Youth Services Review
Citation
van Ginkel, J.R, Juffer, F, Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J, & van IJzendoorn, M.H. (2018). Young offenders caught in the act: A population-based cohort study comparing internationally adopted and non-adopted adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.009