The nexus of family environment with youth street criminal behavior in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pakistan.

This empirical work focuses on the impact of unsupportive and harsh family practices on youth criminal behaviour. The present study hypothesizes that the harsh practices and low support of a family are the contributing factors for street crimes and that family practices increase the intensity of youth street criminality, particularly in a Pakistani society. While studying youth delinquent behaviour in a Pakistani society, this study employs general strain theory (GST), which has not been employed in any research in Pakistan till date. Thus, the authors examined the variables of the study from the view point of general strain theory (GST). A diverse sample size of 300 street criminals, housed in different jails of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) was selected randomly. However, from each jail, the sample respondents were selected through proportion allocation strategy. Moreover, primary data were collected through structured interviews and analyzed through a series of steps, which involved exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structure equation modeling (SEM). These analyses helped in determining the relationship between family harsh practices, and low family support, with youth participation in street crimes. Findings of this study offer evidence that family harsh practices and low family support directly trigger youth participation in street crimes. The present study does not only confirm the hypothetical statement of GST regarding positive and negative stimuli but also add up the significant contribution in the existing literature from the context of Pakistani society. Initiating awareness programs and sessions regarding different parental skills by sociologist and psychologist on community level, as well as the need for the sociologists and psychologist to provide assistance while addressing psychological issues of offenders are some of the recommendations based on the study findings.

Introduction

Crime is an anti-law act which negatively disrupts the basic social fabric of a society. The occurrence of street crimes is universal in nature, found in both developed and under-developed societies. Notwithstanding, many urban and rural communities in Pakistan are still dealing with issues of street crimes and other serious delinquent activities. According to alarming numbers from the recent newspaper, in the first quarter of this year, armed robbery and mugging resulted in the deaths of more than 30 people. Adding on, armed robberies and snatchings at gunpoint cost people millions of rupees in the first three months of 2021. Among other muggings and robberies, an increase in the number of mobile phone and motorcycle snatchings at gunpoint are crucial indications of street crimes (Abbas et al., 2020; DAWN, 2021). Previous studies identified many contributing factors for the occurrence of street crimes. Like other crimes, street crimes also involve various causal mechanisms, including familial factors, which is the focus of this article. This article is confined to the familial factors that contributed to street criminal behaviour among youth. Furthermore, familial factors in promoting youth street criminal behaviour have been primarily restricted to two issues in the present study: Guardian harsh practices and lack of family support, in a Pakistani context.

Family environment and youth participation in antisocial activities have remained a topic of interest for researchers for nearly half of a century. Legislators, social experts, and philanthropists, often assume that adolescent involvement in delinquent activities is certainly enhanced by several family oriented factors and practices (Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Stavrinides, 2011). Likewise, an extensive number of scientific pieces of evidence also confirmed that youth attachment with their family significantly influenced their criminal behaviour. Several familial factors have been shown to be positively associated with youth criminal behaviour, such as family criminality, maltreatment of parents, low family support, parental negligence, and harsh parenting or family practices (Farrington, 2011; Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; McCord, 1991; Mistry et al., 2002). Harsh parenting can be defined as a set of parenting techniques marked by unpleasant emotional expression, and coercive acts (Bosk et al., 2021). While harsh parenting is a component of all child maltreatment, not all forms of severe parenting are considered maltreatment (e.g., corporal punishment, embarrassment in front of others, being made fun of). However, evidence also suggests that severe parenting, even if it does not reach the level of maltreatment, has its own set of detrimental consequences. More specifically, harsh physical discipline (e.g., corporal punishment) and harsh verbal exchanges (e.g., being harshly reprimanded and treated) are linked to the development of internalizing and externalizing disorders in children, in addition to antisocial conduct when children grow adult (Afifi et al., 2019; Bosk et al., 2021; Calhoun et al., 2019; Hecker et al., 2016). Likewise, a previous study by Covin (1982) also explored that corporal punishment, such as spanking, beating, and whipping in families increases youth involvement in various criminal activities. Moreover, in recent empirical studies, it has been pointed out that prevalence of criminal behaviour among youth often exist in those families where hostility is high and love and affection are low (Hoeve et al., 2009a; Simmons et al., 2018).

The work by Gershoff (2002) also confirms that parental punitive behaviour towards children subsequently increases criminality, later in life. Furthermore, recent empirical findings by Sari and Nurhayati (2019) show that youth offending behaviour is dramatically increased by parental punitive practices. Notwithstanding, Medinnus (1981) explores youth criminal behaviour within the preview of the absence of parental supervision, parental conflict, and low level of material support along with parental intolerance which considerably increases youth participation in delinquent activities. Likewise, Simons et al. (1987) also conducted a longitudinal empirical study and explored that parental rejection serves as a driving force in youth offending behaviour while absence of family bonding resulted in serious delinquencies among adolescence. However, their study also concluded that the aforementioned characteristics may not be sufficient conditions for offending behaviour, as some prior studies confirm that familial dynamics are not strong predictors for antisocial behaviour. For instance, a recent empirical study by Bosick and Fomby (2018) suggested that an unstable family, if does not explicitly lead to antisocial behaviour among youth, may fuel youth criminal behaviour. A similar study conducted by Hoeve et al. (2009a) reaffirms that a low level of parental supervision triggered criminal behaviour among youth. Moreover, family breakdown caused by the death and divorce of parents is also a root cause of children poor socialization and these youngsters become criminal in later life. Meta-analyses consistently reveal that youngsters who are growing up with single parent, face greater prevalence of youth criminality (Rebellon, 2002; Saud et al., 2020; Saud and Margono, 2021; Wells and Rankin, 1991; Wright and Wright, 1992). Empirical findings by Baumrind (1978) had another standpoint which is that parental care, love, and attention along with parental supervision are inversely associated with youth delinquent behaviour and certainly enhance pro-social behaviour among adolescents. Likewise, empirical work by Demuth and Brown (2004) concluded that youth parental follow up, affection and observation decrease youth participation in delinquent activities. Similarly, family support and prevalence of both parents are inversely associated with youth criminal behaviour (Wesley T Church, Tracy Wharton, & Julie K Taylor, 2009).

A general overview of street crimes in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Data regarding various types of street crimes reported in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) between 2010 and 2020 are present in the following Table 1. As per Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) statistics, the trend of overall street crimes shows a 3% increase between the aforementioned periods. Besides, the total number of reported robberies and snatching between 2010 and 2020 shows a 3% increase. Likewise, under the above-mentioned period, 9% increase has been observed in physical assault. However, from 2010 to 2020, 3% increase has been observed in vehicle-related theft and snatching.

The theoretical framework of the study

A theory has a proven outcome for the application of different variables in a particular situation and on a specific phenomenon. It helps the scholar in explaining research phenomena on the basis of various factors, pertaining to his study, in pursuit of discovery. The present study revolves around the deviant and criminal acts of young people with their deviant role in the street. In addition, the main focus of the present study is to examine the role of the family relationship in youth criminal behaviour through the lens of general strain theory (GST) presented by Agnew (1992). Strain theory of Agnew can be categorized into goal blockage, negative stimuli, and positive stimuli. Goal blockage includes unfulfilled aspirations, failure to achieve expected, fair, and just outcomes, inability to achieve respect and masculine status, etc. The second type of strain (negative stimuli) is consequently an outcome of negative treatment by others, such as, harassment and bullying from peers’ group, ill-treatment by parents and teachers, or criminal victimization. The last major type of strain (positive stimuli) revolves around the loss of positive stimuli such as the theft of valuable property, breakdown in relation, and withdrawal from parental love (Agnew, 2014). The present empirical work analyzes data pertaining to youth participation in street crimes, and its association with negative stimuli (harsh treatment by family members) and positive stimuli (withdrawal from familial love), as offered by GST.

Current focus

To date, in Pakistan, there has been number of empirical studies on the various social and psychological factors responsible for offending behviour among youth, but little empirical work from sociological standpoint has been conducted in this area. The present study focuses on identifying the familial causes as stimulants behind the street criminal behaviour of the target respondents while keeping in mind the present structure of family institution, its social and normative roles in the context of Pashtun society. It is worth underscoring that youth participation in street crimes is associated with factors emanating from the core of the family environment and this study mainly points to those factors which can be held responsible to lead the youngsters towards street crimes. Keeping into consideration the existence of criminal act as universal and its occurrence in the study area, as obvious from the Table 1, this study makes a very strong argument for discovering the latent and manifest reasons for youth street crimes with the main aim of addressing the causes of street crimes by taking into account both family practices and support. The study will proceed with the following research hypotheses.

Table 1

General overview of Street crime in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Year and Nature of street crimes	Robbery/Mobile/Good snatching	Motorcycle/Vehicle related theft/ snatching	Physical assault	Total
2010	789	852	114	1755
2011	730	713	118	1561
2012	709	627	128	1464
2013	851	877	130	1858
2014	1061	1109	136	2306
2015	1340	1190	138	2668
2016	1216	1023	164	2403
2017	1185	844	188	2217
2018	1128	1037	216	2381
2019	1134	917	223	2274
2020	1020	1114	278	2412
Increase in % from 2010 to 2020	29%	3%	9%	3%

Source: Bureau of Statistics KP 2021

Hypotheses

H1: Lack of family support is positively associated with youth participation in street crimes.

Lack of family support will increase youth participation in street crimes.

H2: Harsh family practices are positively associated with youth participation in street crimes. Harsher the family practices, higher will be youth participation in street crimes.

Methodology

Study design, sampling and sample size

The present study has been conducted in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan with the sole purpose to explore the relationship of family harsh practices and low support with youth participation in street criminal behaviour. The present study is quantitative in nature and cross-sectional survey strategy was adopted for collection of primary data. In addition, a sample of 300 youth offenders was randomly selected who are currently housed in seven selected prisons of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for different types of street crimes. It is noteworthy that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has seven administrative divisions and one prison was selected from each division based on the numbers of youth criminals housed there. In addition, the aforementioned sample size was selected from the total population of 1200 as per the criteria defined by (Yamane, 1967). However, to determine the sample size from each jail, the proportional sample allocation method was employed using the below mentioned formula:where,

Size of street criminals to be selected from Iststratum

Thus, using the aforementioned formula, the exact number of street criminals taken from each prison is as under (Table 2):

Table 2

Sample of street criminals taken from each jail.

Strat No.	Name of division	Name of the Jail	Total street criminals (Ni)	Sample Size (ni)
1	Peshawar	Peshawar	260	65
2	Mardan	Mardan	208	52
3	Dera Ismail Khan	D.I. Khan	80	20
4	Bannu	Bannu	290	73
5	Kohat	Karak	130	32
6	Hazara	Mansehra	120	30
7	Malakand	Malakand	112	28
		GRAND TOTAL	1200	300

(Ullah and Muhammad, 2020)

Data collection

Instruments

Scales in the present study were selected from a comprehensive questionnaire designed for the PhD dissertation of the principal author. However, it is important to mention that in the present study we converted the selected scale into five-point Likert scale.

Conceptual framework

To achieve the objectives of the present study, that is, to explore the relationship between harsh family practices and youth participation in street crimes, and how low family support increases youth participation in street crimes, a conceptual framework (Table 3) was developed with two independent variables (harsh family practices and low family support), one dependent variable (youth participation in street crimes), and three demographic variables (age, family type and education).

Table 3

Operationalization of the study's variables.

Variables	Operationalization
Family harsh practices	1. Your Family members often fight with one another
	2. Your Parents/Guardian often lose their temper
	3. Your parents/Guardian not monitoring you
	4. Your Parents/Guardian Often Physically punish you
	5. Your parents often yelling on you
	6. Your parents/Guardian criticize/scold you on pity matters
	7. You are ignored in family-related decisions
	8. Your parents/Guardian punish you by taking privileges away from you
	9. Your parents/Guardian are preferring other families member
	10. Your parents/Guardian are labeling you with indecent words
	11. Your parents/Guardian are embarrassing you
Low family support	1. Your parents/Guardian never try to pose confidence in you
	2. Your Parents/Guardian are not cooperative with you
	3. your parent Guardian are not responsive to your needs
	4. Your parents/Guardian meet you're some financial problems
	5. You could not share your problems openly with your parents/Guardian
	6. Your parent never praise you for doing well
	7. Your parents/Guardian did not give much attention to your education
	8. Your parents/Guardian did not give proper attention if you fall ill.
	9. You are deprived of legal income resources
	10. Your friends lend you cash if parents/Guardian are not meeting your economic needs
Youth participation in street crimes	1. Snatched mobile phone
	2. Snatched goods like hand watch, Gold, etc.
	3. You exhibited a weapon to get money
	4. Motorcycle theft
	5. Bicycle theft
	6. Vehicles theft
	7. Theft from Vehicles
	8. Physically injured someone during a street robbery
	9. Intentionally Damaged Vehicles or other property
	10. Sold/distributed/helped to make illegal drugs
	11. Merchandised sex for food, drugs, or money

Operational measures of the selected study variables

To operationalize the study's variable of family harsh practices and low family support, number of items of harsh practices and low family support were selected from the prior research studies and literature review. It is worth mentioning that measurement of harsh family practices was based on eleven attributes, while low family support was measured through ten attributes. See (Farrington et al., 1996; Shelton et al., 1996; Stormshak et al., 2000). Furthermore, a self-report delinquency scale was used for measuring youth participation in street crimes which consisted of 11 questions. Moreover, demographic variables were categorized into a single item dichotomouspolychotomous nominal scale i.e. Education status (Literate, literate), Family monthly Income (insufficient/sufficient), type of family (nuclear/joint/other) (see Table 3).

Data collection tools

A structured questionnaire was used for the collection of primary data in the selected study area, encompassing the above-mentioned variables.

Analysis of the data

The data was analyzed through the statistical techniques including exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for the purpose to develop constructs and decrease the attitudinal statements of the variables. Moreover, EFA adopts maximum likelihood techniques of extraction, and Promax (Oblique) rotation was carried out on attitudinal statements of variables to explore indicators on the basis of eigenvalue >1. In addition, validity and reliability along with the unidimensionality of our measure were examined through confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, discriminant validity was carried out to explore that the construct is not similar. Finally, liner association and impact among observed and hypothetical variables (latent) was found out through SEM with the maximum likelihood method. SEM is a statistical technique that concurrently examines the association between the observed and hypothetical variables (latent). In addition, the evolution and analysis of this model were carried out via SPSS and AMOS version 22.

Criteria of inclusion

In this study only those youths have been interviewed who are currently imprisoned and/or facing court trials. Besides, the age of selected youth was between 15-29 years as clearly defined by the UN (Najam and Bari, 2017).

Ethical consideration

Prior authorization from the prison department to visit the selected jails in the KP province was acquired for this study. Several steps were taken to ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of the data and participants. The consent of the respondents, to be interviewed, was acquired prior to the interview. In the selected jails, no unnecessary or unethical questions or topics were raised or discussed during the interviews.

Results of the study

Demographic profile of street criminal

Table 4 presents information regarding the demographic profile of the respondents. More than half of the respondents' age was between 19-22 years, the study also found that the majority 34% of the sample inmates had 12-year education. Finding regarding family patterns revealed that the majority 81.7% of the study participant living in the joint family system and family marital structure of the 63% respondents were monogamous. In addition, Majority 67 of the inmates stated that their family monthly income is not sufficient.

Table 4

Demographic profile of street criminal.

Variable	Frequency	Percent
Age (Years)
15–18	78	26
19–22	157	52.3
23–26	52	17.3
27–29	13	4.3
Education Level
Illiterate	67	22.3
Up to Metric	69	23
12 Years	103	34
Above than 12 years	61	20.3
Family Pattern
Nuclear	55	18.3
Joint	245	81.7
Family Marital Structure
Monogamy	189	63
Polygamy	111	37
Family Income Sufficient
Yes	99	33
No	201	67

66.89% of the resultant variance can be explained by four factors explored through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Notwithstanding, the value of Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was observed statistically significant at p < 0.000, and adequacy of sampling was evaluated by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin statistics while the result value shows 0.957 as a good sample size. Thus, the value 0.957 disclosed that the study variables are not correlated and appropriate for factor analysis (George, 2011; George and Mallery, 2006). Moreover, communalities more than 0.4 is acceptable (Lowry and Gaskin, 2014). However, Child (2006) pointed out that value of communality lower from 0.2 must be removed. Moreover, the Table 5 below shows information regarding the data set pattern matrix. In addition, the internal consistency among attitudinal statements was examined through Cronbach's alphatest (Shaaban and Kim, 2016). The reliability of the scale in social sciences is usually examined through Cronbach's alpha. Thus, analysis of Cronbach's alpha shows the following values of 0.954, 0.963, and 0.940 for family harsh practices, lack of family support and youth participation in street crimes respectively, which are beyond the range value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 5

Pattern Matrix, Communalities, Described Variance and Standardized loading (n = 300).

Measurement	PM	Communalities	AVE	DV	SL
Family Harsh practices			0.661	39.52%
Fhp1∗	.868	.788			.888
Fhp2	.847	.765			.875
Fhp3	.758	.551			.739
Fhp4	.780	.600			.771
Fhp5	.855	.736			.854
Fhp6	.905	.804			.896
Fhp7	.860	.726			.852
Fhp8	.831	.688			.827
Fhp9	.876	.775			.879
Fhp10	.858	.737			.858
Fhp11	.868	.181			.348
Lack of Family support			0.722	13.18%
Lfs1	.917	.823			.906
Lfs2	.843	.704			.840
Lfs3	.840	.731			.853
Lfs4	.801	.678			.824
Lfs5	.884	.734			.851
Lfs6	.851	.700			.835
Lfs7	.881	.784			.886
Lfs8	.849	.769			.877
Lfs9	.817	.660			.811
Lfs10	.806	.651			.806
Youth participation in street crimes			0.616	14.19%
Ypsc1	.789	.601			.773
Ypsc2	.736	.547			.737
Ypsc3	.716	.574			.754
Ypsc4	.760	.623			.789
Ypsc5	.808	.628			.789
Ypsc6	.739	.616			.783
Ypsc7	.788	.579			.756
Ypsc8	.840	.661			.806
Ypsc9	.809	.675			.822
Ypsc10	.814	.664			.816
Ypsc11	.817	.650			.804

PM = Pattern matrix, AVE = Average Variance extracted, DV = Described variance, SL = Standardized loading.

Measurement model

Coefficient of all the primary data was found above the range value of 0.3 through CFA (Ford et al., 1986). In addition, Normed chi square χ2/df = 1.74 < 3 (K. A. Bollen, 1989), Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .05 < 0.06 (Hu and Bentler, 1999), Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.959 > 0.95 (Byrne, 2013; Hu and Bentler, 1999) and Tucker-levis index (TLI) = 0.956 > 0.95 (Byrne, 2013; Hu and Bentler, 1999) were used for model fitness (see Table 6 below). Besides, composite reliability (CR) was summarized in the table along with Cronbach's alpha of the statements, which revealed that all obtained values are beyond the range value of 0.7 i.e. in the range of 0.950, 0.962 and 0.946 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Table 6

AVE & factor correlation.

	CR	AVE	Family Harsh Practice	Lack of Family Support	Youth Participation in street crimes
Family Harsh Practice	0.950	0.661	0.813
Lack of Family Support	0.962	0.722	0.444	0.849
Youth Participation in street crimes	0.946	0.616	0.393	0.341	0.785

AVE indicated = Average variance extracted &: Bold numbers indicated AVE value square root of each aspect.

Notwithstanding, convergent validity was examined for family harsh practices, lack of family support, and youth participation in street crimes in order to find out the validity and reliability of the measurement model and perceived variables. Moreover, all values of average variance extracted (AVE) laying between 0.616 to 0.722 which are beyond the ranged value of 0.5 (see Table 6 below) (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Researchers carried out divergent validity constructed on the square root of AVE larger than any inter factor correlation, that indicated validation (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). There has been inferences from the above findings that range of values suggested by (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hu and Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005; Thompson, 2004) for the suitability of observed statements and their generality was appropriate and useable for evaluating factors. In addition, conventional procedures were adopted for assessing discriminant validity (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Findings of the study support discriminant validity where all variance-extracted estimates presented in Table 5 are higher compared to the squared association estimates between study factors.

Structure equation modeling (SEM)

Two steps methodological approach of Structure Equation Modeling was used with three variables having two direct paths. The following value i.e. Chi-square χ2/df = 1.74, RMSEA = .05, RMR = 0.062, CFI = 0.959, and TLI = 0.956 clearly indicated that the model is technically correct as the above mentioned value is above the range of 0.95 presented in Table 7 (Brown, 2006; Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Table 7

Goodness of fit for the Measurement Model and Structure Model.

Goodness of fit	Recommended value (Reference)	Measurement Model and SEM Model Fit
χ2/d.f	<3 (K. Bollen, 1989)	1.748
RMSEA	<0.100 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007)	0.050
RMR	<0.080 (Hu and Bentler, 1999)	0.062
CFI	>0.950 (Hu and Bentler, 1999)	0.956
TLI	>0.950 (Rouquette et al., 2015)	0.959

RMSEA indicated = Root Mean Square error of approximation.

RMR shows = Root mean square of residual.

CFI shows = Comparative Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis.

In addition, the Structure model hypothesized that a strong significant relationship exists between family practice, low family support, and youth street criminal behaviour. For this purpose, the hypothesis was evaluated and confirmed that H1: complete standardized loading = 0.208 (t-value = 3.30, p > 0.00). This shows that lack of family support has a strongly positive significant effect on youth participation in street crimes. Likewise, H2: completely standardized loading = 0.301 (t-value 4.69, p < 0.000), disclosed that family harsh practices have a direct positive significant effect on youth participation in street crimes as exhibited in Table 8 and Figure 1.

Table 8

Hypothesis testing.

Hypothesis	Path relations	Standardized loading	t-value Result	Result
H1	Lack of Family support →Youth Participation in street crime	0.208∗∗	3.30	Support
H2	Family Harsh Practice-→ Youth Participation in street crime	0.301∗∗∗	4.69	Support

∗∗∗ = p < 0.001, ∗∗ = p < 0.05.

Figure 1

SEM.

Discussion

The main theme of this study was to explore the role of harsh family environment and low family support in youth street criminal behaviour. Many studies disclosed that lives of youth are significantly affected by their family practices. Families where youth are treated harshly and not supported in their daily routine activities are more prone to participation in antisocial activities. The aforementioned analysis vividly revealed that harsh family environment, particularly parental maltreatment of youth, using abusive language in front of their children, corporal punishments along with conflict, among family members are the contributing factors towards youth participation in street crimes. Similar results have also been pointed out by (Laursen and Collins, 2009) and (Tolan et al., 2003) that youth offending behaviour has been directly influenced by family relationships. Findings of the study are closely in line with the work of (Patterson et al., 1998; Walker, Stieber, Ramsey and O'Neill, 1991) who explored that attitude of parental punishing and fruitless discipline, carelessness, and youth dismissal by parents are major determinants of youth offending behaviour. Likewise, according to Farrington (1992), youth criminal behaviour is significantly associated with poor or lack of parental monitoring, and the criminal is not closely attached to their parents. Similarly, a recent empirical work of (Straus et al., 2013) also confirms that physical punishment by parents not only elicits youth antisocial behaviour but also adversely affects youth education. Moreover, in Western countries, a number of studies have found that authoritative parenting is linked to better child outcomes (Baumrind, 2005; Fletcher et al., 2008; Rankin Williams et al., 2009), whereas permissive and authoritarian parenting are linked to negative outcomes (Brar, 2003; Querido et al., 2002; Smith and Moore, 2013; Wu, 2009). In Asian countries, however, these parenting techniques have different consequences. For example, authoritarian parenting bears positive as well as harmful consequences for youngsters (Akhtar, 2012; Khan, Tufail and Hussain, 2014; Pong et al., 2010). The findings of the study also reveal that youth living in unsupportive families are certainly involved in street crimes. Adolescent delinquency is frequently linked to the quality of the parent-child connection. For example, meta-analysis of Hoeve et al. (2009b) explored that higher the level of parental support, the lower are the rates of delinquency. Whereas low levels of support are linked to increased use of cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana by teenagers (Parker and Benson, 2004). Thus, emotional and material support from family is inversely associated with youth participation in street crimes. Previous studies also recognized that uncooperative and neglectful families could increase an individual's participation in offending behaviour (Wesley T. Church, Tracy Wharton, & Julie K. Taylor, 2009; Fagan et al., 2011; Mowen & Boman IV, 2020; Saud, 2020; Skeer et al., 2011).

Findings of the present study are directly in line with the GST assumption, that is, negative stimuli (harsh treatment by family members) and positive stimuli (withdrawal from parental love). In addition, present study confirmed these assumptions from the Pakistani context.

Conclusion

The main theme of this research study was to explore the impact of family harsh practices and low family support on the street criminal behaviour of youth. Family practices and family support were used as independent variables to achieve the objectives of the present study. This study explored that low family support directly affects the lives of youth and push these youth towards antisocial activities. Likewise, family harsh practices were also found highly significant with youth street criminal behaviour. In addition, youth who were physically punished, probably participated in anti-social activities. The findings of this study are also supported by most of previous empirical work.

Recommendation

The study recommends several policy planning for those agency and people who are directly or indirectly involved with the rehabilitation of youth offenders/criminals. Moreover, it is very important for psychologists, sociologists and other professionals to consider findings of the present study and put these into useful practices.

For Govt and NGOs

The study recommends that different awareness programs, training, and sessions regarding family practices, management, youth supervision, and socialization should be initiated by Govt and NGOs to educate guardians and elders of the family regarding adverse family practices.

For Prison System

Social worker and other related health workers, working in prisons, are expected to provide the same level of care as those in the community, including assessing and assisting with mental health and psychological issues of offenders, working with physicians to design care plans, providing support and education, assessing crisis and integrating external and internal social life along with psychological services in order to rehabilitate offenders into productive citizens of the society. Statistically, youth engaging in street crimes have complicated and long-standing health demands, as well as a significant occurrences of mental health disorders, according to our prior study. Mental disorders are prevalent among offenders who enter a correctional facility, and this number is growing. In many situations, convicts with several mental health disorders are retained in the jail rather than being transferred to a mental health hospital. Sociologist and psychologist are caught in a double-edged sword, caring for mentally ill offenders and promoting their interests while also protecting members of society.

For Community

Sociologists and Psychologists have the knowledge, expertise, and perspective to play an essential role in community-wide violence prevention programmes. Home visiting programmes are one example of direct care to high risk individuals. Sociologists and psychologists are frequently involved in the aftermath of violence, but there are also innovative, evidence-based ways that these people may employ to help prevent violence before it occurs. For instance, if school-based psychologist are socialized that they should work at school level, they would promote students’ health and safety while detecting crime tendency in early stage.

Parent's socialization

The role of social worker and sociologists in training and awareness of various groups in the society is quite significant in terms of parenting knowledge and skills of these people in their educational function. Mothers, on the other hand, have a larger role in their children's education who are closer to them at home than their fathers. In comparison to fathers, they also have more time to participate in children's trainings and cooperate more. Therefore, given the importance of parents' understanding of the proper method to raise children, to have healthy children, the value of having a healthy community, and the vital role of sociologists in teaching families and guiding them in acquiring public health information, which includes physical, mental and social health.

Limitation, strength and future research

This study has certain limitations, such as, the scope of this study was limited to male street criminals only. Further, this study was conducted only in one province of Pakistan. Besides, this study has a significant contribution to the existing empirical work in the context of Pakistan, while exploring major contributing factors of street criminal behaviour in the study area. There is a tremendous cost of crime in terms of instability, security maintenance, cost, government crime prevention programs, criminal justice cost like police investigations etc. Thus findings of this study will reduce the crime rate and save the economic costs associated with crimes. In addition, findings of this work may be useful in policy planning regarding youth development. This paper aims in reducing the gap in literature and draws an attention to this important determinant of crime. In particular, it sheds light on the family harsh practices as a contributing factor for the increase in crime rate. This study used a very rigorous and systematic method of statistical analysis which might enhance the validity of the study findings. However, further research on street crimes among female might be conducted by female researcher who could easily bring to surfaces the major detriments of female criminality.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Aman Ullah and Mahrukh Shakir: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Mahrukh Shakir: Conceived and designed the experiments; Wrote the paper.

Nizar Ahmad and Gulrukh Shakir: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data included in article/supplementary material/referenced in article.

Declaration of interests statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.