Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1984
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency in a Sample of Low-Income, Minority Males and Females Margaret Farnworth
A popular thesis in criminology links "broken homes" to juvenile delinquency. This thesis has been invoked to explain higher rates of delinquency among youth from low-income, minority families than among youth from mainstream backgrounds. The study reported here employs data collected at two points in time to assess the thesis that family structure is significantly associated with self-reported delinquency within a sample o f black males and females from tow-income famUies. The relationships between an array of family variables, including family structure, and each o f four types o f self-reported delinquency are examined in analysis conducted separately for males and females. Findings indicate that f e w family factors are significant f o r delinquency and family structure is o f minimal importance f o r the types o f delinquency examined. The results differ f o r males and females. These findings raise serious questions about the cogency o f the broken-home thesis o f delinquency to explain delinquency among nonmainstream groups in our society.
INTRODUCTION Official statistics indicate that youth from low-income, minority families are overrepresented in juvenile delinquency involvement compared with their
Research reported here was supported in part by NIMH Grant I RPI MH33488-01AI and conducted in part under the auspices of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, Michigan. Views expressed by the author do not represent official positions of those agencies. ~State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12203. The author received her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Georgia in 1981. Her research interests at present include the effects of social stratification processes on delinquencyand crime, particularlythe effects of such social correlates of crime as race, sex, and social class.
349 0047-2891/g4/0800-0349$03.50/0 © 1984 Plenum Publishing Corporation
350
Farnworth
mainstream counterparts (Giordano and Cernkovich, 1979; Wolfgang et al., 1972). To explain higher rates of official delinquency within such groups, traditional explanations for delinquency have tended to focus on life-styles and related attitudes or cultures that prevail among low-income families living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Miller, 1959). One popular thesis links a particular feature of life-style- the broken h o m e to delinquent involvement among juveniles from poor, minority families (Miller, 1959). This linkage has been invoked as a basis for social policy proposals in the past (Moynihan, 1965) and as an explanation for current racial and social-class disparity in institutionalization rates within the juvenile justice system. The broken-home thesis of delinquency persists as a basis for current policy decisions in juvenile justice despite criminologists' increasing skepticism concerning the evidence cited in support of this commonsense notion (Thornton et al., 1982). Three major limitations have been noted in empirical studies that support the broken-home thesis. First, such studies typically employ records of official contact with the law as a measure of delinquency (Wilkinson, 1980; Thornton et al., 1982). Since agencies of juvenile justice routinely include the stability of the home as a criterion for legal intervention, such evidence may reflect a self-fulfilling prophecy (Jensen and Rojek, 1980). That is, decision-making policy based on the assumption that broken homes lead to delinquency could, in itself, account for the higher official rate of delinquency observed among juveniles from broken homes. Another problem with the broken-home thesis is that it tends to ignore related aspects of family life that could affect a juvenile's socialization and delinquency. To some researchers, the observed association between broken homes and delinquency may be spurious since both broken homes and delinquency are likely to stem from other family attributes common to those populations with a high incidence of single-parent families (McCord, 1978). A third limitation in the broken-home thesis concerns its generality to explain delinquency across all subgroups in our heterogeneous society (Wilkinson, 1980). The present study proposes a need for analysis to clarify family effects on delinquency within a specific subgroup in the population, allowing for male-female differences and for differences in those factors that are antecedent to involvement in various types of delinquency.
Past Study Jensen and Rojek (1980, p. 195) note that "the concentration of delinquent juveniles from broken homes is pronounced in official statistics" and cite evidence from studies by Chilton and Markle (1972), the California Youth Authority (1971), and juvenile court annual reports to support that observation.
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
351
In a similar vein, Thornton et al. (1980) cite studies dating from 1903 (e.g., Breckenridge and Abbot, 1970; Healy, 1915; Peterson and Becker, 1965; etc.) indicating an association between broken homes and official delinquency. Findings of this type have been interpreted by researchers to indicate that "intact homes, or families containing both natural parents, were somehow better at socializing and controlling children than households where one or both parents are a b s e n t . . . " (Thornton et al., 1980, p. 88). This conclusion is consistent with a number of prominent delinquency perspectives that emphasize family socialization, such as strain theory, social control, and social learning (Jensen and Rojek, 1980). Finding from research employing self-report techniques, while relatively few in number, challenge the broken-home thesis of delinquency (Nye, 1958; Dentler and Monroe, 1961; Gold, 1970; Hennessey et al., 1978). Even in instances in which juveniles from single-parent families are found to be more likely to be involved in delinquency, a number of family contingencies have been proposed to account for the apparent association between broken homes and delinquency. Jensen and Rojek (1980) suggest family attributes such as social class, family size, maternal deprivation, and family relationships as alternative or related explanations for delinquency. Thornton et al. (1982) propose that conflict in the family, parental affection, parental social control, maternal employment, and the quality of parent-child relationships may also impinge on family socialization in a manner that is significant for illegal, antisocial behavior.
The Need for Within-Group Study In the study of family structure effects on delinquency, the correlation of nontraditional family circumstances with low socioeconomic level and minority-group membership complicates analysis that is conducted across social subgroups. For example, a recent report by the New York State Asassembly's Legislative Task Force on Women's Issues (1982) reported that almost 50o70 of single-parent families headed by women live in poverty. Census statistics linking black families, family structure, and poverty are even more striking and indicate that the number of children living in homes where the father was absent more than doubled from 1960 to 1975. This trend was particularly pronounced among black families: 65.7°7o of black children living with single mothers were living in poverty in 1974. Statistics such as these question the apparent causal relationship between broken homes and delinquency, since many of the same families that are not intact are also poor and black. A broken-home relationship to delinquency could therefore be a spurious one, with both of these variables attributable to a third cause, viz., the disadvantages associated with poverty
352
Farnworlh
or minority-group membership. This implies a need to control in analysis for the race and social level of sample members. Furthermore, the literature on black families suggests that certain lifestyle characteristics particular to black communities could serve to compensate for the father's absence, so that the adverse effect of a broken home observed in samples of white juveniles may not be evident among their black counterparts (Rashid, 1982). The tendency a m o n g black families to draw on extended family support (Samuels, 1970; Stack, 1974) suggests, for example, that a female-headed black household does not necessarily imply the absence of a male role model in the socialization of the child (Morris, 1977). Berger and Simon (1974) propose further that membership in a broken home in a social environment where single-parent families are the norm rather than the exception may be less conducive to delinquency than in those environments in which intact families predominate. This provides an additional rationale for analysis within an all-black sample in which variation exists in family structure. In addition to controlling for race and social level in the study of family effects on delinquency, a need to differentiate between such influences for black males and females is argued by Datesman and Scarpitti (1975). Those authors propose that •.. black females react less adversely to a break in the parental home than do black males, which appears to derive from the matricentral focus of the black family and of the extended kinship system, and from the fact that the female role is structured to include aspects of the traditional male role such as resource provision, responsibility, and autonomy.
This is in direct contrast to traditional expectations concerning family effects on girls in general, in which it has been proposed that female delinquency is more likely to result from family disruption than is male delinquency, because of the greater "under-the-roof" protection provided in socializing females in our society (Gibbon, 1977). Past study also suggests differences in the effects of single-parent families on delinquency for blacks versus whites (Hennessey et al., 1978; Austin, 1978), for males versus females in general (Austin, 1978; Gold, 1970; Nye, 1958), and for males versus females within racial groups (Austin, 1978; Datesman and Scarpitti, 1975; Toby, 1957). Moreover, these differences have been found to be contingent upon the type of delinquency under investigation (Austin, 1978; Datesman and Scarpitti, 1975; Rosen, 1969).
P u r p o s e o f the Present S t u d y
The saliency that practitioners and policy makers continue to attribute to the traditional family model as a deterrent to delinquency, even in the
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
353
face of serious reservations expressed by several criminologists, suggests that the broken-home thesis cannot be dismissed out of hand. This is particularly so in the case of those social groups for whom statistics indicate a high incidence of both single-parent families and involvement with the law. These considerations, coupled with the disparate findings and observations reported in the literature, suggest a need for analysis assessing the relationship of family structure and other family factors to delinquency among blacks from low-income backgrounds. Thus the present study seeks to clarify the relationship between family structure and delinquency in a sample of adolescents from low-income, black families. In this way, the study will assess the validity of the argument that the high incidence of broken homes among poor black families is relevant to the high rate of offical delinquency observed among such socially disadvantaged youth. The sample for the analysis consists of black 15-year-old males and females from low-income families. The analysis employs selfreported delinquency data as an alternative to official records which could confound the relationship between the family and delinquency. That is, official data are suspect for informing this subject, since they incorporate in their compilation the effects of juvenile justice policies and decision making that may be prejudicial against single-parent families. The data for the analysis include a number of variables reflecting the family environment and parent-child relationships as described by the children and their parents, to evaluate the impact of aspects of the family other than its structure. Separate analyses are conducted for males and females.
T H E P R E S E N T STUDY The data for the analysis were collected as part of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project, which was originated by David Weikart and his associates in 1962 to assess the longitudinal effects of preschool intervention on various life outcomes for children considered to be at a high risk of school failure. The original sample consisted of 123 black children from families of low socioeconomic level at the time of their entry into the project. These children were assigned randomly at ages 3 and 4 years to two groups: 58 to a program of preschool intervention and 65 to a group who received no intervention program. Self-reported delinquency was surveyed when the children were 15 years old, using questions modeled upon those included in a study by Bachman et al. (1972). Follow-up study has been conducted for more than two decades to assess the short- and long-term effects of the preschool intervention (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1980). A recent study estimated the effects of preschool and schooling on delinquency by age 15 years among members of the sam-
354
Farnworth
pie ( F a r n w o r t h et al., 1984). W h i l e o n e t h r u s t o f the p r o j e c t was to e x a m i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l i n g a n d d e l i n q u e n c y , extensive i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t family characteristics was also collected at two points in time, at the child's p r e s c h o o l age (at a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 years o f age) a n d at age 15 years. A t the s e c o n d p o i n t in time, b o t h the y o u t h s a n d their p a r e n t s (usually the m o t h e r ) were interviewed.
Sample A t the t i m e d a t a collection was initiated in 1962, h a l f o f the families o f the s a m p l e m e m b e r s received welfare a n d neither p a r e n t was gainfully employed in 42°7o o f the families. O f the parents who were employed, almost all (9507o) w o r k e d as unskilled o r semiskilled l a b o r e r s . All m e m b e r s o f the s a m p l e resided in the s a m e n e i g h b o r h o o d a n d school district w h e n d a t a collection began. A p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f o f the s a m p l e at t h a t time lived in h o m e s in which the f a t h e r was not present. T h e s a m p l e for the present analysis consists o f 99 b l a c k 15-year-olds (59 males a n d 40 females) w h o r e s p o n d e d to interview items a b o u t illegal behaviors c o m m i t t e d by age 15 y e a r s 3 The selective nature o f the s a m p l e controis for d e m o g r a p h i c features o f race, s o c i o e c o n o m i c level, age, a n d region. T h e analysis is c o n d u c t e d s e p a r a t e l y for girls a n d b o y s to c o n t r o l for d i f f e r ences by sex. The virtually equal d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the s a m p l e into children f r o m b r o k e n versus intact homes offers a unique o p p o r t u n i t y to assess the impact o f father's a b s e n c e on d e l i n q u e n c y a m o n g l o w - i n c o m e b l a c k a d o l e s c e n t s .
Variables for Analysis T h e variables for the analysis are d e s c r i b e d in T a b l e I. Five sets o f ind e p e n d e n t variables a r e p r e s e n t e d , r e p r e s e n t i n g f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e s m e a s u r e d when the child was o f p r e s c h o o l age, f a m i l y strucfure v a r i a b l e s
-'The sample respondents who were located for the age 15 years interview consisted of 44 (76%) who had attended preschool and 55 (85O7o)who were from the control group which did not attend preschool. This attrition rate of 20°70 is well within the common range of missing cases in panel studies conducted with the self-report method. Cordray and Polk (1983), for example, describe loss rates ranging from 7 to 61% in their assessment of the implication of respondent loss to panel studies of deviant behavior. Analysis results from that study indicated that sel f-reported delinquency may be underestimated for the entire sample when analyzing the nonmissing cases, but multivariate models are likely to be unbiased in explaining delinquency for the sample that remains for analysis. The problems of nonresponse in the present study are therefore minimal, and they are clearly offset by the research advantages provided by the sample and the broad array of family variables available for the study.
Table 1. Variables for Analysis
Father's presence/mother's employment, time, Welfare dependence, time,
X~
Father's presence/mother's employment, time2 Father's employment, time2
X7
Moves
Xlo X,, X~
X,3
29
Density, time, Density, time2 Family size Neighborhood
Response to "Did the family receive ADC or welfare when the child was preschool age?" (l = yes, 2 = no)
Response to "Was father employed at child's age 15?" (if father was present at that time) (l = no or absent; 2 = part-time employment; 3 = full-time employment)
Father's presence in the home at child's age 15 (l = not present; 2 = present) Mother's employment outside of the home at the child's age = 15 (1 = no employment, 2 = part-time employment; 3 = full-time employment) Interactive variable based on X, and X~ above
Persons per room at child's preschool age (0.33 to 3.0) Persons per room at child's age 15 (0.29 to 1.7) Number of siblings at child's age 15 Parent's response at child's age 15 to " H o w would you rate the neighborhood that you are living in now as a place for families to live?" 1 = poor; 2 = not so good; 3 = fair; 4 = pretty good; 5 = excellent) Number of residential moves involving school changes by age 15 (0 to 4)
Ill. Home environment and family mobility
Mother's employment, time2
X~
Xa
Father's presence, time2
X5
Meaning
Father's presence in the home at child's age 3 (1 = not present; 2 = present) Mother's employment outside of the home at child's age 3 (l = no employment; 2 = employment) Interactive variable based on X1 and )(2
11. Family variables measured at child's age 15 years
Mother's employment, time,
X~
x,
Father's presence, time,"
I. Family variables measured at child's age 3 years
Variable name
Xl
Notation
e~
o" t-
o
Table !. Continued Meaning
Family decisions
Closeness to father
Closeness to mother
Expected schooling
Parent's advice
X,5
X,s
X,7
X~
X~9
Response to "How far do you think that your s o n / daughter will actually go to school?" (1 = less than high school; 2 = complete high school; 3 = some college; 4 = complete college; 5 = as far as he/she wants to go) Response to "To what extent does he/she take your advice?" (l = never; 2 = hardly ever; 3 = some of the time; 4 =- most of the time; 5 = always)
V. Parent's perceptions at child's age 15 years
Response to "How often does your family do things that you all enjoy?" (1 = less than once a month; 2 = one or two times a month; 3 = about twice a week; 4 = several times a week) Response to "How much influence do you feel that you have in family decisions that affect you?" (I = never get my own way; 2 = they hardly ever listen to me; 3 = sometimes they listen to me; 4 = they generally listen to me; 5 = I always get my own way) Response to "How close do you feel to your father or guardian?" (l = not very close; 2 = fairly close; 3 = quite close; 4 = extremely close) Response to "How close do you feel to your mother or female guardian? (l = not very close; 2 = fairly close; 3 = quite close; 4 = extremely close)
IV. Child's perceptions of family and parents at age 15 years
Family activities
Variable name
X,,
Notation
o
Rapport
Factor 1: Dishonesty
Factor 2: Escape
Factor 3: Aggression
Factor 4: G r o u p / g a n g
X2,
Y,
Y~
Y~
Y,
Response to "How close do you feel to your child?" (1 = very distant; 2 = not very close; 3 = somewhat close; 4 = very close) Response to "To what extent does your child talk with you about problems h e / s h e is having in or out of school?" (1 = never; 2 = once in a while; 3 -- sometimes; 4 = usually; 5 = several times a week)
Illegal behavior characterized by dishonesty: "conning" or swindling, lying about age or identification for illegal purposes, stealing institutional or personal property Running away from home, smoking marijuana, using drugs other than marijuana Delinquency characterized by aggression or personal violence: personal injury to others, damaging personal property, threatening persons with injury Delinquency typically likely to occur in groups or gangs: carrying a gun or knife, engaging in gang fights, damaging institutional property, underage drinking
VI. Delinquency outcomes
~Time,, child's preschool age; timer, child's age 15 years.
Closeness to child
X~0
_m ~r
P,
358
Farnworth
measured when the child was 15 years old, the home environment and family mobility, the child's perceptions of his/her interactions with parents and the family, and the parent's perceptions of the child's potential and his/her interactions with the child. The sixth set of variables consists o f four types of delinquency self-reported by the child at age 15 years. In the broken-home thesis o f delinquency, children are believed to be more likely to become law-abiding, healthy, and happy if they are socialized within the traditional intact, two-parent family with a working father and a homemaking mother (Thornton et al., 1982). Seven of the independent variables are included to measure these aspects of the family structure. Father's presence or absence in the home (X,, X4) and mother's employment outside of the home (X,,)(5) are measured at the child's age 3 years and at age 15 years. The interaction between father's presence and mother's employment is represented at both data collection points by the nonlinear variables )(3 and Xs. The father's fulfillment o f the breadwinner role is represented by the welfare dependence o f the family when the child was of preschool age (X~) and by the father's employment status when the child was 15 years old (XT). The remaining independent variables (X,,-X2,) are included to examine the extent to which family factors other than its structure are associated with delinquency reported at age 15 years. The delinquency variables for the analysis consist of four types (Y1-Y4). The respondents were asked at age 15 years to estimate how often they had committed each of 17 items of juvenile misbehavior that are defined as illegal for adults or minors, with responses coded as "never," "once," "twice," "occasionally," and "habitually." The measure of delinquency was its incidence rather than its prevalence. A matrix of these item responses was entered into exploratory factor analysis, since the number of factors and the nature of underlying commonalities were not predicted in advance. Four orthogonal factors were identified with this procedure, applying the Kaiser criterion cutoff (Kim and Mueller, 1978). Factor 1 (Y,; labeled Dishonesty), included response items of misbehavior involving "conning" others, lying about age or identification for illegal purposes, stealing institutional property, and stealing personal property. Factor 2 (Y2; labeled Escape) included self-reports of running away from home, smoking marijuana, and using other drugs "for kicks." Factor 3 (labeled Aggression) was based on activities involving injuring others on purpose, damaging personal property, and threatening injury to other persons. Factor 4 (termed G r o u p / G a n g Activity) included reports of gang fights, carying a gun or knife, damaging institutional property, and illegal drinking. It is conceded that, with the possible exception of the third factor (Aggression), the conceptual interpretations offered here of the resultant factors are not incontrovertible. That is, in some cases items in one factor would fit as logically with items in another factor. For purposes o f the analysis,
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
359
however, we accepted the empirical evidence that certain behaviors tended to group together and represented underlying commonalities and proceeded with the assumption that separate analyses of each of these empirical groupings would improve the explanatory value of the analyses conducted (Aultman, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1981).
Procedures The empirical literature suggests the value of examining the relationship between family effects and delinquency within samples that are homogeneous with regard to race and sex. The nature of the sample for the present study controls for the race variable. The analysis that follows is conducted separately for males and females to control for the effects of the sex variable. While this strategy allows a comparison of family effects that may differ across sex and for different types of delinquency, the reduction in sample size resulting from the bifurcation of a sample that is already modest in size, combined with the large number of family variables employed as independent variables, precludes the use of multiple regression models that include the total array of family variables that are available. The analysis was therefore conducted in a series of reduced-form models for each outcome. Each model was constructed to represent a particular concept of family structure, environment, or social relationships between parents and their offspring. Assessment focuses on the differential impacts of various types of family effects as indicated by the significance of the models and variance explained by each of the subsets of family variables in separate models for males and females. One advantage of this approach is that it allows for a thorough assessment of multiple family features as they relate to delinquency within the limitations of sample size. Another advantage is that this strategy avoids problems of multicollinearity likely to confound analysis in multivariate models that include a number of intercorrelated variables (Gordon, 1968). The major limitation in this approach is that it does not allow for an interpretation of the effect of each individual variable, so that the analysis is, in this sense, of an exploratory rather than an explanatory nature. A total of 10 reduced-form models were estimated for each delinquency outcome for each sex.
Findings Table II summarizes the results from analyses within reduced-form models for males. Of the 10 models of family attributes estimated for each
Family structure, 7",
Socioeconomic level
Family structure, T2
Family structure, /'2
Environment
Family mobility Family size Parent's perceptions
Youth's perceptions
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
(10)
X~, Father's presence X~, Mother's employment X,, Father's presence/mother's employment, T~ X,, Welfare, T, X~, Father's employment, 7"2 X~, Father's presence, T2 )(7, Mother's employment, 7"2 Xs, Father's presence/mother's employment, 7"2 X,0, Density, 7", At,,, Density, 7"2 X,2, Neighborhood X . , Moves Xg, Family size X,8, Expected schooling XI9, Parent's advice X~o, Closeness to child X~I, Rapport X,4, Family activities X,5, Family decisions X,6, Closeness to father X . , Closeness to mother
Variables
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
0.07*
ns
Y2 Escape
ns
ns ns ns
0.11
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Y3 Aggression
Delinquent outcome
ns
ns
0.12" 0.11*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
n$
Y~ Group/gang
"Variance explained is reported for outcomes significant at a suggestive level (p < 0.10). Nonsignificant models are indicated by ns. *Significant at the 0.05 level or better.
Family structure, 7",
(1)
Concept
Y, Dishonesty
Table 11. Variance Explained in Each Delinquency Outcome in Reduced-Form Models for Males (N = 59)"
-1
g
Socioeconomic level
Family structure, Ta
Family structure, T2
Environment
Family mobility Family size Parent's perceptions
Youth's perceptions
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
(10)
Variables
X2, Father's presence Xa, Mother's employment X,, Father's presence/mother's employment, T~ X,, Welfare, 7", X~, Father's employment, 7"2 X., Father's presence, T2 X,, Mother's employment, T, Xs, Father's presence/mother's employment, 7"2 X,0, Density, T, X,,, Density, T2 X,a, Neighborhood X,3, Moves Xg, Family size X~a, Expected schooling X,~, Parent's advice X,0, Closeness to child X,1, Rapport X,4, Family activities X,~, Family decisions X,~, Closeness to father X,7, Closeness to mother ns
0.07 ns 0.25*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Dishonesty
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Escape
Y2
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Aggression
Y~
Delinquent outcome
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Group/gang
Y,
"Variance explained is reported for outcomes significant at a suggestive level (p < 0.10). Nonsignificant models are indicated by ns. *Significant at the 0.05 level or better.
Family structure, 7",
(2)
Concept
Family structure, T,
(I)
Y,
Table !11. Variance Explained in Each Delinquency Outcome in Reduced-Form Models for Females (N = 40)"
= e~
=.
-i _.
e-
362
Farnworth
o f the two delinquency outcomes reflecting dishonesty and aggression, none was significant for males at the 0.05 level o f significance. The nonlinear family structure variable based on father's presence and mother's employment at time, was significant for escape types of delinquency for males and explained 707o of the variance in that outcome. Since the substantive impact of this effect is not readily interpretable, further analysis was conducted in which families were grouped into five types consisting of all possible combinations of father's presence in the home, father's employment, and mother's employment. A sixth type of family structure (father present but not employed and mother employed) was omitted since none o f the families fell into that category. Zero-order correlations between each of these family types and escape types of delinquency for males were calculated. Only one type of family structure was significantly related to escape activity (r = 0.33, p < 0.01): boys from families in which the father was present and employed and the mother was also employed were found to be less likely to engage in escape types o f misbehavior. Family mobility and family size were significant for group or gang types of delinquency and explained 12 and 11070 of the variance, respectively, in those outcomes. Table III reports the results for females. Family structure was not significantly related to any of the four delinquency outcomes for girls. The only family-related variables significant for females were those based on parent's expectations and perceptions of the parent-child relationship. This set of variables explained 25°70 o f the variance in dishonest types o f delinquency selfreported by females.
DISCUSSION The results from the analysis suggest that the importance of family structure for delinquency has been highly exaggerated in the popular thesis linking broken homes to delinquency. The failure of broken homes to explain most delinquency within the present sample for either males or females is especially provocative since the broken-home thesis gained popularity in the context of observations of low-income black families in Moynihan's influential report (1965). These results argue for an alternative explanation for high rates of official delinquency among lower-class black juveniles. It is interesting to note, for example, that when family structure is implicated in delinquency within this sample of youth from low-income families, an integral feature of structure is parental employment: when both parents are employed and the father is present, delinquency is reduced. This suggests that a fruitful research focus in the future may be the economic dimension o f black families rather than their structure.
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
363
Recent critiques suggest a modification o f the broken-home thesis, proposing that it is not family structure in itself that affects delinquency but the personal relationships within the family unit which result from family disorganization in single-parent families. This hypothesis presupposes, first, that family structure is related to delinquency at a zero-order level and, second, that other family features are related to delinquency and intervene between family structure and delinquency. The exploratory analysis conducted here does not provide a basis for hypothesizing either of these possibilities. In the one instance in which family structure affected delinquency (escape types for males), other family features were not implicated. The sex-specific nature of the significant resultS, while few in number, are consistent with Datesman and Scarpitti's suggestion that black females are not as likely as black males to be affected by broken homes. The nature of the type of family factors implicated for females, parents' perceptions of the parent-child relationship, however, is consistent with the traditional thesis that socialization in the home is more important for females than for males. Conclusions concerning the social policy implications of these findings are guarded pending further study with larger, nationally representative samples. It is recommended, however, that agencies o f juvenile justice adopt an equally cautious approach to the establishment of policies for confining juveniles (and in the process, of labeling juveniles as official delinquents) on the basis o f questionable assumptions about the broken home as a causal factor in delinquency.
REFERENCES
Aultman, M. G. (1979). Delinquency causation: A typological comparison of path models. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 70: 152-163. Austin, R. L. 0978). Race, father-absence and female delinquency. Criminology 15: 487-504. Bachman, J. G., Kahn, R. L., Mednick, M. T., Davidson, T. N., and Johnston, L. D. (1972). Youth in Transition. Fol. I. Blueprint f o r a Longitudinal Study o f Adolescent Boys,
3rd ed., University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor. Berger, A. S., and Simon W. (1974). Black familiesand the Moynihan Report: A researchevaluation. Soc. Prob. 22: (Dec.): 145o161. Biltingsley, A. (1968). Black Families in White America, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Breckenridge, S. P., and Abbott, E. (1970). The Delinquent ChiM and the Home, Arno Press, New York. California Youth Authority (1971). Statistical Report, Departmentof Youth Authority, Sacramento, Calif. Chilton, R. J., and Markle, G. E. (1972). Family disruption, delinquent conduct, and the effect of subclassification. Am. Sociol. Rev. 37: 93-99. Cloward, R. A.~ and Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. Cordray, S., and Polk, K. 0983). The implications of respondent loss in panel studies of deviant behavior. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 214-242.
364
Farnworth
Datesman, S. K., and Scarpitti, F. R. (1975). Female delinquency and broken homes: A reassessment. Crhnhzology 13(1) 33-56. Dentler, R. A., and Monroe, L. J. (1961). Social correlates of early adolescent theft. Am. SocioL Rev. 26: 733-743. Farnworth, M., Scbweinhart, L. J., and Berrueta-Clement, J. R. (1984). Preschool intervention, schooling success and delinquency in a high-risk sample of youth, Am. Educ. Res. J. (in press). Gibbons, D. C. (1977). Society, Crime and Criminal Career, Prentice-Hail, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Giordano, P. C., and Cernkovich, S. (1979). One complicating the relationship between liberation and delinquency. Soc. Prob. 26: 467-481. Gold, M. (I970). Delinquent Behavior in an American City, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, Calif. Gordon, R. A. (1968). Issues in multiple regression. Am, J. Sociol. 592-616. Healy, W. (1915). The Individual Delinquent, Little, Brown, Boston. Hennessey, M., Richards, P. J., and Berk, R. A. (1978). Broken homes and middle class delinquency. Criminology 15: 505-528. Hindelang, M, J., Hirschi, T., and Weis, J. G. (1981). Measurhlg Delinquency, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif. Jensen, G. F,, and Rojek, D. G. (1980). Delinquency: A Sociological View, D. C. Health, Lexington, Mass. Kim, J. O., and Mueller, C. W. (1978). h~troduction to Factor Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif. McCord, J. (1978). A longitudinal study of the link between broken homes and criminality, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Philadelphia, Pa. Miller, W. B. (1959). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J. Soc. Issues 15: 5-19. Morris, R. (1977). Strengths of the black community: An investigation of the black community and broken homes. Dissert. Abstr. Int. Moynihan, D. (1965). The Negro Family: A Case o f National A ction, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington D.C. New York State Task Force on Women's Issues (1982). Albany, N.Y. Nye, F. 1. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior, Wiley, New York. Peterson, D. R., and Becker, W. C. (1960). Family interaction and delinquency. In Quay, H. C. (ed.), Juvenile Delinquency: Research and Theory, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J. Rashid, H. R. (1981). Black family strengths and adolescent educational outcomes. Paper presented at the Sixth Conference on Empirical Research in Black Psychology, Oakland, University, Rochester, Mich. Rosen, L. (1969). Matriarchy and lower class Negro male delinquency. Soc. Prob. 17: 175-189. Samuels, M. (1970). A study of maternal role performance in one-parent Negro families. Disserf. Abstr. Int. Schweinhart, L. J., and Weikart, D. P. (1980). Young Children Grow Up: The Effects o f the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through age 15, High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, Mich. Stack, L. W. (1974). All Our Kin: Strategies f o r Survival h7 a Black Community, Harper and Row, New York. Thornton, W, E., Jr., James, J., and Doerner, W. G. (1982). Delinquency and Justice, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, 111. Toby, J. (1957). The differential impact of family disorganization. Am. SocioL Rev. 22(5): 515-512. Wilkinson, K. (1974). The broken family and juvenile delinquency: Scientific explanation or ideology? Soc. Prob. 21: 726-739. Wilkinson, K. (1980). The broken home and delinquent behavior: An alternative interpretation of contradictory findings. In Hirschi, T., and Gottfredson, M. (eds.), Understanding Crime: Current Theory and Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif., pp. 21-41. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., and Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a Birth Cohort, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency in a Sample of Low-Income, Minority Males and Females Margaret Farnworth
A popular thesis in criminology links "broken homes" to juvenile delinquency. This thesis has been invoked to explain higher rates of delinquency among youth from low-income, minority families than among youth from mainstream backgrounds. The study reported here employs data collected at two points in time to assess the thesis that family structure is significantly associated with self-reported delinquency within a sample o f black males and females from tow-income famUies. The relationships between an array of family variables, including family structure, and each o f four types o f self-reported delinquency are examined in analysis conducted separately for males and females. Findings indicate that f e w family factors are significant f o r delinquency and family structure is o f minimal importance f o r the types o f delinquency examined. The results differ f o r males and females. These findings raise serious questions about the cogency o f the broken-home thesis o f delinquency to explain delinquency among nonmainstream groups in our society.
INTRODUCTION Official statistics indicate that youth from low-income, minority families are overrepresented in juvenile delinquency involvement compared with their
Research reported here was supported in part by NIMH Grant I RPI MH33488-01AI and conducted in part under the auspices of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, Michigan. Views expressed by the author do not represent official positions of those agencies. ~State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12203. The author received her Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Georgia in 1981. Her research interests at present include the effects of social stratification processes on delinquencyand crime, particularlythe effects of such social correlates of crime as race, sex, and social class.
349 0047-2891/g4/0800-0349$03.50/0 © 1984 Plenum Publishing Corporation
350
Farnworth
mainstream counterparts (Giordano and Cernkovich, 1979; Wolfgang et al., 1972). To explain higher rates of official delinquency within such groups, traditional explanations for delinquency have tended to focus on life-styles and related attitudes or cultures that prevail among low-income families living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Miller, 1959). One popular thesis links a particular feature of life-style- the broken h o m e to delinquent involvement among juveniles from poor, minority families (Miller, 1959). This linkage has been invoked as a basis for social policy proposals in the past (Moynihan, 1965) and as an explanation for current racial and social-class disparity in institutionalization rates within the juvenile justice system. The broken-home thesis of delinquency persists as a basis for current policy decisions in juvenile justice despite criminologists' increasing skepticism concerning the evidence cited in support of this commonsense notion (Thornton et al., 1982). Three major limitations have been noted in empirical studies that support the broken-home thesis. First, such studies typically employ records of official contact with the law as a measure of delinquency (Wilkinson, 1980; Thornton et al., 1982). Since agencies of juvenile justice routinely include the stability of the home as a criterion for legal intervention, such evidence may reflect a self-fulfilling prophecy (Jensen and Rojek, 1980). That is, decision-making policy based on the assumption that broken homes lead to delinquency could, in itself, account for the higher official rate of delinquency observed among juveniles from broken homes. Another problem with the broken-home thesis is that it tends to ignore related aspects of family life that could affect a juvenile's socialization and delinquency. To some researchers, the observed association between broken homes and delinquency may be spurious since both broken homes and delinquency are likely to stem from other family attributes common to those populations with a high incidence of single-parent families (McCord, 1978). A third limitation in the broken-home thesis concerns its generality to explain delinquency across all subgroups in our heterogeneous society (Wilkinson, 1980). The present study proposes a need for analysis to clarify family effects on delinquency within a specific subgroup in the population, allowing for male-female differences and for differences in those factors that are antecedent to involvement in various types of delinquency.
Past Study Jensen and Rojek (1980, p. 195) note that "the concentration of delinquent juveniles from broken homes is pronounced in official statistics" and cite evidence from studies by Chilton and Markle (1972), the California Youth Authority (1971), and juvenile court annual reports to support that observation.
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
351
In a similar vein, Thornton et al. (1980) cite studies dating from 1903 (e.g., Breckenridge and Abbot, 1970; Healy, 1915; Peterson and Becker, 1965; etc.) indicating an association between broken homes and official delinquency. Findings of this type have been interpreted by researchers to indicate that "intact homes, or families containing both natural parents, were somehow better at socializing and controlling children than households where one or both parents are a b s e n t . . . " (Thornton et al., 1980, p. 88). This conclusion is consistent with a number of prominent delinquency perspectives that emphasize family socialization, such as strain theory, social control, and social learning (Jensen and Rojek, 1980). Finding from research employing self-report techniques, while relatively few in number, challenge the broken-home thesis of delinquency (Nye, 1958; Dentler and Monroe, 1961; Gold, 1970; Hennessey et al., 1978). Even in instances in which juveniles from single-parent families are found to be more likely to be involved in delinquency, a number of family contingencies have been proposed to account for the apparent association between broken homes and delinquency. Jensen and Rojek (1980) suggest family attributes such as social class, family size, maternal deprivation, and family relationships as alternative or related explanations for delinquency. Thornton et al. (1982) propose that conflict in the family, parental affection, parental social control, maternal employment, and the quality of parent-child relationships may also impinge on family socialization in a manner that is significant for illegal, antisocial behavior.
The Need for Within-Group Study In the study of family structure effects on delinquency, the correlation of nontraditional family circumstances with low socioeconomic level and minority-group membership complicates analysis that is conducted across social subgroups. For example, a recent report by the New York State Asassembly's Legislative Task Force on Women's Issues (1982) reported that almost 50o70 of single-parent families headed by women live in poverty. Census statistics linking black families, family structure, and poverty are even more striking and indicate that the number of children living in homes where the father was absent more than doubled from 1960 to 1975. This trend was particularly pronounced among black families: 65.7°7o of black children living with single mothers were living in poverty in 1974. Statistics such as these question the apparent causal relationship between broken homes and delinquency, since many of the same families that are not intact are also poor and black. A broken-home relationship to delinquency could therefore be a spurious one, with both of these variables attributable to a third cause, viz., the disadvantages associated with poverty
352
Farnworlh
or minority-group membership. This implies a need to control in analysis for the race and social level of sample members. Furthermore, the literature on black families suggests that certain lifestyle characteristics particular to black communities could serve to compensate for the father's absence, so that the adverse effect of a broken home observed in samples of white juveniles may not be evident among their black counterparts (Rashid, 1982). The tendency a m o n g black families to draw on extended family support (Samuels, 1970; Stack, 1974) suggests, for example, that a female-headed black household does not necessarily imply the absence of a male role model in the socialization of the child (Morris, 1977). Berger and Simon (1974) propose further that membership in a broken home in a social environment where single-parent families are the norm rather than the exception may be less conducive to delinquency than in those environments in which intact families predominate. This provides an additional rationale for analysis within an all-black sample in which variation exists in family structure. In addition to controlling for race and social level in the study of family effects on delinquency, a need to differentiate between such influences for black males and females is argued by Datesman and Scarpitti (1975). Those authors propose that •.. black females react less adversely to a break in the parental home than do black males, which appears to derive from the matricentral focus of the black family and of the extended kinship system, and from the fact that the female role is structured to include aspects of the traditional male role such as resource provision, responsibility, and autonomy.
This is in direct contrast to traditional expectations concerning family effects on girls in general, in which it has been proposed that female delinquency is more likely to result from family disruption than is male delinquency, because of the greater "under-the-roof" protection provided in socializing females in our society (Gibbon, 1977). Past study also suggests differences in the effects of single-parent families on delinquency for blacks versus whites (Hennessey et al., 1978; Austin, 1978), for males versus females in general (Austin, 1978; Gold, 1970; Nye, 1958), and for males versus females within racial groups (Austin, 1978; Datesman and Scarpitti, 1975; Toby, 1957). Moreover, these differences have been found to be contingent upon the type of delinquency under investigation (Austin, 1978; Datesman and Scarpitti, 1975; Rosen, 1969).
P u r p o s e o f the Present S t u d y
The saliency that practitioners and policy makers continue to attribute to the traditional family model as a deterrent to delinquency, even in the
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
353
face of serious reservations expressed by several criminologists, suggests that the broken-home thesis cannot be dismissed out of hand. This is particularly so in the case of those social groups for whom statistics indicate a high incidence of both single-parent families and involvement with the law. These considerations, coupled with the disparate findings and observations reported in the literature, suggest a need for analysis assessing the relationship of family structure and other family factors to delinquency among blacks from low-income backgrounds. Thus the present study seeks to clarify the relationship between family structure and delinquency in a sample of adolescents from low-income, black families. In this way, the study will assess the validity of the argument that the high incidence of broken homes among poor black families is relevant to the high rate of offical delinquency observed among such socially disadvantaged youth. The sample for the analysis consists of black 15-year-old males and females from low-income families. The analysis employs selfreported delinquency data as an alternative to official records which could confound the relationship between the family and delinquency. That is, official data are suspect for informing this subject, since they incorporate in their compilation the effects of juvenile justice policies and decision making that may be prejudicial against single-parent families. The data for the analysis include a number of variables reflecting the family environment and parent-child relationships as described by the children and their parents, to evaluate the impact of aspects of the family other than its structure. Separate analyses are conducted for males and females.
T H E P R E S E N T STUDY The data for the analysis were collected as part of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project, which was originated by David Weikart and his associates in 1962 to assess the longitudinal effects of preschool intervention on various life outcomes for children considered to be at a high risk of school failure. The original sample consisted of 123 black children from families of low socioeconomic level at the time of their entry into the project. These children were assigned randomly at ages 3 and 4 years to two groups: 58 to a program of preschool intervention and 65 to a group who received no intervention program. Self-reported delinquency was surveyed when the children were 15 years old, using questions modeled upon those included in a study by Bachman et al. (1972). Follow-up study has been conducted for more than two decades to assess the short- and long-term effects of the preschool intervention (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1980). A recent study estimated the effects of preschool and schooling on delinquency by age 15 years among members of the sam-
354
Farnworth
pie ( F a r n w o r t h et al., 1984). W h i l e o n e t h r u s t o f the p r o j e c t was to e x a m i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c h o o l i n g a n d d e l i n q u e n c y , extensive i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t family characteristics was also collected at two points in time, at the child's p r e s c h o o l age (at a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 years o f age) a n d at age 15 years. A t the s e c o n d p o i n t in time, b o t h the y o u t h s a n d their p a r e n t s (usually the m o t h e r ) were interviewed.
Sample A t the t i m e d a t a collection was initiated in 1962, h a l f o f the families o f the s a m p l e m e m b e r s received welfare a n d neither p a r e n t was gainfully employed in 42°7o o f the families. O f the parents who were employed, almost all (9507o) w o r k e d as unskilled o r semiskilled l a b o r e r s . All m e m b e r s o f the s a m p l e resided in the s a m e n e i g h b o r h o o d a n d school district w h e n d a t a collection began. A p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f o f the s a m p l e at t h a t time lived in h o m e s in which the f a t h e r was not present. T h e s a m p l e for the present analysis consists o f 99 b l a c k 15-year-olds (59 males a n d 40 females) w h o r e s p o n d e d to interview items a b o u t illegal behaviors c o m m i t t e d by age 15 y e a r s 3 The selective nature o f the s a m p l e controis for d e m o g r a p h i c features o f race, s o c i o e c o n o m i c level, age, a n d region. T h e analysis is c o n d u c t e d s e p a r a t e l y for girls a n d b o y s to c o n t r o l for d i f f e r ences by sex. The virtually equal d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the s a m p l e into children f r o m b r o k e n versus intact homes offers a unique o p p o r t u n i t y to assess the impact o f father's a b s e n c e on d e l i n q u e n c y a m o n g l o w - i n c o m e b l a c k a d o l e s c e n t s .
Variables for Analysis T h e variables for the analysis are d e s c r i b e d in T a b l e I. Five sets o f ind e p e n d e n t variables a r e p r e s e n t e d , r e p r e s e n t i n g f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e v a r i a b l e s m e a s u r e d when the child was o f p r e s c h o o l age, f a m i l y strucfure v a r i a b l e s
-'The sample respondents who were located for the age 15 years interview consisted of 44 (76%) who had attended preschool and 55 (85O7o)who were from the control group which did not attend preschool. This attrition rate of 20°70 is well within the common range of missing cases in panel studies conducted with the self-report method. Cordray and Polk (1983), for example, describe loss rates ranging from 7 to 61% in their assessment of the implication of respondent loss to panel studies of deviant behavior. Analysis results from that study indicated that sel f-reported delinquency may be underestimated for the entire sample when analyzing the nonmissing cases, but multivariate models are likely to be unbiased in explaining delinquency for the sample that remains for analysis. The problems of nonresponse in the present study are therefore minimal, and they are clearly offset by the research advantages provided by the sample and the broad array of family variables available for the study.
Table 1. Variables for Analysis
Father's presence/mother's employment, time, Welfare dependence, time,
X~
Father's presence/mother's employment, time2 Father's employment, time2
X7
Moves
Xlo X,, X~
X,3
29
Density, time, Density, time2 Family size Neighborhood
Response to "Did the family receive ADC or welfare when the child was preschool age?" (l = yes, 2 = no)
Response to "Was father employed at child's age 15?" (if father was present at that time) (l = no or absent; 2 = part-time employment; 3 = full-time employment)
Father's presence in the home at child's age 15 (l = not present; 2 = present) Mother's employment outside of the home at the child's age = 15 (1 = no employment, 2 = part-time employment; 3 = full-time employment) Interactive variable based on X, and X~ above
Persons per room at child's preschool age (0.33 to 3.0) Persons per room at child's age 15 (0.29 to 1.7) Number of siblings at child's age 15 Parent's response at child's age 15 to " H o w would you rate the neighborhood that you are living in now as a place for families to live?" 1 = poor; 2 = not so good; 3 = fair; 4 = pretty good; 5 = excellent) Number of residential moves involving school changes by age 15 (0 to 4)
Ill. Home environment and family mobility
Mother's employment, time2
X~
Xa
Father's presence, time2
X5
Meaning
Father's presence in the home at child's age 3 (1 = not present; 2 = present) Mother's employment outside of the home at child's age 3 (l = no employment; 2 = employment) Interactive variable based on X1 and )(2
11. Family variables measured at child's age 15 years
Mother's employment, time,
X~
x,
Father's presence, time,"
I. Family variables measured at child's age 3 years
Variable name
Xl
Notation
e~
o" t-
o
Table !. Continued Meaning
Family decisions
Closeness to father
Closeness to mother
Expected schooling
Parent's advice
X,5
X,s
X,7
X~
X~9
Response to "How far do you think that your s o n / daughter will actually go to school?" (1 = less than high school; 2 = complete high school; 3 = some college; 4 = complete college; 5 = as far as he/she wants to go) Response to "To what extent does he/she take your advice?" (l = never; 2 = hardly ever; 3 = some of the time; 4 =- most of the time; 5 = always)
V. Parent's perceptions at child's age 15 years
Response to "How often does your family do things that you all enjoy?" (1 = less than once a month; 2 = one or two times a month; 3 = about twice a week; 4 = several times a week) Response to "How much influence do you feel that you have in family decisions that affect you?" (I = never get my own way; 2 = they hardly ever listen to me; 3 = sometimes they listen to me; 4 = they generally listen to me; 5 = I always get my own way) Response to "How close do you feel to your father or guardian?" (l = not very close; 2 = fairly close; 3 = quite close; 4 = extremely close) Response to "How close do you feel to your mother or female guardian? (l = not very close; 2 = fairly close; 3 = quite close; 4 = extremely close)
IV. Child's perceptions of family and parents at age 15 years
Family activities
Variable name
X,,
Notation
o
Rapport
Factor 1: Dishonesty
Factor 2: Escape
Factor 3: Aggression
Factor 4: G r o u p / g a n g
X2,
Y,
Y~
Y~
Y,
Response to "How close do you feel to your child?" (1 = very distant; 2 = not very close; 3 = somewhat close; 4 = very close) Response to "To what extent does your child talk with you about problems h e / s h e is having in or out of school?" (1 = never; 2 = once in a while; 3 -- sometimes; 4 = usually; 5 = several times a week)
Illegal behavior characterized by dishonesty: "conning" or swindling, lying about age or identification for illegal purposes, stealing institutional or personal property Running away from home, smoking marijuana, using drugs other than marijuana Delinquency characterized by aggression or personal violence: personal injury to others, damaging personal property, threatening persons with injury Delinquency typically likely to occur in groups or gangs: carrying a gun or knife, engaging in gang fights, damaging institutional property, underage drinking
VI. Delinquency outcomes
~Time,, child's preschool age; timer, child's age 15 years.
Closeness to child
X~0
_m ~r
P,
358
Farnworth
measured when the child was 15 years old, the home environment and family mobility, the child's perceptions of his/her interactions with parents and the family, and the parent's perceptions of the child's potential and his/her interactions with the child. The sixth set of variables consists o f four types of delinquency self-reported by the child at age 15 years. In the broken-home thesis o f delinquency, children are believed to be more likely to become law-abiding, healthy, and happy if they are socialized within the traditional intact, two-parent family with a working father and a homemaking mother (Thornton et al., 1982). Seven of the independent variables are included to measure these aspects of the family structure. Father's presence or absence in the home (X,, X4) and mother's employment outside of the home (X,,)(5) are measured at the child's age 3 years and at age 15 years. The interaction between father's presence and mother's employment is represented at both data collection points by the nonlinear variables )(3 and Xs. The father's fulfillment o f the breadwinner role is represented by the welfare dependence o f the family when the child was of preschool age (X~) and by the father's employment status when the child was 15 years old (XT). The remaining independent variables (X,,-X2,) are included to examine the extent to which family factors other than its structure are associated with delinquency reported at age 15 years. The delinquency variables for the analysis consist of four types (Y1-Y4). The respondents were asked at age 15 years to estimate how often they had committed each of 17 items of juvenile misbehavior that are defined as illegal for adults or minors, with responses coded as "never," "once," "twice," "occasionally," and "habitually." The measure of delinquency was its incidence rather than its prevalence. A matrix of these item responses was entered into exploratory factor analysis, since the number of factors and the nature of underlying commonalities were not predicted in advance. Four orthogonal factors were identified with this procedure, applying the Kaiser criterion cutoff (Kim and Mueller, 1978). Factor 1 (Y,; labeled Dishonesty), included response items of misbehavior involving "conning" others, lying about age or identification for illegal purposes, stealing institutional property, and stealing personal property. Factor 2 (Y2; labeled Escape) included self-reports of running away from home, smoking marijuana, and using other drugs "for kicks." Factor 3 (labeled Aggression) was based on activities involving injuring others on purpose, damaging personal property, and threatening injury to other persons. Factor 4 (termed G r o u p / G a n g Activity) included reports of gang fights, carying a gun or knife, damaging institutional property, and illegal drinking. It is conceded that, with the possible exception of the third factor (Aggression), the conceptual interpretations offered here of the resultant factors are not incontrovertible. That is, in some cases items in one factor would fit as logically with items in another factor. For purposes o f the analysis,
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
359
however, we accepted the empirical evidence that certain behaviors tended to group together and represented underlying commonalities and proceeded with the assumption that separate analyses of each of these empirical groupings would improve the explanatory value of the analyses conducted (Aultman, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1981).
Procedures The empirical literature suggests the value of examining the relationship between family effects and delinquency within samples that are homogeneous with regard to race and sex. The nature of the sample for the present study controls for the race variable. The analysis that follows is conducted separately for males and females to control for the effects of the sex variable. While this strategy allows a comparison of family effects that may differ across sex and for different types of delinquency, the reduction in sample size resulting from the bifurcation of a sample that is already modest in size, combined with the large number of family variables employed as independent variables, precludes the use of multiple regression models that include the total array of family variables that are available. The analysis was therefore conducted in a series of reduced-form models for each outcome. Each model was constructed to represent a particular concept of family structure, environment, or social relationships between parents and their offspring. Assessment focuses on the differential impacts of various types of family effects as indicated by the significance of the models and variance explained by each of the subsets of family variables in separate models for males and females. One advantage of this approach is that it allows for a thorough assessment of multiple family features as they relate to delinquency within the limitations of sample size. Another advantage is that this strategy avoids problems of multicollinearity likely to confound analysis in multivariate models that include a number of intercorrelated variables (Gordon, 1968). The major limitation in this approach is that it does not allow for an interpretation of the effect of each individual variable, so that the analysis is, in this sense, of an exploratory rather than an explanatory nature. A total of 10 reduced-form models were estimated for each delinquency outcome for each sex.
Findings Table II summarizes the results from analyses within reduced-form models for males. Of the 10 models of family attributes estimated for each
Family structure, 7",
Socioeconomic level
Family structure, T2
Family structure, /'2
Environment
Family mobility Family size Parent's perceptions
Youth's perceptions
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
(10)
X~, Father's presence X~, Mother's employment X,, Father's presence/mother's employment, T~ X,, Welfare, T, X~, Father's employment, 7"2 X~, Father's presence, T2 )(7, Mother's employment, 7"2 Xs, Father's presence/mother's employment, 7"2 X,0, Density, 7", At,,, Density, 7"2 X,2, Neighborhood X . , Moves Xg, Family size X,8, Expected schooling XI9, Parent's advice X~o, Closeness to child X~I, Rapport X,4, Family activities X,5, Family decisions X,6, Closeness to father X . , Closeness to mother
Variables
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
0.07*
ns
Y2 Escape
ns
ns ns ns
0.11
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Y3 Aggression
Delinquent outcome
ns
ns
0.12" 0.11*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
n$
Y~ Group/gang
"Variance explained is reported for outcomes significant at a suggestive level (p < 0.10). Nonsignificant models are indicated by ns. *Significant at the 0.05 level or better.
Family structure, 7",
(1)
Concept
Y, Dishonesty
Table 11. Variance Explained in Each Delinquency Outcome in Reduced-Form Models for Males (N = 59)"
-1
g
Socioeconomic level
Family structure, Ta
Family structure, T2
Environment
Family mobility Family size Parent's perceptions
Youth's perceptions
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7) (8) (9)
(10)
Variables
X2, Father's presence Xa, Mother's employment X,, Father's presence/mother's employment, T~ X,, Welfare, 7", X~, Father's employment, 7"2 X., Father's presence, T2 X,, Mother's employment, T, Xs, Father's presence/mother's employment, 7"2 X,0, Density, T, X,,, Density, T2 X,a, Neighborhood X,3, Moves Xg, Family size X~a, Expected schooling X,~, Parent's advice X,0, Closeness to child X,1, Rapport X,4, Family activities X,~, Family decisions X,~, Closeness to father X,7, Closeness to mother ns
0.07 ns 0.25*
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Dishonesty
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Escape
Y2
ns
ns ns ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Aggression
Y~
Delinquent outcome
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
Group/gang
Y,
"Variance explained is reported for outcomes significant at a suggestive level (p < 0.10). Nonsignificant models are indicated by ns. *Significant at the 0.05 level or better.
Family structure, 7",
(2)
Concept
Family structure, T,
(I)
Y,
Table !11. Variance Explained in Each Delinquency Outcome in Reduced-Form Models for Females (N = 40)"
= e~
=.
-i _.
e-
362
Farnworth
o f the two delinquency outcomes reflecting dishonesty and aggression, none was significant for males at the 0.05 level o f significance. The nonlinear family structure variable based on father's presence and mother's employment at time, was significant for escape types of delinquency for males and explained 707o of the variance in that outcome. Since the substantive impact of this effect is not readily interpretable, further analysis was conducted in which families were grouped into five types consisting of all possible combinations of father's presence in the home, father's employment, and mother's employment. A sixth type of family structure (father present but not employed and mother employed) was omitted since none o f the families fell into that category. Zero-order correlations between each of these family types and escape types of delinquency for males were calculated. Only one type of family structure was significantly related to escape activity (r = 0.33, p < 0.01): boys from families in which the father was present and employed and the mother was also employed were found to be less likely to engage in escape types o f misbehavior. Family mobility and family size were significant for group or gang types of delinquency and explained 12 and 11070 of the variance, respectively, in those outcomes. Table III reports the results for females. Family structure was not significantly related to any of the four delinquency outcomes for girls. The only family-related variables significant for females were those based on parent's expectations and perceptions of the parent-child relationship. This set of variables explained 25°70 o f the variance in dishonest types o f delinquency selfreported by females.
DISCUSSION The results from the analysis suggest that the importance of family structure for delinquency has been highly exaggerated in the popular thesis linking broken homes to delinquency. The failure of broken homes to explain most delinquency within the present sample for either males or females is especially provocative since the broken-home thesis gained popularity in the context of observations of low-income black families in Moynihan's influential report (1965). These results argue for an alternative explanation for high rates of official delinquency among lower-class black juveniles. It is interesting to note, for example, that when family structure is implicated in delinquency within this sample of youth from low-income families, an integral feature of structure is parental employment: when both parents are employed and the father is present, delinquency is reduced. This suggests that a fruitful research focus in the future may be the economic dimension o f black families rather than their structure.
Family Structure, Family Attributes, and Delinquency
363
Recent critiques suggest a modification o f the broken-home thesis, proposing that it is not family structure in itself that affects delinquency but the personal relationships within the family unit which result from family disorganization in single-parent families. This hypothesis presupposes, first, that family structure is related to delinquency at a zero-order level and, second, that other family features are related to delinquency and intervene between family structure and delinquency. The exploratory analysis conducted here does not provide a basis for hypothesizing either of these possibilities. In the one instance in which family structure affected delinquency (escape types for males), other family features were not implicated. The sex-specific nature of the significant resultS, while few in number, are consistent with Datesman and Scarpitti's suggestion that black females are not as likely as black males to be affected by broken homes. The nature of the type of family factors implicated for females, parents' perceptions of the parent-child relationship, however, is consistent with the traditional thesis that socialization in the home is more important for females than for males. Conclusions concerning the social policy implications of these findings are guarded pending further study with larger, nationally representative samples. It is recommended, however, that agencies o f juvenile justice adopt an equally cautious approach to the establishment of policies for confining juveniles (and in the process, of labeling juveniles as official delinquents) on the basis o f questionable assumptions about the broken home as a causal factor in delinquency.
REFERENCES
Aultman, M. G. (1979). Delinquency causation: A typological comparison of path models. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 70: 152-163. Austin, R. L. 0978). Race, father-absence and female delinquency. Criminology 15: 487-504. Bachman, J. G., Kahn, R. L., Mednick, M. T., Davidson, T. N., and Johnston, L. D. (1972). Youth in Transition. Fol. I. Blueprint f o r a Longitudinal Study o f Adolescent Boys,
3rd ed., University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor. Berger, A. S., and Simon W. (1974). Black familiesand the Moynihan Report: A researchevaluation. Soc. Prob. 22: (Dec.): 145o161. Biltingsley, A. (1968). Black Families in White America, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Breckenridge, S. P., and Abbott, E. (1970). The Delinquent ChiM and the Home, Arno Press, New York. California Youth Authority (1971). Statistical Report, Departmentof Youth Authority, Sacramento, Calif. Chilton, R. J., and Markle, G. E. (1972). Family disruption, delinquent conduct, and the effect of subclassification. Am. Sociol. Rev. 37: 93-99. Cloward, R. A.~ and Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity, Free Press, Glencoe, Ill. Cordray, S., and Polk, K. 0983). The implications of respondent loss in panel studies of deviant behavior. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 214-242.
364
Farnworth
Datesman, S. K., and Scarpitti, F. R. (1975). Female delinquency and broken homes: A reassessment. Crhnhzology 13(1) 33-56. Dentler, R. A., and Monroe, L. J. (1961). Social correlates of early adolescent theft. Am. SocioL Rev. 26: 733-743. Farnworth, M., Scbweinhart, L. J., and Berrueta-Clement, J. R. (1984). Preschool intervention, schooling success and delinquency in a high-risk sample of youth, Am. Educ. Res. J. (in press). Gibbons, D. C. (1977). Society, Crime and Criminal Career, Prentice-Hail, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. Giordano, P. C., and Cernkovich, S. (1979). One complicating the relationship between liberation and delinquency. Soc. Prob. 26: 467-481. Gold, M. (I970). Delinquent Behavior in an American City, Brooks/Cole, Belmont, Calif. Gordon, R. A. (1968). Issues in multiple regression. Am, J. Sociol. 592-616. Healy, W. (1915). The Individual Delinquent, Little, Brown, Boston. Hennessey, M., Richards, P. J., and Berk, R. A. (1978). Broken homes and middle class delinquency. Criminology 15: 505-528. Hindelang, M, J., Hirschi, T., and Weis, J. G. (1981). Measurhlg Delinquency, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif. Jensen, G. F,, and Rojek, D. G. (1980). Delinquency: A Sociological View, D. C. Health, Lexington, Mass. Kim, J. O., and Mueller, C. W. (1978). h~troduction to Factor Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif. McCord, J. (1978). A longitudinal study of the link between broken homes and criminality, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Family Relations, Philadelphia, Pa. Miller, W. B. (1959). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. J. Soc. Issues 15: 5-19. Morris, R. (1977). Strengths of the black community: An investigation of the black community and broken homes. Dissert. Abstr. Int. Moynihan, D. (1965). The Negro Family: A Case o f National A ction, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington D.C. New York State Task Force on Women's Issues (1982). Albany, N.Y. Nye, F. 1. (1958). Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior, Wiley, New York. Peterson, D. R., and Becker, W. C. (1960). Family interaction and delinquency. In Quay, H. C. (ed.), Juvenile Delinquency: Research and Theory, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J. Rashid, H. R. (1981). Black family strengths and adolescent educational outcomes. Paper presented at the Sixth Conference on Empirical Research in Black Psychology, Oakland, University, Rochester, Mich. Rosen, L. (1969). Matriarchy and lower class Negro male delinquency. Soc. Prob. 17: 175-189. Samuels, M. (1970). A study of maternal role performance in one-parent Negro families. Disserf. Abstr. Int. Schweinhart, L. J., and Weikart, D. P. (1980). Young Children Grow Up: The Effects o f the Perry Preschool Program on Youths Through age 15, High/Scope Press, Ypsilanti, Mich. Stack, L. W. (1974). All Our Kin: Strategies f o r Survival h7 a Black Community, Harper and Row, New York. Thornton, W, E., Jr., James, J., and Doerner, W. G. (1982). Delinquency and Justice, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, 111. Toby, J. (1957). The differential impact of family disorganization. Am. SocioL Rev. 22(5): 515-512. Wilkinson, K. (1974). The broken family and juvenile delinquency: Scientific explanation or ideology? Soc. Prob. 21: 726-739. Wilkinson, K. (1980). The broken home and delinquent behavior: An alternative interpretation of contradictory findings. In Hirschi, T., and Gottfredson, M. (eds.), Understanding Crime: Current Theory and Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif., pp. 21-41. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., and Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a Birth Cohort, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
