Parental Psychiatric Illness, Broken Homes, and Delinquency
David R. Ojjford, M.D., Nancy Allen, and Nola Abrams
Abstrmt. Seventy-three families each with a delinquent boy were compared with 73 families of the same socioeconomic class who had a boy of the same age who was not delinquent. The rate of broken homes, parental disabilities such as psychiatric illness, sibship size, and other variables were examined in these two groups. A number of parental disabilities including broken homes, mental illness, criminality, and welfare history were significantly more common in the delinquent families. The data support the idea that factors which can result in insufficient parenting are strongly associated with delinquency, and the absence of these factors drastically lessens the chances of a boy's becoming delinquent even when the family belongs to the lower socioeconomic classes. Boys unable andlor unwilling to participate in athletic activities are also more likely than their athletic peers to become delinquent.
T h e results of the treatment of delinquents are discouraging (Robins, 1974). There is evidence that if the intervention begins after the child is identified by the courts as delinquent, the treatment regardless of its focus may not benefit the delinquent and may even worsen his prognosis compared to providing him with no treatment at all (Byles and Maurice, 1977; Robins, 1974). Data comparing the families of delinquents with families of the Dr. Oflord is Professor of Psychiatry at the UniversiQ of Ottawa and Child Psychiatrist, Child Psychiaby Senices Division, Department of Psychiatry, Royal Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada. Ms. Allen and Ms. A b r a m are Research Assistants in the Department of Psychiatry at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. W e would like to thank Ms. J . Axford, Ms. C. Brookbank, Ms. S. Devine, Ms. S. Oflord, Ms. L. Pepin, Ms. M . Poushimky, and Ms. K. Sullivan who helped with the collection and rostering of the data, Mr. Richard Gable who assisted with the analysis of the data, and Dr.Marshall Jones who provided invaluable help with all aspects ofthe study. I n addition, we thank thefollowing staffsf o r their much-needed encouragement and cooperation: Ministry of Correctional Services, Province of Ontario, Ottawa-CarletonJuvenile Court, Probation and After-Care Seruices of Ottawa-Carleton, Ottawa Board of Education especially Dr. Halpern and Mrs. Wickett, Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate Schools especially Mr. Brady, Carleton Board of Education especially Mr. Casszdy, and the Carleton Roman Catholic School Board especially Mr. Tellier. This research was supported by National Health Grant No. 605-7-764 from the Department of National Health and Welfare, Canada. Reprints may be requested from Dr. Offord, at the Department of Psychiatry, R q a l Ottawa Hospital, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K l Z 7 K 4 . 002-7 138/78/1702-224$01.05 @ 1978 American Academy of Child Psychiatry
Parental Psychiatric Illness and Delinquency
225
same socioeconomic class without delinquents may produce added clues about the etiology of delinquency. Such data may suggest early rational intervention techniques. Unfortunately at present no technique, whether aimed at preventing the emergence of antisocial behavior or treating existing antisocial symptoms, has been demonstrated to be effective (Robins, 1974). Broken homes, parental psychiatric disorder, and family size are three variables in which differences have been reported between families with and without delinquents (Lewis and Balla, 1976; Rutter and Madge, 1976; West and Farrington, 1973). A consistent finding in the delinquency literature is the association between broken homes and delinquency (Rutter, 1972; Rutter and Madge, 1976; Yarrow, 1961). This association is much stronger when the homes have been broken by divorce or separation rather than by death (Rutter and Madge, 1976). T h e evidence suggests that it is not the breakup itself of the home which promotes delinquency but the family discord and disharmony which precede the break. The mechanisms by which marital or family disharmony results in increased rates of delinquency have not been spelled out. T h e parents of delinquents compared to parents of nondelinquents appear to manifest more severe psychopathology, including criminality (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; West and Farrington, 1973), severe abnormalities of personality (West and Farrington, 1973), alcoholism (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Robins, 1966) and serious psychiatric impairment as well as psychiatric hospitalization (Lewis and Balla, 1976). For instance, Lewis and Balla (1976) noted that 72% of the parents of delinquents referred to a court clinic and on whom juvenile court records existed, were either impaired or incapacitated in their parental roles by significant psychopathology. Data on the frequency of psychiatric disturbance in the parents of delinquents compared to the parents of nondelinquents from the same socioeconomic class suffer from imprecise definitions of type of psychiatric disturbance (West and Farrington, 1973) or the use of record evidences only, rather than direct interviews in addition to records as a measure of psychiatric disturbance (Lewis and Balla, 1976). Again the connecting links between psychiatric disturbance in the parents and increased risk of delinquent behavior in the offspring have not been thoroughly understood. Rutter (1972) has suggested that parental personality problems are important in delinquency production primarily when they result in marital discord, while West and Farrington ( 1973) noted that criminal parents tend to supervise their children poorly and when this is taken into
David R . Offord et al.
226
account the link between parental criminality and delinquency in the sons is much reduced. Large family size has been associated with delinquency in a number of studies (Blakely et al., 1974; Miller et al., 1974; West and Farrington, 1973), and this association remained significant in West and Farrington’s work (1973) even after matching for income and parental behavior was carried out. Other data (Wolkind, 1974) suggest that large sibship size is associated with antisocial behavior in boys, but not in girls. Our study compares court families (CF), that is, those with a delinquent boy known to court, with noncourt families (NF) of the same socioeconomic class who have a boy of the same age who is not delinquent. The rate of broken homes and parental psychiatric illness as well as sibship size are examined. On the basis of these data and other information about these parents and children, several ideas are advanced regarding the genesis of delinquent behavior in boys.
SUBJECTS T h e court subjects (CF) were the families of all boys placed on probation to the Probation and After-Care Services from the Juvenile Court of Ottawa-Carleton between November 1, 1972 and November 15, 1973 and who had attended the Ottawa Public School system for at least 4 of their first 8 years of schooling. A total of 79 lads met the criteria for inclusion of their families in the study. The families of 73 of the 79 (92.4%)were located and agreed to participate. T h e 6 court-involved families who did not participate did not differ significantly from the 73 participating families on any of the variables available to us from the juvenile court records, namely, socioeconomic class level, sibship size, reason for and age at first court appearance, and age and number of times on probation. Comparison subjects were noncourt-involved families (NF) whose children were matched with the probands for age (within 6 months), school performance (a similar record of repeating a grade or special class placement), IQ (within 5 points), and socioeconomic class (within one level) (Pineo and Porter, 1967). In addition, the NF children must have been considered by the school personnel as not to be behavior problems and must not have appeared in juvenile court.
Parental Psychiatric Illness and Delinquency
227
METHOD The parents or guardians of each participating family (CF and NF) were interviewed. The interviews lasted 1% to 2 hours and were carried out by persons, usually college graduates, who were trained by the senior author. The interview covered basic demographic data of the family. In addition, for each biological parent and for other parenting adults who had lived with the boy for the majority of his life, medical and psychiatric histories were obtained, including a detailed inquiry into the possible presence and extent of alcoholism, hysteria, retardation, and sociopathy following the diagnostic criteria of Feighner et al. (1972).’ Thus for these disorders unreported and undiagnosed cases as well as documented ones could be identified. Data were gathered on the probands and the comparisons. These included medical and psychiatric history, agency contact and number, type, and length of various living arrangements (e.g., living with both biological parents, or living with biological mother only). A family was said to be intact when the same two adults had lived with the lad for his entire life. Separations of up to 3 months did not constitute nonintactness. Sibship size was also investigated. The term “full sibship” refers to the number of children 18 or under in the biological sibship plus other children regardless of their parentage living in the house at the time of the proband’s entry into our study. With regard to parental functioning, the parent was placed in the mental illness category if he or she fulfilled any one of the criteria for alcoholism, hysteria, sociopathy, or retardation (Feighner et al., 1972), or had been hospitalized with a psychiatric diagnosis. In determining whether or not a family would be placed in the “mentally ill” category, all biological parents were considered as well as “environmental” parents who had lived with the lad for at least half his life. Among the probands there were 7 “environmental” mothers and 8 “environmental” fathers. The corresponding figures for the NFs were 3 and 4. Looking now at the children exclusively, we obtained detailed histories on the age of onset, duration, number, and kinds of both antisocial and nonantisocial behaviors. The symptoms covered were an enlarged version of Robins’s list (1966). Extracurricular ac-
’
Interrater agreement per child in excess of 95% was established for Feighner’s criteria and in excess of 90% for the antisocial and nonantisocial checklists considered separately.
David R.Offord et al.
228
tivities including number and types of jobs, memberships in community and school organizations and athletic teams were also elicited. Schools with the years attended were recorded. Signed consents were obtained for school records and any medical or agency records needed for documentation of interview data. Comparisons between CFs and NFs were made at two different points in time, the age at which the proband first appeared in juvenile court, and also the age at which it was first reported that the proband had done an antisocial act which ordinarily would have been grounds for his appearance in Juvenile Court in Ontario. This point in time will be referred to in the remainder of the paper as Criterion 1. The intact families of the probands (n = 38) were compared with the intact families of the nondelinquents (n=53). T h e intactnonintact distinction was made for both CFs and NFs at the time of the first juvenile court appearance of the proband. Here we were particularly interested in discovering what factors in nonbroken homes distinguished families with a delinquent from families without a delinquent. Next, a comparison was made between the nonintact families of the CFs (n = 35) and the nonintact families of the NFs (n = 20). T h e purpose of this comparison was to discover factors which would distinguish families which were broken but did not have a delinquent boy from similar nonintact families which produced a delinquent boy. Finally, w e compared the characteristics of the delinquent behaviors of probands with “healthy” parents, and the delinquent behaviors of probands from families with parental disability. Parental disability included one or more of the following factors: nonintactness, parental mental illness, criminality, or welfare history.
RESULTS Table 1 presents the data on the matching criteria. T h e probands did not differ from the comparisons on age, IQ, socioeconomic class level, and school performance. Table 2 summarizes the results on the parents of the CFs and NFs. It can be seen that the families of the probands were less likely to be intact than the families of the comparison group. T h e families of the probands were more likely to have had one or both parents with mental illness. This result held for families when mental illness in mothers and fathers was considered separately. It is interesting to note that if hospitalization with a psychiatric diagnosis
Parental Psychiatric Illness and Delinquency
229
had been the sole criterion for parental mental illness, only 12.5% of the cases would have been identified. As seen in table 2, of the 73 proband families, only 17 were “healthy,” while 40 of the 73 comparison families were “healthy,” a striking difference. It should be noted, although it is not shown in table 2, that alcoholism, in particular, was significantly more common in the families of the probands than in the families of the comparisons. For instance, in 29 of 69 proband families, the fathers were alcoholic, while in only 17 of 73 comparison families was the father alcoholic (x2=4.87, d f = 1 , pC.03). Table 2 also reveals that in the families of the probands the fathers were more likely to have had involvement with the law than Table 1 Age, IQ, Socioeconomic Class, and School Performance of Probands and Comparisons Variable
Probands
-
n Age IQ SEC* School Performancet
73 67 73 73
Comparisons
X
S.D.
n
13.81 100.58 5.66
1.60 11.03 2.09
73 73 73
37 with poor school performance
73
-
S.D. 13.82 1.53 101.61 10.92 5.03 2.27
Level of Significance
x
42 with poor school performance
t=0.04, p=n.s. t=0.61,p=n.s. t = 1.78,p=n.s. xZ=0.44,df= 1, p = n.s.
*Scale extends from 1 to 8 with I-high (Pineo and Porter, 1967). t Poor school performance = repeating a grade or special class placement. School performance was evaluated for each proband and his comparison at the age at which the proband was first reported to have done an antisocial act which ordinarily would be grounds for his appearance in Juvenile Court in Ontario. Table 2 Families of Probands vs. Families of Comparisons on Selected Variables Variable Nonintactness Mental illness either parent mothers only fathers only “Hea1thy”t Law involvement fathers only Ever on welfare mothers only fathers only
Probands
Comparisons n %
Level of Significance*
47.9
73
27.4
x2=
71 72 69 73
59.2 30.6 49.3 23.3
73 73 73 73
31.5 12.3 27.4 54.8
10.02 p
David R. Ojjford, M.D., Nancy Allen, and Nola Abrams
Abstrmt. Seventy-three families each with a delinquent boy were compared with 73 families of the same socioeconomic class who had a boy of the same age who was not delinquent. The rate of broken homes, parental disabilities such as psychiatric illness, sibship size, and other variables were examined in these two groups. A number of parental disabilities including broken homes, mental illness, criminality, and welfare history were significantly more common in the delinquent families. The data support the idea that factors which can result in insufficient parenting are strongly associated with delinquency, and the absence of these factors drastically lessens the chances of a boy's becoming delinquent even when the family belongs to the lower socioeconomic classes. Boys unable andlor unwilling to participate in athletic activities are also more likely than their athletic peers to become delinquent.
T h e results of the treatment of delinquents are discouraging (Robins, 1974). There is evidence that if the intervention begins after the child is identified by the courts as delinquent, the treatment regardless of its focus may not benefit the delinquent and may even worsen his prognosis compared to providing him with no treatment at all (Byles and Maurice, 1977; Robins, 1974). Data comparing the families of delinquents with families of the Dr. Oflord is Professor of Psychiatry at the UniversiQ of Ottawa and Child Psychiatrist, Child Psychiaby Senices Division, Department of Psychiatry, Royal Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada. Ms. Allen and Ms. A b r a m are Research Assistants in the Department of Psychiatry at the Royal Ottawa Hospital. W e would like to thank Ms. J . Axford, Ms. C. Brookbank, Ms. S. Devine, Ms. S. Oflord, Ms. L. Pepin, Ms. M . Poushimky, and Ms. K. Sullivan who helped with the collection and rostering of the data, Mr. Richard Gable who assisted with the analysis of the data, and Dr.Marshall Jones who provided invaluable help with all aspects ofthe study. I n addition, we thank thefollowing staffsf o r their much-needed encouragement and cooperation: Ministry of Correctional Services, Province of Ontario, Ottawa-CarletonJuvenile Court, Probation and After-Care Seruices of Ottawa-Carleton, Ottawa Board of Education especially Dr. Halpern and Mrs. Wickett, Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate Schools especially Mr. Brady, Carleton Board of Education especially Mr. Casszdy, and the Carleton Roman Catholic School Board especially Mr. Tellier. This research was supported by National Health Grant No. 605-7-764 from the Department of National Health and Welfare, Canada. Reprints may be requested from Dr. Offord, at the Department of Psychiatry, R q a l Ottawa Hospital, 1145 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K l Z 7 K 4 . 002-7 138/78/1702-224$01.05 @ 1978 American Academy of Child Psychiatry
Parental Psychiatric Illness and Delinquency
225
same socioeconomic class without delinquents may produce added clues about the etiology of delinquency. Such data may suggest early rational intervention techniques. Unfortunately at present no technique, whether aimed at preventing the emergence of antisocial behavior or treating existing antisocial symptoms, has been demonstrated to be effective (Robins, 1974). Broken homes, parental psychiatric disorder, and family size are three variables in which differences have been reported between families with and without delinquents (Lewis and Balla, 1976; Rutter and Madge, 1976; West and Farrington, 1973). A consistent finding in the delinquency literature is the association between broken homes and delinquency (Rutter, 1972; Rutter and Madge, 1976; Yarrow, 1961). This association is much stronger when the homes have been broken by divorce or separation rather than by death (Rutter and Madge, 1976). T h e evidence suggests that it is not the breakup itself of the home which promotes delinquency but the family discord and disharmony which precede the break. The mechanisms by which marital or family disharmony results in increased rates of delinquency have not been spelled out. T h e parents of delinquents compared to parents of nondelinquents appear to manifest more severe psychopathology, including criminality (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; West and Farrington, 1973), severe abnormalities of personality (West and Farrington, 1973), alcoholism (Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Robins, 1966) and serious psychiatric impairment as well as psychiatric hospitalization (Lewis and Balla, 1976). For instance, Lewis and Balla (1976) noted that 72% of the parents of delinquents referred to a court clinic and on whom juvenile court records existed, were either impaired or incapacitated in their parental roles by significant psychopathology. Data on the frequency of psychiatric disturbance in the parents of delinquents compared to the parents of nondelinquents from the same socioeconomic class suffer from imprecise definitions of type of psychiatric disturbance (West and Farrington, 1973) or the use of record evidences only, rather than direct interviews in addition to records as a measure of psychiatric disturbance (Lewis and Balla, 1976). Again the connecting links between psychiatric disturbance in the parents and increased risk of delinquent behavior in the offspring have not been thoroughly understood. Rutter (1972) has suggested that parental personality problems are important in delinquency production primarily when they result in marital discord, while West and Farrington ( 1973) noted that criminal parents tend to supervise their children poorly and when this is taken into
David R . Offord et al.
226
account the link between parental criminality and delinquency in the sons is much reduced. Large family size has been associated with delinquency in a number of studies (Blakely et al., 1974; Miller et al., 1974; West and Farrington, 1973), and this association remained significant in West and Farrington’s work (1973) even after matching for income and parental behavior was carried out. Other data (Wolkind, 1974) suggest that large sibship size is associated with antisocial behavior in boys, but not in girls. Our study compares court families (CF), that is, those with a delinquent boy known to court, with noncourt families (NF) of the same socioeconomic class who have a boy of the same age who is not delinquent. The rate of broken homes and parental psychiatric illness as well as sibship size are examined. On the basis of these data and other information about these parents and children, several ideas are advanced regarding the genesis of delinquent behavior in boys.
SUBJECTS T h e court subjects (CF) were the families of all boys placed on probation to the Probation and After-Care Services from the Juvenile Court of Ottawa-Carleton between November 1, 1972 and November 15, 1973 and who had attended the Ottawa Public School system for at least 4 of their first 8 years of schooling. A total of 79 lads met the criteria for inclusion of their families in the study. The families of 73 of the 79 (92.4%)were located and agreed to participate. T h e 6 court-involved families who did not participate did not differ significantly from the 73 participating families on any of the variables available to us from the juvenile court records, namely, socioeconomic class level, sibship size, reason for and age at first court appearance, and age and number of times on probation. Comparison subjects were noncourt-involved families (NF) whose children were matched with the probands for age (within 6 months), school performance (a similar record of repeating a grade or special class placement), IQ (within 5 points), and socioeconomic class (within one level) (Pineo and Porter, 1967). In addition, the NF children must have been considered by the school personnel as not to be behavior problems and must not have appeared in juvenile court.
Parental Psychiatric Illness and Delinquency
227
METHOD The parents or guardians of each participating family (CF and NF) were interviewed. The interviews lasted 1% to 2 hours and were carried out by persons, usually college graduates, who were trained by the senior author. The interview covered basic demographic data of the family. In addition, for each biological parent and for other parenting adults who had lived with the boy for the majority of his life, medical and psychiatric histories were obtained, including a detailed inquiry into the possible presence and extent of alcoholism, hysteria, retardation, and sociopathy following the diagnostic criteria of Feighner et al. (1972).’ Thus for these disorders unreported and undiagnosed cases as well as documented ones could be identified. Data were gathered on the probands and the comparisons. These included medical and psychiatric history, agency contact and number, type, and length of various living arrangements (e.g., living with both biological parents, or living with biological mother only). A family was said to be intact when the same two adults had lived with the lad for his entire life. Separations of up to 3 months did not constitute nonintactness. Sibship size was also investigated. The term “full sibship” refers to the number of children 18 or under in the biological sibship plus other children regardless of their parentage living in the house at the time of the proband’s entry into our study. With regard to parental functioning, the parent was placed in the mental illness category if he or she fulfilled any one of the criteria for alcoholism, hysteria, sociopathy, or retardation (Feighner et al., 1972), or had been hospitalized with a psychiatric diagnosis. In determining whether or not a family would be placed in the “mentally ill” category, all biological parents were considered as well as “environmental” parents who had lived with the lad for at least half his life. Among the probands there were 7 “environmental” mothers and 8 “environmental” fathers. The corresponding figures for the NFs were 3 and 4. Looking now at the children exclusively, we obtained detailed histories on the age of onset, duration, number, and kinds of both antisocial and nonantisocial behaviors. The symptoms covered were an enlarged version of Robins’s list (1966). Extracurricular ac-
’
Interrater agreement per child in excess of 95% was established for Feighner’s criteria and in excess of 90% for the antisocial and nonantisocial checklists considered separately.
David R.Offord et al.
228
tivities including number and types of jobs, memberships in community and school organizations and athletic teams were also elicited. Schools with the years attended were recorded. Signed consents were obtained for school records and any medical or agency records needed for documentation of interview data. Comparisons between CFs and NFs were made at two different points in time, the age at which the proband first appeared in juvenile court, and also the age at which it was first reported that the proband had done an antisocial act which ordinarily would have been grounds for his appearance in Juvenile Court in Ontario. This point in time will be referred to in the remainder of the paper as Criterion 1. The intact families of the probands (n = 38) were compared with the intact families of the nondelinquents (n=53). T h e intactnonintact distinction was made for both CFs and NFs at the time of the first juvenile court appearance of the proband. Here we were particularly interested in discovering what factors in nonbroken homes distinguished families with a delinquent from families without a delinquent. Next, a comparison was made between the nonintact families of the CFs (n = 35) and the nonintact families of the NFs (n = 20). T h e purpose of this comparison was to discover factors which would distinguish families which were broken but did not have a delinquent boy from similar nonintact families which produced a delinquent boy. Finally, w e compared the characteristics of the delinquent behaviors of probands with “healthy” parents, and the delinquent behaviors of probands from families with parental disability. Parental disability included one or more of the following factors: nonintactness, parental mental illness, criminality, or welfare history.
RESULTS Table 1 presents the data on the matching criteria. T h e probands did not differ from the comparisons on age, IQ, socioeconomic class level, and school performance. Table 2 summarizes the results on the parents of the CFs and NFs. It can be seen that the families of the probands were less likely to be intact than the families of the comparison group. T h e families of the probands were more likely to have had one or both parents with mental illness. This result held for families when mental illness in mothers and fathers was considered separately. It is interesting to note that if hospitalization with a psychiatric diagnosis
Parental Psychiatric Illness and Delinquency
229
had been the sole criterion for parental mental illness, only 12.5% of the cases would have been identified. As seen in table 2, of the 73 proband families, only 17 were “healthy,” while 40 of the 73 comparison families were “healthy,” a striking difference. It should be noted, although it is not shown in table 2, that alcoholism, in particular, was significantly more common in the families of the probands than in the families of the comparisons. For instance, in 29 of 69 proband families, the fathers were alcoholic, while in only 17 of 73 comparison families was the father alcoholic (x2=4.87, d f = 1 , pC.03). Table 2 also reveals that in the families of the probands the fathers were more likely to have had involvement with the law than Table 1 Age, IQ, Socioeconomic Class, and School Performance of Probands and Comparisons Variable
Probands
-
n Age IQ SEC* School Performancet
73 67 73 73
Comparisons
X
S.D.
n
13.81 100.58 5.66
1.60 11.03 2.09
73 73 73
37 with poor school performance
73
-
S.D. 13.82 1.53 101.61 10.92 5.03 2.27
Level of Significance
x
42 with poor school performance
t=0.04, p=n.s. t=0.61,p=n.s. t = 1.78,p=n.s. xZ=0.44,df= 1, p = n.s.
*Scale extends from 1 to 8 with I-high (Pineo and Porter, 1967). t Poor school performance = repeating a grade or special class placement. School performance was evaluated for each proband and his comparison at the age at which the proband was first reported to have done an antisocial act which ordinarily would be grounds for his appearance in Juvenile Court in Ontario. Table 2 Families of Probands vs. Families of Comparisons on Selected Variables Variable Nonintactness Mental illness either parent mothers only fathers only “Hea1thy”t Law involvement fathers only Ever on welfare mothers only fathers only
Probands
Comparisons n %
Level of Significance*
47.9
73
27.4
x2=
71 72 69 73
59.2 30.6 49.3 23.3
73 73 73 73
31.5 12.3 27.4 54.8
10.02 p
