Startling evidence has revealed that children in single-mother households, compared to those raised in mother-father households, are at a greater risk for aggressive behavior and academic difficulties (Pearson, Ialongo, Hunter & Kellam, 1994). Pearson and colleagues (1994) suggest that this increased tendency for aggressive behavior and academic difficulties is limited financial resources coupled with the stress of poverty that causes less adult supervision and monitoring. Sampson and Laub (1994) found that family poverty inhibits informal social control thus increasing the likelihood of juvenile delinquency. Matlack, McGreevy, Rouse, Flatter, & Marcus (1994) cite several 1992 studies that found that over a 10 year period, there was a high correlation between maladaptively aggressive children and single-mother family structures regardless of family income, number of children, and the sex of the child. Also reported was a higher tendency for delinquency in males when there was a step-father in the home. This research reported higher rates of delinquency among youths from broken homes than those from intact homes.
Family cohesion is necessary for learning healthy social skills. Stronger family attachment and more positive communication give rise to more appropriate socialization and conformity. Disruptions to family attachment support delinquency and other antisocial behaviors (Matlack at al., 1994). Warr (1993) found that attachment to parents affected the friendships formed and therefore indirectly affected delinquency. This research showed that by spending time with adolescents, parents can reduce delinquency either through lack of opportunity or through the effects of positive (law-abiding) role models. Strong attachment to parents may cause adolescents to seek out law-abiding friends and be less likely to become involved in delinquent behaviors. Warr's research showed that even in the presence of delinquent peers, adolescents who are strongly attached to parents find the parents "psychologically present."
Matlack et al. (1994) have been involved in numerous studies examining how family factors foster antisocial behavior through malformation of normal emotional bonds within the family. In their research, Matlack et al. cite a scale, FACES III, devised to define emotional bonding of family members on a four level continuum - disengaged to separated, connected and enmeshed. Family cohesion was defined from two viewpoints. High family cohesion seemed to produce an over-identification with the family resulting in extreme bonding. At the opposite end of the scale was disengagement characterized by low bonding. There were four levels of adaptability in this research that looked at the ability of a family unit to change its authority hierarchy, role identification, and relationship in response to situation and developmental stress which ranged from rigid to structured, and flexible to chaotic. A balance of structure and flexibility was found to produce optimal marital and family functioning while the extremes of rigidity and chaos showed a decline in family functioning.
Related literature found that a balance between cohesion and adaptability created more positive communication (Matlack et al., 1994). Positive communication was characterized as: empathetic, supportive, and requiring reflective listening and sharing among family members. These skills were deemed necessary for family members to share openly and honestly with one another.
In a similar study, Schill, Beyler, Morales, and Ekstrom (1991) found self-defeating personality was linked to family environments lacking cohesiveness. Results of the studies supported clinical theories relating lack of family support and lack of reinforcement to the development of self-defeating behavior patterns. Also linked with family cohesiveness is the potential for child abuse. According to Mollerstrom, Patchner, and Milner, child abuse perpetrators report more family conflict and less family cohesion and expressiveness. These studies also indicated that parents with a childhood history of abuse reported more family conflict and less family cohesion, expressiveness, intellectual and recreational activities, and moral-religious emphasis. Sampson and Laub (1994) found that erratic, threatening, and harsh discipline coupled with low supervision and weak parent-child attachment increased the potential for delinquency.
In dealing with the delinquent youth, consideration must be given to the programs designed to prevent delinquency at the societal level. Due to the increase in drug sales and distribution in the inner city, impoverished youths are provided illegitimate sources of income that do not compare to regular employment opportunities found in the community (Kruttschnitt, 1994). This attitude teaches the youth that it is more economically feasible to break the law because the youth cannot survive on income earned legitimately. These youth are faced with a choice, starve and work at a law-abiding lifestyle or live in luxury and break the law. If everyone got caught, the obvious choice would be the law-abiding way, but everyone does not get caught. Unfortunately, there are places in America were crime does pay.
In a society where it is imperative to have strong families and strong family support, it is problematic that such things as divorce, teen pregnancy, disintegration of the nuclear family, and desensitization to crime are so commonplace. Statistics show that the number of arrests for murder and non-negligent manslaughter for those under age 18 has risen 60.1% in the last 9 years compared to a rise in arrests of only 5.2% for those over 18 (Yoshikawa, 1994). Juvenile arrests for rape rose 28.2%, aggravated assault arrests rose 56.5%, and motor vehicle theft arrests rose 54.2% between 1981 and 1990. In order for the children in America to learn the difference between right and wrong, society must replace the apathetic views towards juvenile delinquency, violence, drug use and abuse, teen pregnancy, and divorce with strong families that lend emotional as well as financial support to their children. How can society expect children to grow up to be less violent when child abuse and spousal abuse is commonplace? Society needs to change its acceptance of divorce and return to more traditional views that lend better support to a child's growth and development. Peer groups need to reevaluate how delinquency is viewed and enforce a law-abiding lifestyle.
"In a society where single-parent and nonnuclear family forms are becoming more normative, it is imperative that we identify with greater specificity which family types are associated with increased developmental risk for boys and girls, and under what conditions" (Pearson et al., 1994, p.542). The purpose of this research is to follow through with this idea by determining whether or not children from broken homes are more likely to become involved in delinquent behaviors.
In the first group examined, the census data showed 46.13% of households compared to 27.78% of juvenile data for households were made up of both natural parents living with their own children. The second group examined showed census data were only 12.27% compared with 36.67% of juvenile data for households made up of natural mothers living with their own children. In the third group examined, the census data were 2.25% compared with 4.44% of juvenile data for households where the natural father was raising his own children. The final group examined showed census data were 5.72% compared with 23.3% of juvenile data for households with a step parent in the home.
In an effort to promote the best services possible to these at risk youth, future research should include a correlation between type of crime and household type. Future research should also examine first- time offenders and begin developing more stringent programs to rehabilitate these offenders and prevent further delinquency.
Because this study only examined data from one month, there were small sample sizes in some of the groups such as households where the father was raising the children himself. This study also did not take into account those youth living with persons other than natural parents, single parents, and parent-step parent families. This research was not able to include those youth who are currently wards of the state because of how the household groups were set up. This research only included youth from Buchanan County, Missouri.
Overall, this study examined four major family types including: natural mother-natural father, mother-only, father-only, and parent-step parent households. Statistically significant results were obtained that showed less delinquency among youth raised in households with natural parents. This study established a foundation for future research that will hopefully aid in lowering, or even eliminating, future juvenile delinquency.
Kruttschnitt, C. (1994). Buddy, can you par-a-digm? Three predictive models of deviant development.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(3),328-336.
Matlack, M.E., McGreevy, M.S., Jr., Rouse, R.E., Flatter,C., & Marcus, R.F. (1994). Family correlates of social skill deficits in incarcerated and nonincarcerated adolescents. Adolescence, 29(113), 117-132.
Mollerstrom, W.W., Patchner, M.A., & Milner, J.S. (1992). Family functioning and child abuse potential.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48,45-54.
Pearson, J.L., Ialongo, N.S., Hunter, A.G., & Kellam, S.G. (1994). Family structure and aggressive behavior in a population of urban elementary school children.Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 540-548.
Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1994). Urban poverty and the family context of delinquency: A new look at structure and process in a classic study.Child Development, 65(2),23-540.
Schill, T., Beyler, J., Morales, J., & Ekstrom, B. (1991). Self-defeating personality & perceptions of family environment. Psychological Reports, 69, 744-746.
Warr, M. (1993). Parents, peers, and delinquency. Social Forces, 72(1), 247-264.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks.Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 28-54.