Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure: Links to Severity and ...

Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure:
Links to Severity and Frequency of Offending
Crystal L. Murry
Jimmy Williams, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Criminal Justice*
Randall T. Salekin, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
During the past century, signifi cant changes in family
arrangements have occurred; modern family structures
vary widely and include many one-parent households as
well as extended family arrangements. Differing family
structures may directly impact the stability of the family
home and the functioning of children and adolescents.
The current study examines the relationship between fam-
ily structure and juvenile delinquency through analysis of
selected data obtained from Juvenile Court records of ju-
veniles entering the system in 1996 in a county in western
Alabama. Results are presented in terms of the relation-
ship between family structure and severity of juvenilesʼ
criminal involvement and juvenilesʼ recidivism during a
one-year period.

A long history of research has linked family dysfunction with future
criminal offending. In part because parents monitor and provide nurtur-
ance to children, it is thought that the loosening of bonds among family
members may result in more criminal involvement. In recent years, an
increase in the number of juvenile delinquents has sparked interest and
concern about juvenile delinquent behaviors and the effectiveness of the
juvenile justice system. Many researchers and policy makers regard juve-
nile delinquency as one of the worldʼs most critical social issues (Tarolla,
Wagner, Rabinowitz, & Tubman, 2002).

In most cases, delinquents have been viewed as individuals who come
from less intact families, often referred to as broken homes. Typically, the
____________________________________________________
* Dr. Jimmy Williams is also Associate Dean of Multicultural Affairs, College of Arts and Sciences.
87

---

The University of Alabama McNair Journal
term broken home has been operationalized to mean children residing in
single-parent households or any type of household other than a household
in which both biological parents are present (Rankin, 1983; Geismar &
Wood, 1986). In contrast, an intact family usually refers to a nuclear fam-
ily arrangement in which both biological parents reside in the household
with their biological children (Kierkus & Baer, 2002). Intact family ar-
rangements differ from other modern-day family arrangements including
single-parent arrangements, two-parent arrangements involving a step-
parent, extended family member arrangements, and the adoptive/foster
family arrangement (Wells & Rankin, 1986).

A classic study by Shaw and McKay (1932) examined the role of bro-
ken homes in juvenile delinquency and suggested the importance of bro-
ken homes had been overstated. These researchers noted that prior stud-
ies of delinquents from intact homes as well as delinquents from broken
homes had several limitations in that researchers failed to control factors
such as age and ethnicity which may also account for juvenile delinquent
behaviors. In addition, the researchers stated that family situations other
than intactness may also be important factors that infl uence delinquent be-
havior and thus warrant further study. This study suggested that research-
ers need to look for the infl uence of family situations beyond breaks in the
organization of the family as a means of predicting juvenile delinquent
behavior. Over time, researchers have questioned whether intactness of
family is a primary variable relating family to juvenile delinquency. Other
models of understanding familiesʼ roles in juvenile delinquency have ad-
dressed familiesʼ dysfunction.

A recent study by Demuth and Brown (2004) demonstrated that bro-
ken homes are associated with juvenile delinquency but also that family
arrangements are not just a broken home issue. Specifi cally, the research-
ers found that levels of juvenile delinquency were much higher in teenag-
ers residing with single fathers and lowest among teenagers who were part
of a two-parent household. The researchers suggested that higher levels of
delinquency among children residing with their fathers were due mainly to
inadequate parental involvement in a teenagerʼs life. Demuth and Brown
concluded that, overall, the lack of supervision and the absence of close
relationships between the teenager and his or her parents are factors that
infl uence delinquency. Hoffman and Johnsonʼs (1998) fi ndings were con-
sistent with Demuth and Brownʼs (2004) fi ndings suggesting that a broken
home is associated with juvenile delinquency; however, these researchers
did not fi nd any signifi cant evidence of increased juvenile delinquency as-
sociated with which parent, father or mother, the child resided with.

In another study, by Geismar and Wood (1986), the researchers ex-
amined two types of family variables, structural and functional. They
88

---

Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure
divided the variables into several sub-categories, with structural factors
including the number of people in the family, family arrangements, and
the employment status of the mother; functional categories included the
nature of family interactions and relationships, familial problems, parental
monitoring of children, and consistency of discipline. These researchers
concluded that there is a slight positive correlation between juvenile de-
linquency and both structural and functional variables. These researchers
also suggested that residing in a positive atmosphere is likely to have posi-
tive effects on the child which, in turn, reduces the likelihood of juvenile
delinquent behavior (Geismar & Wood, 1986).
Other Theories of Delinquency

Other researchers have found that many family characteristics and
family environments infl uence juvenile delinquent behavior, for example,
the number of people in a family, inconsistent parenting, familial prob-
lems, child neglect, and the childrenʼs attachment to parents (Derzon &
Lipsey, 2000; Hirschi, 1969; Wasserman & Seracini, 2001; West & Far-
rington, 1973). Thornberry (1987) suggests that childrenʼs attachment to
their parents infl uences youths more when they are younger primarily be-
cause children, as opposed to teenagers, are monitored more closely.

According to social reaction theory, society is primarily responsible
for juveniles exhibiting delinquent behaviors. Rules are set up by the
members of a society, and those individuals establish what is considered
the norm. Violators of the norm are labeled deviant or abnormal. The
ways in which society chooses to deal with violators of the norms infl u-
ence whether or not juveniles exposed to the juvenile justice system will
be more prone to being chronic offenders (Mahoney, 1974).
Family Models

Changes in family arrangements emerge for a wealth of reasons in-
cluding separations, divorces, sudden death of a parent, unemployment,
and sequelae of substance abuse (Demuth & Brown, 2004). Currently,
at least fi ve different family arrangements are recognized in the research
literature. These include two-parent arrangements, single-parent arrange-
ments, extended family member arrangements, adoptive/foster family ar-
rangements, and other family arrangements. In the fi rst family arrange-
ment, the two-parent family arrangement, two parents in the household are
responsible for the children. This arrangement includes intact families,
that is, those with both biological parents in the household; however, this
can also include a step-parent residing in the household (Wells & Rankin,
89

---

The University of Alabama McNair Journal
1986). A second family arrangement is the single-parent family arrange-
ment, which consists of a household that has only one biological parent,
either the mother or father (Wells & Rankin, 1986). Third, the extended
family member arrangement consists of a household in which a child re-
sides with any relatives (e.g., grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, or older
siblings) other than the biological parents. In most cases, this arrangement
indicates that neither birth parent is present. A fourth family arrangement
is the foster/adoptive family arrangement in which neither birth parent is
present. In the adoptive family arrangement, the family does not have
blood ties to the child, but the child is legally adopted. The foster fam-
ily arrangement also excludes the birth parent, and a child may stay with
families or individuals for extended periods of time, until a more perma-
nent home is located for the child (Wells & Rankin, 1986). Other family
arrangements may include but are not limited to children residing with gay
or lesbian couples.
Current Research Focus

The current research attempted to answer the question, “How do vari-
ations in family arrangements relate to juvenile delinquency in terms of
severity and frequency of crimes?” Specifi cally, this study used secondary
data obtained from juvenile court fi les to examine three main hypotheses:
(1) fewer juvenile offenders resided in two-parent family arrangements
as opposed to any other family arrangement; (2) juvenile offenders who
resided in family arrangements other than the two-parent family arrange-
ment were more likely to commit serious delinquent acts or crimes; and
(3) juvenile offenders who resided in family arrangements other than the
two-parent family arrangement were more likely to be repeat offenders.
Method
File Study

This study was an archival study in that all information came from
secondary data derived from case fi les of juvenile offenders located in
a county detention center in western Alabama. Records examined were
limited to those of youth who had contact with the juvenile justice system
for the fi rst time in the year 1996.
Procedure

Permission from the detention centerʼs director was necessary and was
granted under the following terms: (1) there was no direct contact with the
90

---

Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure
youths, (2) data collection took place by appointment only, (3) names of
the juveniles were not disclosed, and (4) to better ensure privacy and con-
fi dentiality for the juveniles, there was no direct contact with the youthsʼ
fi les. In addition, to further guarantee the confi dentiality of the juveniles,
all document review and information gathering were supervised by deten-
tion center staff. The director or one of his staff members obtained the
requested information and provided it in the form of an electronic fi le.
Permission from the universityʼs Institutional Review Board was also ob-
tained before data were collected.

Data collected included basic demographic information about the ju-
veniles (age, sex, and race). Other information included the specifi c types
of crimes committed by juveniles; the number of times a youth appeared
in the system during 1996; and the youthʼs family arrangement. The study
tracked juvenile offenders who had contact with the juvenile justice sys-
tem in 1996 only.
Measures
Each
specifi c offense was classifi ed as a misdemeanor or felony, ac-
cording to The Code of Alabama; misdemeanors are lesser crimes and
felonies are more serious crimes. Misdemeanors are generally punishable
by fi nes and/or less than one year in jail. In contrast, felonies are generally
punishable for more than a year in prison (Code of Alabama, 1975).

Frequency of offending was measured in terms of whether an offender
came into the system more than once within 1996. Chronic offenders
were defi ned as individuals who entered the system four or more times
within the one-year period.

Family arrangements were classifi ed as two-parent, one-parent, ex-
tended family, foster family, or other family arrangement. Two-parent
family arrangements were coded as “1”, one-parent family arrangements
as “2”, and extended family arrangements as “3”. Foster and other family
arrangements were coded as “4” and “5”, respectively.
Data Analysis

Correlational analysis was used to measure the relationships between
the different variables; data were entered into a Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) database and trends and patterns identifi ed.
Results

This study examined the relationships between family arrangement,
severity of offense, number of times a juvenile entered the system, age,
91

---

The University of Alabama McNair Journal
sex, and race. Variables were paired and point biserial correlations calcu-
lated for each pair. Frequency distributions and other descriptive statistics
are also used to present some data.

The sample was comprised of 442 juveniles. Males made up 70%
and females 30% of the sample. African Americans were disproportion-
ately represented in the juvenile justice system, accounting for 56% of the
juvenile population, whereas Caucasians made up 44%. Of the juvenile
offenses, 81% were misdemeanors and 19% were felonies. Also, 81% of
the juveniles had only one offense during 1996; 19% were repeat offend-
ers that year.
Findings Relevant to Research Questions
Hypothesis
1.
The fi ndings in regard to hypothesis one indicated, as
predicted, that juvenile offenders tended to come from family arrange-
ments other than the two-parent family arrangement. As shown below in
Table 1, only about 1/3 (37%) of the youth had lived with two parents at
the time of their offenses.

The following tables present frequency distributions of juveniles in
each family arrangement, racial breakdown of juveniles by type of family
arrangement, and gender breakdown of juveniles by each arrangement.
Table 1
Juveniles in Each Family Arrangement
2 Parent
1 Parent
Extended
Foster
Other
Missing Data
Missing
Data
162 (37%)
231 (53%)
24 (6%)
2 (< 1%)
14 (3%)
9 (2%)
9 (2%)
Table 2
Racial Breakdown of Juveniles by Family Arrangement
Race
2 Parent
1 Parent
Extended Foster Other Missing
Data
African
47 (19%)
173 (71%)
14 (6%)
2 (< 1%)
5 (2%)
3 (1%)
3 (1%)
American
(244)
Caucasian
115 (58%)
58 (29%)
10 (5%)
0
9 (5%)
6 (3%)
6 (3%)
(198)
Total
162 (37%)
231 (52%)
24 (5%)
2 (< 1%)
14 (3%)
9 (2%)
9 (2%)
(442)
92

---

Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure
Table 3
Gender Breakdown of Juveniles by Family Arrangement
Gender 2
Parent 1
Parent Extended Foster Other Missing
Data
Females
45 (34%)
71 (54%)
7 (5%)
0
6 (5%)
2 (2%)
(131)
Males
117 (38%) 160 (51%)
17 (5%)
2 (< 1%)
8 (3%)
7(2%)
(311)
Total
162 (37%) 231 (52%)
24 (5%)
2 (< 1%)
14 (3%)
9 (2%)
(442)

Hypotheses 2 and 3. The following table presents the point biserial
correlation coeffi cients for each pairing of variables. Each measure is
named across the top as well as down the side of the table. The correlation
coeffi cients marked with asterisks are statistically signifi cant; that is, only
those pairs are related; the other pairs are not related.
Table 4
Correlation Matrix for Demographics, Family Structure, and Measures of
Juvenile Delinquency

Age
Gender
Race
Arrange
Frequency
Severity
Age
1.00
0.02 0.11* 0.12*
0.08
-0.03
Gender

1.00
-0.07
0.06
0.04
-.011
Race


1.00 -0.21**
0.04
-0.09
Arrange


1.00 -0.06 0.07
Frequency




1.00 0.17**
Severity



1.00
*p < .05 **p < .005

Most important for the purposes of this study were correlation coef-
fi cients for family arrangement and severity of offense (hypothesis 2) and
for family arrangement and frequency of offense (hypothesis 3). Both
were non-signifi cant, 0.07 for family arrangement and severity, -0.06 for
family arrangement and the frequency variable. These values suggest
there was no relationship between family arrangement and severity of of-
fense nor between family arrangement and frequency of offense.
93

---

The University of Alabama McNair Journal

Family arrangement and severity of offense. Figure 1, below, pres-
ents the average severity of offense rating (with 1= misdemeanor and 2=
felony) for youth coming from different family arrangements. As dis-
cussed previously and implied in Figure 1, types of family arrangement
did not appear to be related to the severity of offending. Most groupsʼ
offenses were in the 1.0-1.2 range, that is, mostly misdemeanors
Figure 1
Family Arrangement and Severity of Offense
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
severity
0.4
0.2
0
2 parent
1 parent
extended
foster
other

Family arrangement and frequency of offense. Also discussed pre-
viously, type of family arrangement and frequency of offense during a
one-year period did not appear to be related signifi cantly. As shown in
Figure 2 below, average group scores ranged from a low of 1.0 for juve-
niles in foster care at the time of their offense to a high of about 1.3 for
juveniles living in two-parent homes.
Figure 2
Family Arrangement and Repeated Offenses
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
frequency
0.4
0.2
0
2 parent
1 parent
extended
foster
other
94

---

Juvenile Delinquency and Family Structure
Other Findings

As noted in the correlation matrix (Table 4 above), a few signifi cant
correlations were found, one for age and race. The coeffi cient between
these variables was .11 (p < .05), refl ecting a very small yet signifi cant
relationship. This correlation indicates that older fi rst-time juvenile of-
fenders were more likely to be Caucasian and younger ones more likely to
be African American.

Age and family arrangement were also related (r =.12, p< .05), to
a very small yet signifi cant degree. This correlation indicated that older
fi rst-time offenders tended to come from family arrangements with higher
coding numbers (extended family member arrangement, foster family ar-
rangement or other family arrangement) versus younger fi rst-time offend-
ers tending to come from family arrangements with lower coding numbers
(one- or two-parent family arrangement).

A third signifi cant correlation was obtained between race and family
arrangement (r =-.21, p < .005). This correlation refl ects the tendency for
the Caucasian offenders to come from family arrangements with lower
coding numbers versus African Americans tending to come from family
arrangements with higher coding numbers.
A
fi nal signifi cant fi nding was the correlation obtained between fre-
quency and severity of offense (r = .17, p < .005). This correlation indicat-
ed that repeat offenders tended to commit more serious offenses (felonies)
whereas offenders with only one offense were more likely to commit less
severe crimes (misdemeanors).
Discussion

The current study focused on juvenile delinquency in terms of the
possible relationships between family arrangement and severity and fre-
quency of offending. The research indicates that proportionately more
juvenile offenders come from family arrangements other than the two-par-
ent family home. However, the results do not support the hypothesis that
juveniles residing in family arrangements other than the two-parent family
arrangement are more likely to commit serious delinquent acts or crimes.
The results also fail to support the hypothesis that juvenile offenders resid-
ing in family arrangement other than the two-parent family arrangement
are more likely to be repeat offenders.

The data set also showed that only 19% of offenses were felonies and
the remaining 81% misdemeanors; thus, the fi rst-time offenders in the
county in western Alabama studied were overwhelmingly prone to com-
mit lesser rather than more severe offenses. In addition, only 19% of the
95

---

The University of Alabama McNair Journal
juvenile offenders were considered repeat offenders within the one-year
period (1996). For these reasons, it is duly noted that family arrangements
are not directly related to the severity and frequency of crimes committed
by juvenile delinquents in the sample studied. Instead, family arrange-
ments combined with other factors such as environmental factors, situ-
ational factors, and functional factors may provide more insight into juve-
nile delinquency than studying family structure alone.
Future Research

The current study, like most studies, produced promising results but
had some limitations that possibly affected the outcomes. One such limi-
tation was that all the data were received from data sheets of archival fi les
only, which prevented all direct contact with juvenile delinquents and their
fi les. This lack of contact with the juvenile offenders eliminated the pos-
sibility of knowing how the juveniles perceived their family arrangement,
family environment, and the functioning of their family. A second limi-
tation was the lack of contact with the juvenilesʼ legal guardians, which
eliminated possibilities of knowing, for example, how the guardians
viewed their child-rearing strategies and whether or not they perceived
these strategies to be an overt factor in juvenile delinquency. A third limi-
tation was that some data were missing from the data sets but not enough
to affect the results.

A variety of tactics may further future research involving juvenile
delinquents. One approach that might yield promising results would be
conducting a thorough examination of the family, for example, by inter-
viewing juvenile offenders and their legal guardians. Another promising
approach would be to fi nd out about other variables like education levels
and socioeconomic status and their impact on juvenile delinquency. A lon-
gitudinal study of juvenilesʼ fi les, possibly following these juveniles over
the span of ten years, would be useful to see whether these individuals will
enter an adult correctional facility.
References
The Code of Alabama 1975. Criminal Code. Punishments and Sentences.
Section 13A 5-6 and 5-7.
Demuth, S., & Brown, S. (2004). Family structure, family processes, and
adolescent delinquency: The signifi cance of parental absence ver-
sus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-
quency, 41(1), 58-81.
96

---