Family and Delinquency

Family and Delinquency Chapter 8

Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck

1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund.

500 delinquent boys and 500 nondelinquent boys were matched by

·      Age

·      Intelligence

·      Ethnicity

·      Residence in underprivileged neighborhoods.

Trait related factors:

1. Physical appearance (muscular structure)

2. Temperament (impulsive, restless…)

3. Attitudes (hostile, suspicious…)

4. Psychological traits: (interest in the direct concrete, rather than symbolic or intellectual)

Sociocultural Factor:

5. Family

disorganization of the family

lack of warmth

missing respect for the integrity of each member

missing affectionate attachment

nonacceptance of the father as a role model

IDEOLOGICAL INFLUENCE ON RESEARCH

Because it was still en vogue at their time of the 40s and 50s, the Gluecks used biological variables.

However, a small part of their explanation (point 5 of 5), the use of interpersonal relationships within the family became more widely accepted in the 50's.

What happened with the sociological focus on the family as an explanation of delinquency in the 1970's? There were new explanations?
social inequality
racial discrimination
inadequate housing: residential neighborhoods
patriarchy
...

Due to neoconservatism in the U.S., the family explanation of the 1950s (the time of McCarthyism) is en vogue again: Hirschi stated that "modern theories of crime ignore the importance of the family as a socializing institution in discussions of crime causation" (Laub, p.133).

This trend led Laub and Sampson (1996 in Readings Juvenile Delinquency. Weis, Crutchfield and Bridges (eds) to reanalyze the Gluecks' data of the 1940s.

Here comes the magic. In a recent reanalysis

Researchers used the same data of the Gluecks' study
Stressed 1/5 of the politically correct explanation: family
Dropped 4/5 of the original explanation that is not PC anymore (biological traits)

REANALYSIS OF THE GLUECKS' DATA

Two way causal process:

Structural variables => family process => delinquency

Variables in the model	B coefficient in OLS Linear Regression Model
Crowded home	0
Father drunk	0.02
Mother drunk	0.02
Family disruption	0.03
Economic dependence	0.02
Mother employed	0.01
Foreign born	0.01
Residential mobility	0.07**
Father erratic punishment	0.16**
Mother erratic punishment	0.17**
Mother=s supervision	-0.25**
Parental rejection of child	0.14**
Emotional attachment to parent	-0.11**
R² = .44, p<.01 **significant at p<.05

This model shows

No biological traits
No direct correlation of structural background variables (Variables en vogue in the 1970s) on delinquency. Only residential mobility had a small, but significant direct effect.
But the family variables that are fancied today.

What do we learn from that:

Theories determine the interpretation of data.
The same data can receive very different interpretations depending on political climate of the time.
Statistics do not lie, interpretations do.

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

History: in 1887 a public health nurse discovered a child that was severely physically abused. There was no provision for abused children yet, so the child was removed by the "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA)". The "Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children" was established the following year.

Abuse and neglect often used interchangeably.

Neglect stresses the more passive form like the nonprovision of food, shelter, care, and love.

Abuse is physical aggression against the child.

Severe Abuse if the child is hit with an object (stick, whip or belt)

Sexual abuse can be:

touching, playing, or speaking with the child in ways that are culturally defined as being sexual.
rewarding the child for sexual behavior that is culturally inappropriate for his/her developmental stage.
forceful penetration.

Impact of sexual abuse, three perspectives

1. A recent study by Jane Siegel evaluated long term effects of sexual abuse on a sample of young males who had been treated as youngsters in a hospital emergency room.

Siegel and Willimas found that the abused youth were at least twice as likely to suffer an arrest.

to what extend does a "sexual abuse" that sends you to the emergency room, can be sees as sexual? This is physical abuse.
Scandinavian study of 14year old boys in pedophile relationships in the 1970s. School achievement scores an psychological examination.

2. Investigation of abuse cases

If the case worker determines that the child is in immediate danger, she may immediately remove the child from the family. A court hearing must be held afterwards.

More than 50% of such cases are ruled as unfounded by the courts (Siegel and Senna 1997, p.298).

Child agency protection workers "may never have taken a course in social work, and have a high school diploma and a BA in physical education" (Lisa C. Cool 1998).

Discuss:

In the other 50% of the cases, how harmful are the removals of the child to children and parents?
How does this compare to the harm of using corporal punishment for educational purposes?

3. Case: Day care center of the Admirault family in Massachusetts 1994

Start: a daycare worker Tooky helps a four-year-old into dry clothes after he had wet his pants.
Mother called child abuse hotline and claims that Tooky molested her son in a "secret room"
Arrest on rape charges
Investigations triggered more charges as: "molesting two- to four-year-olds with "magic wards" and knives, forcing them to eat frogs and drink urine... inserted butcher knives into the rectums, without leaving any mark on the child; hung naked children upside down on the apple three in the schoolyard, without any of the neighbors or parent who were always dropping in ever noticing anything... balls of fire were tossed around (Lisa C. Cool 1998)".
Child testimonies were accepted and members of the daycare center were convicted on more than 50 counts of sexual abuse.

4. Problem in Abuse Cases: Children in Court

Read about the impact of Stephen J. Ceci (Cornell University):

http://www.human.cornell.edu/che/Outreach/upload/HEMag33_2.pdf

overhead

Stephen Ceci and Maggie Bruck: "A Jeopardy in the Courtroom: A Scientific Analysis of Children’s Testimony"

All children received a routine medical checkup

IV: touching of genitals and butt within the examination's context

Control Group: Only gets the routine medical checkup

Experimental Group: in addition touched gently on their genitals and buttocks by the doctor.

DV: Afterwards they were given anatomically correct dolls and asked if the doctor touched their genitals or buttocks.

Results:

I. 47% of the children who got the genital exam said yes, they were touched

II. 50% of the children who did not get the genital exam also said yes

III. A significant number also demonstrated with the dolls that the doctor had inserted his finger in her vagina.

IV. In addition, when presented a spoon, 18% of the children thought the doctor had inserted it in their vagina or anus.

overhead

Family’s Influence on Delinquency

Family Breakup =>

Family Conflict =>

Delinquency

Family Deviance =>

Family Neglect =>

Back to the homepage of Dr. Andreas Schneider http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Schneider/

Disclaimer: The documents linked to other sources on the WWW, others than http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/Schneider2/ and its subdirectories, do not necessarily express the views of Texas Tech University or Dr. Andreas Schneider. @Copyright 2006 Andreas Schneider