 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
Juvenile Delinquency and Adolescent Alcohol Abuse:
The Predictive Power of Family Factors
presented by

Katherine A. West

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MastemLSdencedegree in .CriminaLlustice

/, .

Major professor

Date November 24, 1987

 

0-7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

)V1ESI_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
—_ your record. FINES will
——~ be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND ADOLESCENT ALCOHOL ABUSE

THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FAMILY FACTORS
by

Katherine Anne West

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

School of Criminal Justice

1987

ABSTRACT

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND ADOLESCENT ALCOHOL ABUSE:
THE PREDICTIVE POWER OF FAMILY FACTORS

by
Katherine Anne West

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between juvenile delinquency
and adolescent alcohol abuse. In addition, focusing upon the role of the family in the
development of both types of misbehavior, an attempt was made to determine common causal
factors. Thedatausedinthebivariate andmultivariate analyses wereobtained fromthe
Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a longitudinal study undertaken in London.
England.

The results indicated that a relationship exists between juvenile delinquency and heavy
drinking, although the strongest association was found to occur between minor forms of
misbehavior. rather than more serious criminal activity, and juvenile alcohol abuse. No
associations were identiﬁed between family relationships or parental supervision and heavy
drinking, while relationships were discovered between family factors and the more serious forms
of juvenile misconduct. One conclusion was thus that family factors were not accurate predictors
of both juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse.

Dedicawd to my husband Paul
and our daughter Caroline

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study of juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse would not have been possible
without the c00peration, assistance and guidance offered by a number of people.

I am particularly grateful to the members of my thesis committee for their help and support
The chairman, Tim Bynum, offered invaluable assistance in my struggles with the IBM
mainframe computer, provided many good ideas which were incorporated into the study, and
perhapsevenmoreimportantly,allowedmetouseup agreatdealofhisvaluabletime andwas
always available as a source of encouragement when needed. I thank him very much. Whilst the
majority of my time was spent working closely with Tim, the remaining members of my
committee, Merry Morash and John Hudzik, also provided encouragement and a number of
helpful insights and suggestions in the early stages of the project.

The data utilized in this study were made available by the Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research The data for the CAMBRIDGE STUDY IN DELINQUENT
DEVELOPMENT (GREAT BRITAIN) 1961 - 1981 were originally collected by David P. '
Fanington of the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge, England. Neither the collector of the
original data nor the Consortium bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations
presented here. I

On a more personal level, thanks are due to several peeple without whose support my
work would never have been completed, and indeed may never even have started. To my
husband Paul. both for encomaging me to keep studying when the prospects of ﬁnishing the
degree within ourlimiwdtirnescale lookedremote atbest, and fortheendless solitary hours he
spent typing the thesis manuscript. Also to our parents, who suffered the temporary loss of a
granddaughter graciously, and were constant sources of support both by telephone and letter
throughout our stay in Michigan. To Dennis Banas who, in his position as Assistant to the

iv

Director of the School of Criminal Justice, in the early days used his inestimable powers of
persuasion to convince us that we had made a wise decision by bath enrolling in the Master’s
program. and subsequently was consistently available when needed to direct our coursework and
organize the seemingly impossible with consummate ease and grace. And to the many friends we
made whose generosity and thoughtfulness were greatly appreciated.

Finally, both Paul and I express our deepest thanks and appreciation to John and Anne
Hudzik for their constant support and friendship during our stay in Michigan. Even more
important to us than John's academic assistance, was his and Anne's unlimiwd help in sorting
out the many and varied problems of our temporary stay, and in easing our acclimatization as
much as was humanly possible. Literally from the moment of our arrival in Lansing, they have
always been available to lend us help and support. We hope that an opportunity may present
itself so that we may be able to repay some of their lcindness in the future. ‘

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM

Introduction 1

Extent of the Problem ,

Other Implications of Teenage Alcohol Abuse

Alcohol and its Association with Crime and Delinquency in Youth
Purpose and Scope of the Study

. Overview of the Study

CHAPTERII-LITERATUREREVIEW

Section 1: The Relationship between Alcohol Abuse and Juvenile Delinquency
Alcohol abuse and Different Types of Crime

Drinking Patterns among Delinquent and Non-Delinquent Youth

Possible Common Causes of Drinking and Delinquency

Methodological Problems

Summary and Conclusion

Section 2: Alcohol Abuse by Youth and its Relationship with Family Variables
Internal Family Relationships

Family Characteristics

Methodological Problems

Summary and Conclusion

Section 3: Juvenile Delinquency and its Relationship with Family Variables
Broken Homes

Relationships Within the Family

The Social Control Theory Approach

Methodological Problems

Summary and Conclusion

Section 4: Overall Summary and Conclusion

CHAPTER III - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Survey Sample and Data to be Used
The Sample
Data Collection

Research Questions

vi

Page

mo: 0) hit-i

GaGM-hA
cc NWOO

aux)
NN

oecocococe
OthWNN

Variables to be Used
Delinquency Variables
Self Report Meaures Used in this Study
Drinking Variables
Family Factors
Family Income
Broken Home and Family Size
Family Relationships
Anal ‘

ysis
Summary of Methodological Advantages and Limitations
CHAPTER IV - RESULTS

Introduction
Bivariate Analysis
Self Report Delinquency and Drinking
Self Report Delinquency at 14-15 years
Self Report Delinquency at 16-17 years
Ofﬁcial Delinquency and Drinking
Self Report Delinquency and Family Factors
Self Report Delinquency at 14-15 years
Self Report Delinquency at 16-17 years
Ofﬁcial Delinquency and Family Factors
8 Drinking and Family Factors

ummary
Multivariate Analysis
Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting Self Report Delinquency
Self Report Delinquency at 14-15 years
Self Report Delinquency at 16-17 years
Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting Official Juvenile Delinquency
Loglinear Regression
Self Report Delinquency
Ofﬁcial Delinquency
Chapter Summary and Conclusion

CHAPTER V - FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction
Purpose and Scope of the Study
Findings and Conclusions
Family Size
Broken Homes
Inter-Parental and Parent-Child Relationships
Supervision by Parents
Family Income
Discussion of Results
Methodological Limitations and their Implications
Recommendations for Future Research

APPENDIX I - Self Reported Delinquency
APPENDD( II - Categorization of Self Report Data

Page

91
91

100
103
103
104
105
110
113

119

119
119
120
120
135
143
151
151
178
192

215
218
220
220
225
229
233
233
242
250

253

253
253
256
259
261
261
264
265
266
272
275

277
280

Page

APPENDD( III - Creation of Combined Variables 282
APPENDIX IV - Recoding of Self Report Data for Bivariate Analysis 284
APPENDIX V - Recoding of Official Data for Bivariate Analysis 286
APPENDIX VI - Calculations of Probabilities from Loglinear Results 287
BIBLIOGRAPHY 290

Table

3.1

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

LIST OF TABLES

Types, valuesanddeﬁnitions ofoffensevariablestobe
usedineachoffensecategoryinthepresentsnrdy

Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)

Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)

Self repomd public nuisance offenses (at 14—15 years)
by drinking combined (at 18-19 years)

Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)

Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)

Self reported minor property offenses (at 14—15 years)
by drinking combined (at 18-19 years)

Selfreported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)

Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16—17 years)

Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking combined (at 18-19 years)

Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)

Selfreported personal offenses (at 14-15 years)
bydrinkinginpubsunder 18 years (at 16-17 years)

Self reported personal offenses (at 14—15 years)
by drinking combined (at 18-19 years)

Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)

Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)

ix

Page

100
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
136

137

 

Table Page
4.15 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking combined (at 18-19 years) 137

4.16 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years)
by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years) 138

4.17 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) 138
4.18 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking combined (at 18—19 years) 139
4.19 Self repomd serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14—15 years) 139
4.20 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) 140
4.21 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking combined (at 18-19 years) 140
4.22 Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking“ in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years) 141
4.23 Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years)

by drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) 141
4.24 Self reported personal offenses (at 16—17 years)

by drinking combined (at 18-19 years) 142
4.25 Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions ( 10-16 years) by drinking

in pubs under 18 years (at 14—15 years) 144
4.26 Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by drinking

in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) 144
4.27 Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (IO-16 years) by drinking

combined (at 18-19 years) 145
4.28 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by drinking

in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years) 145
4.29 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by drinking

in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) 5 146
4.30 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by drinking

combined (at 18-19 years) 146
4.31 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by drinking

in pubs under 18 years (at 14—15 years) 147

4.32 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by drinking
in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) 147

X

Table _ _ Page
4.33 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by drinking

combined (at 18—19 years) 148
4.34 Ofﬁcial total convicticm (10-24 years) by drinking

in pubs under 18 years (at 14—15 years) 148
4.35 Ofﬁcial total convictions (IO-24 years) by drinking

in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) 149
4.36 Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years) by drinking

combined (at 18-19 years) 149
4.37 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 154
4.38 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)

by family size ( at 8-9 years) 155
4.39 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)

by broken home before 15 years 156
4.40 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 157
4.41 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 158
4.42 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 159

4.43 Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by family income (at 8-9 years) 160

4.44 Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by family size ( at 8-9 years) 161

4.45 Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by broken home before 15 years 162

4.46 Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by behavior of parents combimd (at 10-11 years) 163

4.47 Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 164

4.48 Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 165

4.49 Self reported serious property offenses (at 14—15 years)
by family income (at 8-9 years) 166

4.50 Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)
by family size ( at 8-9 years) 167

xi

Table Page
4.51 Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)

by broken home before 15 years 168
4.52 Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 169
4.53 Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 170
4.54 Selfreported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 171
4.55 Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years)

by family' income (at 8-9 years) 172
4.56 Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years)

by family size( at 8-9 years) 173
4.57 Self reported personal offenses (at 14—15 years)

by broken home before 15 years 174
4.58 Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 175
4.59 Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 176
4.60 Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 177
4.61 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 180
4.62 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)

by familysize(at8-9 years) 180
4.63 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)

by broken home before 15 years 181
4.64 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years)

by behaviorofparents combimd (at 10-11 years) 181
4.65 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 182
4.66 Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 182
4.67 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 183

4.68 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17years)
by family size ( at 8-9 years) 183

Table Page
4.69 Self reported minor property offenses (at l6-l7 years)

by broken home before 15 years 184
4.70 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 184
4.71 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 185
4.72 Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 185
4.73 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 186
4.74 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years) -

by family size ( at 8-9 years) 186
4.75 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by broken home before 15 years 187
4.76 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 187
4.77 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 188
4.78 Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 188
4.79 Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 189
4.80 Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years)

by family size ( at 8-9 years) 189
4.81 Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years) ‘

_ by broken home before 15 years 190

4.82 Self reported personal offenses (at 16—17 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 190
4.83 Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 191
4.84 Self reported personal offenses (at 16—17 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 191
4.85 Official juvenile convictions (10-16 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 192
4.86 Official juvenile convictions (10-16 years)

by family size ( at 8-9 years) 193

Table Page
4.87 Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years)

by broken home before 15 years 193
4.88 Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 194
4.89 Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 194
4.90 Oﬂicial juvenile convictions (10-16 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 195
4.91 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 195
4.92 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years)

by family size ( at 8-9 years) 196
4.93 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years)

by broken borne before 15 years 196
4.94 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16—17 years)

by behavior of pmts combined (at 10-11 years) 197
4.95 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 197
4.96 Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 198
4.97 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 198
4.98 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years)

by family size ( at 8-9 years) 199
4.99 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years)

by broken home before 15 years 199
4.100 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years)

by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years) 200
4.101 Oﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years)

by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years) 200
4.102 Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years)

by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years) 201
4.103 Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years)

by family income (at 8-9 years) 201

4.104 Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years)
by family size ( at 8-9 years) 202

xiv

Table
4. 105

4.106

4.107

4.108

4.109

4.110

4.111

4.112

4.113

4.114

4.115

4.116

4.117

4.118

4.119

4.120

4.121

4.122

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years)
by broken home before 15 years

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years)
by behavior of parents combined (at 10-11 years)

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years)
by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years)

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years)
by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years)

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)
by farmly income (at 8-9 years)

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)
by family size (at 8-9 years)

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)
by broken borne before 15 years

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)
by behavior of parents combined

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)
by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years)

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years)
by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years)

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)
by family income (at 8-9 years)

D1inking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)
by family size (at 8-9 years)

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)
by broken home before 15 years

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)
by behavior of parents combined

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)
by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years)

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years)
by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years)

Drinking combined (at 18-19 years)
by family income (at 8-9 years)

Drinldng combined (at 18-19 years)
by family size (at 8-9 years)

XV

Page
202
203
203
204
206
207
207
208
208 A
209
209
210
210
21 l
21 1
212
212

213

Table
4. 123

4.124

4.125

4.126

4.127

4.128

4.129

4.130

4.131

4.132

4.133

4.134

4.135

4.136

4.137

Drinking combined (at 18-19 years)
by broken home before 15 years

Drinking combined (at 18-19 years)
by behavior of parents combined

Drinking combined (at 18-19 years)
by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years)

Drinking combined (at 18-19 years)
by relationship with parents combined (at 18-19 years)

Correlation Matrix between the Independent Variables
employed in the Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple Regression Analysis of factors affecting the
diversity of self report delinquency offenses
measured at 14-15 years

Multiple Regression Analysis of factors affecting the
diversity of self report delinquency offenses
measured at 16-17 years

Multiple Regression Analysis of factors affecting the
diversity of ofﬁcial delinquency measures

Definition of Dichotomous Independent Variables
utilized in the Loglinear Analysis

Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the
'ever' done self report minor property offense
variable (at 14-15 years)

IoglinearRegressim Analysis offactors affectingthe
'ever' done self report serious property offense
variable (at 14-15 years)

LoglinearRegression Analysis offactors affectingthe
'ever' done self report personal offense
variable (at 14—15 years)

Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the
'ever' done self report minor property offense
variable (at 16-17 years)

Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the
'ever' done self report serious property offense
variable (at 16-17 years)

Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the

'ever' done self report personal offense
variable (at 16-17 years)

xvi

213

214

214

215

219

222

226

230

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

Table
4. 138

4.139

4.140

4.141

4.142

4.143

A.1
A.2
A.3
A.4
A.5
A.6
A.7

loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the

'ever' done ofﬁcial juvenile convictions
variable (at 10-16 years)

Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecring the
'ever' done ofﬁcial adult convictions
variable (at 17-24 years)

Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the
‘ever' done ofﬁcial total convictions
variable (at 10-24 years)

The probability of involvement in self report delinquent
offenses (calculated from loglinear regression
results) at 14-15 years given particular
environmental and personal proﬁles

The probability of involvement in self report delinquent
offenses (calculated from loglinear regression
results) at 16—17 years given particular
environmental and personal proﬁles

The probability of being convicted of any category of
offense (calculated from loglinear regression
results) given particular environmental
and personal proﬁles

Self Reported Delinquency

Self Reporwd Delinquency Variable (14-15 years)
Self Reported Delinquency Variable (16-17 years)
Diversity (14-15 years)

Diversity (16-17 years)

Ofﬁcial Data Frequencies

Ioglinearoddsforthealternativevalues ofthesetof
indepenMrtvariables

Page

243

244

245

248

249

249
277
281
281
285
285
286

288

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

In recent years, widespread concem has been expressed by governments. criminal justice
agencies, the medical professims and the general public over the use of drugs by juveniles; over
the same period of time, however, these sections of society have given relatively little attention to
the problem of teenage drinln'ng.

Following a symposium entitled "Alcohol and Young People" held in London in March
1987 , Derek Rutherford, Director of the Institute of Alcohol Studies, stated that, compared to the
Govemment-initiated 'Heroin screws you up' and 'Aids' campaigns and the success of the
anti-smoking drive, little had been done to raise public consciousness about the dangers of
alcohol. In addition, Anders Hansen of the Leicester University Centre for Mass Communication
toldthesame symposiumthattelevisionintheUnited Kingdomhasconsistently failedto make
young people aware of the dangers of drinking, and instead has depicted alcohol consumption to
be both pleasant and unproblematic (Times Educational Supplement. March 9, 1987).

Whendiscussingdrugabusemaehasthusbeenatendemytoneglectconsidemdm of
alcohol use, creating the impression that drinking is a less serious problem in yormg people than
is the illicit use of drugs. However, recent statistics published in England would appear to
indicatethatthis isnotnecessarilythecase,butratherthatd1inking, particularly by managers.
constitutes a societal problem which should not be ignored.

2
The Extent of the Problem

ThefuﬂextemofpmblemdﬁnkinganmgtemageminmeUKwasmcmdymvealedma
1987 report entitled "Adolescent Drinking" which was commissimd bytheDepartmentof
HealthandSocialSecmity. 'I‘hereportindicawdthatyormgpeoplermdeer yesrsofagenow
accountforlin4dnmkennesscases,ascomparedwithlin12duringthel950s.
Approximatelyloutofevery 15drinkersarepresentlyunderage,incontrastwidiloutofevery
100threedecadesago. Moreover.fortheﬁrsttimethiscentury.l6-yearoldsarenow
consideredwbemmatﬁskﬁomdnmkennessdrmpeopleinmeBO-wagegrwp. Reported
casesofdrmkmnessammgwenagmscmﬁnuemgrowwhﬂethaeisadecmasemnumbem
amongorheragegroups.

Thesantmpmtalsocmﬁrnumanmadolescenurmsusealcdrolmmaﬂodwdrugs
combined.andthatbytheageof13morethan3cutofevery4child1enintheUKhave
experiencedalcoholinsomeform.

OdieralamungnadstkswlbcwdmcmdymcomncﬁmwidueseuehmniedmnmExaer
University, and published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper in England in February, 1987
indicatethat34%ofallll-yearoldboyspresentlydrinkatleasthalfapintofshandyaialfbeer
andhalflemonade)perweek.andthat29%oflS-yearoldgirlsarenowdrinkingatleastone
glassofsdneeachweehascomparedwithmml984.

Onalargerscab,alcoholabtueisnmofcmnseﬁnutedtocmmingnunordiscomfonfm
shortperiodsofﬁmbutitcanleadtoseriousdiseases,andultinutelyisdirectlyresporisiblefor
the deaths of over 500 young people in the UK every year; Additionally.in purely ﬁnancial
temu,d1ecosttoanaﬁmalHeal¢Serviceofueadngalcoholahmeisesdmatedmbe£95
million ($145 million) annually.

Other Implications of Teenage Alcohol Abuse
The "steppingstone" theoryisottenused as anargumenttoemphasizethepcssible
negativeandseriousconsequencesofalcoholmisuse. Thedreorywasbuiltarormdtheideathat
cannabis wasﬁedangermmﬁrststepmwmdsherohaddicdmmpowerﬁnargunemwhichﬁrst

3
cannmhglndudngmedebatesmﬂwquesnonofdwlegaﬁmﬁmofcannabismmemid19605.
The stepping stone theory was further developed during the 19705 when researchers discovered
that adolescents were unlikely to use cannabis unless they had ﬁrst used alcohol. Research
duringthe19805hastardedwindicammmdruguseisnmnerelyseqwtﬁalbtncmmnaﬁve

WelteandBarnes(l985)testedthesteppingstonetheoryusingasampleof27,000
smdentsagedﬁoletol‘lyearsinNewYorkState. Datamsubstanoeusewasobtainedviaa
self-administered questionnaire completed inclass. Questions related to six groups of drugs:
alcohol, cigarettes, cannabis, over-the-counter, prescription pills. and 'hard' drugs; ever-used
dichotomous variables were used rather than basing the variables upon substantial use. Over
22,000 of the studentswereformd to haveusedalcoholand4,600hadusedharddrugs, yet only
0.1% of respondents reported use of hard drugs without ever using alcohol. Welte and Barnes
argwdthattleseﬁndingscouldnotmerelybeexplainedbyageorindividualattribtnesofthe
students. Radnrjwybeﬁevedmaﬂwpervasivmssofalcoholmsmietymduceddwpaceived
riskofitsusebyyoungpeople. 1hus,baseduponthetheorythatteenagersbeginbyusingthe
drugwhichpresentstheleastrisk.andthattheuseofthisdruginandofitselfmakestheuseof
thenextdruginthesequencemorelikely,itwasproposedthatalcobolshouldbeviewedasan
importantﬁrst step inthe stepping stone prowes.

Welte and Barnes therefore suggested that alcohol was the 'entry' drug for New York State
teenagers;milessalcoholwasﬁrstusedtherewasverylittleuseofanyotherdrugs,inchrding
cigarettes and over-the-cormter drugs. Moreover, from their sample. Welt: and Barnes had
identiﬁed adefinitepatternofprogression from alcoholtocannabistoharddrugs. They
concluded that, whilst the majority of the discussion regarding the stepping stone theory has
oenteredupmtheimplicatimsofcannabisuse,itisvitallyimportanttonotethatalcoholprecedes
carmabisinthedevelopmentalsequenoeandthereforeservesasthegatewaytotheuseofother
drugs. .

Insupportofthistheoreticalsupposition, inmeirearliersmdyofstudentsinseniorand
senior schools from grades 6 to 12. Wechsler and Thom (1973) had found that illicit drug use
was reported much more frequently by relatively heavy alcohol users than by light users or

4
non-drinkers. Submuently, Bloom and Greenwald (1984) reported that experimentation with

smldngwbaccoandmanjumawembommmdmbehiguycoudamdwnhexpennmml
drinking.

Whilst the two studies carried out by Wechsler and Thurn and Bloom and Greenwald do
nmmcessaﬁlyhuicamdwexismofacwsﬂmhnmsMpbaweendnnﬁmseofdcoholmd
themisuseoforherdrugs.theydoservetoemphasizetheneedtobeawarethatifteenagersabuse
alcoholthentheyarernorelikelytoabuseotherdrugsaswell.

Alcohol and its Association with Crime and Delinquency in Youth

Another major societal problem which has been suggested to result from alcohol abuse is
alcohol related crime. Indeed, the belief that crime is one of the direct results of excessive
drinkinghasbeenheldformany centuries. Moreover,itisgenerally acceptedthatdrinldng
alcohol can remove inhibitions. thus leading certain people to exhibit antisocial behavior which
canultimatelyleadtoviolenceandthecommissionofcrimes. Thisparu’cularaspectofdrinking
has been the focus of a number of studies. Thus, Heather, Hodge. O'Connor and Wilkes
(1977), Hollins (1983) and Fuller (1976) all proposed that crime was a direct result of heavy
drinking. However, a major problem with many ofthese studies has tended to be that the
samples used have frequently consisted of incarcerated individuals. This method of sampling
precludes analysis of the behavior both of individuals who drink but do not commit crimes. and
ofindividuals whodrnihcomnntainiesbtnareeithernotapprehendedorthhey are.arenot
subject to custodial sentences. ‘

Heather, Hodge, O'Connor and Wilkes (1977) surveyed the drinking behavior of
convicted youngoffendersinaScottishpenalinstitution. Thereplies from200questionnaires
indicatedthat63% ofboysadnﬁnedtodleimdtutionreponedhavingcomnnttedmeirpresem
offense whilst under the inﬂuence of alcohol. Hollirls (1983) studied a sample of 100
consecutive admissions to an English yormg offenders' imtitution, Feltham Borstal, and after
interviewing each offender be discovered that 38% self-reported drinking irmnediately before
offending. This percentage included offenders who reported having committed previous

S
offenses, and not necessarily their present offense, after drinking. At the time of Hollins' study.

FeltbamBorstalwasuniqrrehrEnglmdbeingtheonly psychiatricborstaLandcmmquentlyit
wassuggesmdmatitnnglunmbeamwmpmsernadonofmeovemuborsmlpoptnadm
Nevertheless, otherstudies invarious parts ofthe U.l<. have noted similarrates ofdrinlcing prior
tooffending: Fuﬂer(l976)discoveredarateof30%atUskBorstalmWales.anndMurren
(1981) arateof40% atGlen PawaBorstalnearleicester.

Despitedleproblermimaemintheuseofasamplecmsisungofmsﬁmdmalized
www.meseH-mponedpacenmgesofboysadnnmngcmmgomaimwmmmme
inﬂuenceofalcoholintheabovesmdiesdoesservemsugmstthat,atleastamongsome
mcamaawdymmmemisaﬁnkbetweenalcoholcmsmnpdmmdainmiahty. Bventhe
relativelymodestﬁgtn'esof30%and38%reportedintwoofthesesmdiesrepresentonethirdof
thesampleandthuscreatecauseforconcern.

Thesteppingstonetheoryandalcoholrelatedcrimearenottheonlyfactorswhichnmstbe
consideredwhenexanriningﬁeﬁrrtherimplications forsocietyofalcoholmisusebyyouth.
From an economic point of view, employers have become increasingly aware of the problem
invloved in employing teenagers who are heavy drinkers, and of the future problems of
continuingtoemploythemasadultsiftheydonotmanagetocomroltheiralcoholconsumption.
ThehbushnssesmfferﬁcmmhwmasemabsmmdsmaMacmseqmmdecmaxmefﬁciemy.
mednperspecﬁveofdletemagersdevelopmermhisverydifﬁcuhmquannfythefarnily
disruption which may result from a young person's drinking problem and the loss of education
thechildmayexperience.

The serious nature and potential consequences of problem drinking among the younger
members ofsocietyisthusacauseforconcemwhichshmldnotbeignored.

Purpose and Scope of the Study
Anumhuorreseuchsodieshavesuggesmdmmomhwmdnnldngispmoiamm'
pattern of deviant behavior among teenagers (Barton. 1970; Donovan and lessor, 1978; Barnes,
1984). Asanspeciﬁcexampleofdeviancymhasbeenpmposedﬂmamladmhipexists

6
between adolescents' drinln'ng habits and otherdeviant acts such as juvenile delinquency.
Furtherme,ifsucharelaticnshipdoes existtherritwouldappearfeasiblethatcertaincommon
causal factors could be discerned which could assist in developing a more detailed understanding
of the association between the two variables.

It is not suggested that such an analysis would in any way fully explain the causes of either
alcohol abuse by youth nor juvenile delinquency, rather that the interactions between the two
behavioralcharacteristicscorﬂdbeclariﬁedbyaneannemwhichsouglnto identify conunon
causal factors. Such clariﬁcation would porentially add to existing knowledge and understanding
of the two problems. It is therefore the purpose of this study to explore the relationship between
ddnkingpanammdjuvaﬁbdelmqmmymdmanemmwdemrmhwwhemmemoshuemy
common causes.

Examination of the literature researching the relationship between juvenile delinquency
andalcoholmisusenot only serves as abodyofresearchsupportfortheexistenceofthe
relationship itself.bmalsoactsasaguideforﬂiepossiblepmdictmsofmetwovariables.
Additionally, in order to gain further insight into causal factors, research studies dealing solely
with either alcohol abuse or delinquency are considered separately. Clearly, there are a vast
number of possible predictors both of alcohol abuse and of delinquency which are beyond the
scope of this study. Consequently. emphasis has been placed upon the possible role of family
variables in the relationship between the two.

Thefamﬂyhasbeensuessedbynumermswrhersasplayinganhnponmumleinme
development of the adolescent:

'"Ihefarmlyistheﬁrstandmostbasicinstimﬁoninomsocietyfor
developing a child's potential...It is within the family that the child
experiences love. attention, care, supervision, discipline, conﬂict,
neglect. stress, and abuse, depending upon parental and family

characteristics and circumstances." (The Black Report, 1979: 6-7)

Inaddition. socialcontroltheory as presented byleckandGlueckandby Hitachi
emphasizes the role of family relationships in delinquent behavior. The advantage of utilizing
thistheoryofdelinquencyisthatitattcmptstoassesstheeffects ofbothparentaldisciplineand
affectional relationships within the family upon the development of delinquent behavior. Given

7
dregaremﬂyagreedeldstuweofamhﬁmshipbawemdeﬁmuaubdmvimandproblem
dﬁnldngmwmldappearplmlsiblemmmesampamemofsupervisimmdaﬁecnmal
relationships may serve a similar function in the develoth of problem drinking among
adolescents. Previous research thus provides considerable support for undertaking an
examinadonofdremleofdlefamﬂyinthedevelopmentofbodldelmquency andalcohol abuse.

There are, however, a number of weaknesses present in many of the prior research studies
concerned with juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse. These deﬁciencies will be discussed in
some detail in the review of the literature, but generally they revolve arormd the problems of
sampling and of utilizing cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data. It is hoped that through
makinguse ofdatafrom anEnglish longitudinal survey caniedout overtwenty years, anurnber
of these problems will be overcome.

ThedamfmthesmdywelecolbctedaspanofmeCambﬁdgeSmdyinDeﬁnqwu
Development. In 1963, Dr. Donald West and his collaborators at the Institute of Criminology.
Cambridge, England, including Dr. David Farrington. systematically surveyed a sample of some
four hundred young males, recruited, at the age of eight. from a working class neighborhood in
London. These youths were subsequently followed up and data was collected on them up until
the age oftwenty ﬁve. The particularvariables tobeutilizedinthis study willbediscussedin
some detail later.

Overview of the Study

Thepurposeandscope ofthestudy alreadyhavingbeendetailcd.thereviewofthe
literattneispresentedinthenextchapter. ‘l'hereviewisdividedintothreesections. Theﬁrst
section consists of a review of the literature which has speciﬁcally considered the relationship
betweenalcoholabuseandjuveniledelinquency. 'l'hesecondsectionislimitedtoanexamination
of those studies which have considered the possible causal factors of alcohol abuse, and the third
sectiondealssolelywiththatresearchconcernedwiththemle ofthefamilyindelinquency
prediction.

8
Chapter 111 comprises the methodology of this study; Initially a description of the sample
and method of data collection is presenwd. followed by the research questions, an explanation of
the variables to be utilized, and a discussion ofthe types ofdata analysis to be employed
The results ofthe analysis are presented in Chapter IV. Finally. the study findings are
discussedinthecontextoftheresearchquestionsinarapterV.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Section 1: The Relationship between Alcohol Abuse and Juvenile Delinquency

Overdreyearsﬂremhasbeenalargeammmtofreseamhcanbndoncemhgdre
relationship between all types of juvenile delinquency and alcohol use. Some of these studies
have focused their attention upon alcohol abuse and its association with serious criminal offences
such as homicides and other crimes of violence, whilst others have questioned whether in fact
alcohol abuse is nrore closely linked with victimless offences. Still more studies have
concentrated upon alcohol and deviant behaviour wiich is essentially antisocial in nanne and does

not necessarily involve the commission of crimes.

Alcohol Abuse and Different Types of Crime

A study undertaken by Tinklenberg et a1. (1974), found, in support of Wolfgang (1966).
that alcohol was involved signiﬁcantly more often in violent assault cases titan in non-assaultive
crimes. The subjects of the investigation were male adolescents incarceramd in Karl Halton
School, a moderate secmity facility in northern California, between January 1970 and October
1972. Two groups of adolescents were studied. The ﬁrst study group of 50 inmates consisted
of 50 assaultive adolescents who were randomly selected at monthly intervals from a total
population roster of 327 youths. Approximately 20% of the sample was obtained each month.
qualiﬁcationforthisgroupbeingthattheyouthsselectedhadbeenconvictedofatleastonecrime
against a person involving either violent or sexual behavior. The second study group of 80
non-assaultive subjects were selected from a second population of 782 youths who had never

9

10
been charged with or convicted of any assaults or sexual offenses, but had been convicted of

Other crimes. The sampling procedure was identical to that used with the assaultive group,
except that approximately 10% of the sample was obtained each month. The mean age of the two
sample groups was 18.5 years. All subjects voluntarily submitted to a semi-structured private
interview with an experienwd psychiatrist or a professional clinical interviewer. Interview data
was cross validated by concurrent analysis of ofﬁcial documents such as police records and
laboratory reports; cross validation results showed that the subjects were generally candid and
honest with regard to their use of drugs.

The study groups were compared along two drug use measures. the number of subjects
who had used each drug at least once, and the frequency with which speciﬁc drugs were used
either alone or in combination with other drugs. Drug use was deﬁned as having experienced a
period of being continuously "high" under the inﬂuence of a drug without "coming down to your
usual non-drug self."

The differences formd between the two study groups along both of the measures were all
in the direction of less drug use for the assaultive group. Only the number of users of alcohol
and marijuana was not signiﬁcantly different between the two groups. although even with respect
to those drugs slightly lower percentages of assaultive subjects were users.

Thus, Tinklenberg et al.. in their study of incarcerated California juvenile offenders.
discovered that subjects who had never been charged with any assaultive or sexual offenses
generally reported that they used a greater variety of drugs more frequently than individuals who
committed serious assaultive crimes. Nevertheless, when serious assaultive crimes were
committed, the youths involved more frequently described themselves as having been under the
inﬂuence of one or more drugs than in a non-drug state at the time of the offense. Moreover,
alcohol was the drug most often linked with violence, and assaults were found to be more likely
to be susrained when the assailant was under the inﬂuence of drink than when he was sober. No
control was made for race andconsequently it was not possible to generalize about any racial

contribution to drug and crime interaction.

l 1
O'Brian (1977), however, attempted to investigate the racial differences in drinking
behavior by studying delinquency in Warm Springs Indian Reservation in Oregon. He found
that, among the Indians on the reservation,

"alcoholism has been identiﬁed as the greatest single social problem
confronting the tribe for adults and juveniles alike." (p. 347)

In addition to abusing alcohol, juveniles on the reservation appeared to be engaging in
delinquent activities in increasing numbers -
"Alcoholism and delinquency appear to have a common source in the need
to relieve tensions caused by the basic insecurity of reservation life, the
poverty, the hopelessness and the desolation of the reservation life, the

conﬂicts between the two cultures and the apparent absence of means of
escape." (p. 347)

The total number of delinquency cases measured by referrals to juvenile court from the
reservation increased by 124% between 1972 and 1973. These referrals tended to be for status
offenses and other victimless crimes, with very few referrals being made for serious or violent
offenses. Consequently, although no statistical analysis was carried out to examine the
relationship between alcohol abuse and delinquency on the reservation, it was possible for
O'Brian to infer that the connection between drinln'ng and victimless crimes was stronger than
that between drinking and violent and serious offenses, thus bringing his results into conﬂict
with the ﬁndings of Tinklenberg et a1. One problem involved in comparing the results of these
two studies, however, is that Tinklenberg et aL used a sample of institutionalized offenders nor
likely to contain many, if any, status offenders.

A further study. carried out by Schlesinger (1978), casts doubt upon whether alcohol
abuse can be considered a correlate of either victimless crimes, in the form of nrnaways, or more
serious crimes including assaults, burglary or larceny. The research sample consisted of 122
juveniles evaluated by a psychiatric clinic attached to a family court between January 1973 and
June of the same year. In order to be included in the sample, the juveniles could not be sixteen
until on or after July 1st, 1974, the date which marked the end of the one year follow-up period
which was built into the study. Schlesinger identiﬁed nine previous studies which had used a

12
total of thirty different factors considered to be Statistically related to violent behavior in children.

The results of the various studies were deemed to be sufﬁciently valid to justify the use of this set
of thirty variables as predictors of violent behavior. Alcoholism was one of the predictor
variables examined. The relationship between the various predictor variables and the juveniles'
subsequent behavior during the one year follow-up period was tested using chi-square analysis.
Criterion, or follow-up, behaviors were identiﬁed from family court ﬁles and probation
department records, and were divided into ﬁve groups: violent offenses, burglary or larceny,
persons in need of supervision, runaway, and other. Only seven of the original 122 juveniles
committed violent or dangerous offenses during the follow-up period. Moreover, none of the
chi-square analysis indicated a systematic relationship among predictor variables and criterion
behaviors. There was thus found to be no signiﬁcant relationship between alcoholism and any of
the follow-up behaviors.

In order to attempt to explain such inconsistent ﬁndings as those described above,
Dawkins and Dawkins (1983) carried out a study examining the relationship between drinking
and delinquency whilst taking into account the seriousness of the offense. Additionally, they
attempted to assess the extent to which drinldng is an important correlate of delinquency relative
to Other factors. Data was collected via questionnaires from the 342 residents of a public juvenile
facility in the United States during the summer of 1979. A number of variables were included in
the analysis including race, sex, father's occupation, juvenile's arrest record, association with
criminals and association with drug and heroin users. The latter two variables were identiﬁed by
asking respondents how many friends they had at home who were drug and heroin users or who
had juvenile records. The drinking variable was based upon responses to the question, "One
year before coming to the training school, how often had you consumed alcoholic beverages:
liquor, beer or wine?" Possible responses ranged from nearly every day, and once or twice a
week, to once or twice a year, and never. The same question with identical response categories
was asked, substituting heroin use' for alcoholic beverage, to produce the drug variable.
Delinquent offenses were operationally deﬁned through responses to the question. "One year

before coming to training school. how many times had you done the following?" followed by a

13
list of 21 delinquent items. For each offense, possible response categories ranged from ﬁve or
more times down to never. The delinquent offenses were further categorized as minor and
serious offenses. Minor delinquent offences included: taking something not belonging to you
worth under $50, going onto someone's land or into someone's house or building when you
were not supposed to be there; getting into trouble with the police; taking something from a store
without paying for it; and taking an inexpensive part of a car without permission. Serious
delinquent offenses inchrded: getting into a serious ﬁght; getting something by telling a person
that something bad would happen to them if you did not get what you wanted; hurting someone
badly enough to need bandages or a doctor; taking part in a gang ﬁght when your friends are
against a gang, taking something not belonging to you worth over $50; and using a gun or a knife
or some other object to get something from a person.

Analysis of the data was performed using bivariate correlation. Amonst blacks, drinking
was found to be the strongest correlate of delinquent offenses; the other signiﬁcant correlates
included arrest rate, sex, and associations with criminals. Drinking was also found to be the
strongest correlate of delinquent offenses arnonst whites; additionally, other signiﬁcant correlates
of serious delinquent offenses included arrest rate, sex, and association with drug users, whilst
for minor delinquent offenses the signiﬁcant other correlates were sex and heroin use. Amonst
hispanics, drinking was strongly correlated with minor delinquent offenses only; association with
criminals was another factor which correlated signiﬁcantly with both types of delinquent offense.

Upon ﬁrst sight, Dawkins and Dawldns' ﬁndings appeared to suggest that drinking
frequency is an important correlate of delinquency. However, when racial factors are taken into
consideration, the relationship between drinking and both minor and serious delinquent offenses
can be understood more clearly. In simple terms, black and white adolescents tend to be similar
in that their behavior exhibits a strong correlation between drinking alcohol and delinquency
regardless of the seriousness of their offenses, while among hispanics, drinking is strongly
correlated with minor offenses only. O'Brian (1977), in his study of delinquency in Warm
Springs Reservation was dealing exclusively with American Indians. His conclusion that
drinking is associated with victimless crimes could therefore be partly due to racial factors and

14
partly due to the pressures exerted upon the juveniles by tribal norms and expectations.

In order to examine the extent to which Dawkins and Dawkins' discovered relationship
between drinking and delinquency was inﬂuenced by the other environmental factors of sex,
father's occupation, arrest rate, association with criminals, and association with drug and heroin
users, the researchers used partial correlation coefﬁcients. Amongst blacks, it was found that the
other variables had very little inﬂuence on the relationship between drinldng and delinquency
regardless of the offense. The results for whites on the other hand showed that the relationship
between drinking and serious delinquency could be accounwd for in part by these other variables,
whilst the correlation between drinking and minor offenses was stronger and not greatly
inﬂuenced by other factors. The results for hispanics showed that, rather than explaining away
the correlation between drinldng and minor delinquency, other factors may in fact slightly
suppress the relationship. The partial correlation analysis was therefore seen to provide further
support for the strong correlation between drinking frequency and minor delinquent offenses.

To examine the extent to which drinking as an independent variable was a meaningful
predictor ofdelinquency both in terms ofits effect in combination with Other factors and in‘terms
of its relative impact, multiple regression analysis was employed using the same predictor
variables as before. The results of the regression analysis indicated that, when other factors are
controlled for, drinking-has an important net effect upon minor delinquency within each racial
group. I .

The only consistent results within a particular racial group, however, were for blacks, for
whom drinking was the most important single predictor of delinquency relative to other factors,
regardless of whether delinquent Offenses were serious or minor. For whites, drinking was
found to be a signiﬁcant net predictor Of serious crime, but was more important than some other
factors and less important than Others. for example arrest record and association with drug users.
as a predictor variable. Alcohol use tended to be of little importance as a net predictor Of serious
delinquency among hispanics, after having a strong relative effect on minor delinquency. Again,
however, this study utilized a sample of incarcerated youths only, and so the results applied only
to individuals who had already been categorized as delinquents and institutionalized

15
From Dawkins and Dawldns' analysis, the ﬁnding that drinking is related to minor

Offenses within each racial group studied would appear to add support to the claim that the
relationship bemeen alcohol and crime among adolescents is likely to involve victimless
Offenses. In addition, the results which showed that the relationship between drinking and
serious delinquency is strong for some racial groups, blacks and whites, but not for Others,
hispanics, suggests that other sociO-cultural factors nutst be considered when attempting to
assess whether alcohol abuse will lead to serious criminal involvement.

Drinking Patterns among Delinquent and Non-Delinquent Youth

Other studies which have analyzed the relationship between alcohol abuse and delinquency
have not concerned themselves with differentiating between different types of criminal Offense,
but rather have concentrated their analysis upon whether signiﬁcant differences occur between the
drinking behavior Of delinquent and non-delinquent youth.

For the purpose of their study, Pearce and Garrett (1970) deﬁned a delinquent as a boy or
girl beingheldinastatedetentionhome atthetimeofthe study; anon-delinquentwas aboy or
girl enrolled in a secondary school The delinquent group consisted of 163 youths from the
Youth Detention Home in St Anthony, Idaho and 185 from the Youth Detention Home in
Ogden, Utah. This sample represented the total number of students present in the two detention
homes on the day of testing. The non-delinquent population was selecwd from the four
secondary schools in Pocatello, Idaho. For logistic reasons it was nOt possible to test the total
high school population or a randomly selected group from each high school. The 466 students in
the high school sample were therefore selected by school staff personnel in an attempt to secure a
representative cross-section of each student body. Data was obtained from a questionnaire which
consisted of twenty six questions focused on drinking behavior, but which also requeSted
information of a demographic nature. A chi-square was computed for each question to determine
whether statistically signiﬁcant differences exiswd in the drinking behavior of the two groups.

Any differences discovered by Pearce and Garrett between their two groups are necessarily
clouded by the possibility of delinquents being present in the non-delinquent sample. Secondary

16
school children may have been involved in crime and avoided arrest, or may not have been

incarcerated following apprehension. In addition, the non-delinquent sample could have
contained youth recently released from cusrody.

Results of the research indicated that a larger percentage of the delinquent group drank
alcoholic beverages than the percentage within the non-delinquent group. In addition, it was
discovered that the members of the delinquent group began drinking at an earlier age than
members of the non-delinquent group, and that they generally took their ﬁrst drink with someone
other than a parent or relative, whilst the majority of non-delinquents took their ﬁrst drink with
either parents or relatives. Having started drinking, the non-delinquents generally continued to
drink with parents or relatives and to receive alcohol from them, whilst the delinquents continued
to drink predominately with friends and to receive alcohol either from friends, from other people,
or through buying it themselves.

Pearce and Garrett stated that in comparing percentages, which they did not specify, there
was an indication than drinking was not inﬂuenced by family income, the size of the community
in which the respondents lived, nor by with whom the respondents lived. Nevertheless, there
was found to be a relationship between parental drinking and the drinking behavior of the
adolescent male in both the delinquent and non-delinquent group.

Other ﬁndings in this study were that beer was the alcoholic beverage consumed most
frequently by both groups, but that a higher percentage of delinquents than non-delinquents .
drank hard liquor. Delinquents were arrested for drinking more frequently than were
non-delinquents, and more delinquents passed out or cOuld not remember activities whilst under
the inﬂuence of alcohol than non-delinquents. Following these ﬁndings, Pearce and Garrett
concluded that there appeared to be a difference between the drinking behavior of delinquent and
non-delinquent youth.

West and Farrington (1977) similarly found signiﬁcant differences in the drinking patterns
of delinquent and non-delinquent youth. Their analysis, however, was part of a longitudinal
study of delinquency, and consequently their sample differed from that of Pearce and Garrett in a
number of ways.

17
A longitudinal study can overcome some of the problems of bias and sampling. Thus, by

following the behavior patterns of the same large group of boys over a period of time, West and
Farrington were able to separate delinquents from non-delinquents gradually, so gaining control
groups without having to use matching techniques. The difﬁculty of possibly having delinquents
in the non-delinquent group, as highlighted in Pearce and Garrett's study, could therefore be
partially avioded. Although West and Farrington's moision to use ofﬁcial crime statistics in
deﬁning delinquency may have resulted in some boys who had committed offenses but had nOt
been arrested being included in the non-delinquent group, no possibility of boys with prior
criminal records being included in that group existed.

Moreover, since longitudinal research, rather than comparing groups at a speciﬁc point in
time, enables comparisons to be made over an extended time period, West and Farrington were
able to compare the drinking patterns of non-delinquents, delinquents and recidivists.

The boys in the study sample were originally chosen as research subjects because they
were attending six adjacent State primary schools in a working class area of London, England.
Atthattirnethey wereagedbetweeneightandnineyears Old. Thesamplewasfairly
representative Of the normal male population in that particular area and generation, and probably
was similar to the population of many comparable working class neighborhoods in England

The part of the study concerned with drinking habits contained a sample of 389 of the
original 411 boys, who were then aged 18-19 years Old. The analysis was primarily based upon
interviews with the 389 youths which were carried out in 1971. 101 of the young men had an
Ofﬁcial conviction for one or more Offenses committed before the date of the interview and were
consequently classed as delinquents; the remaining non-delinquent group of 288 had no such
conviction. The interviewers consisted of four men in their mid-twenties who were all graduates
with qualiﬁcations in some area of the social sciences. They were selected not solely upon
academic grounds but also with the special requirements of the job in mind. such that primarily
consideration was given to social adaptability and tact to handle sensitive topics. The whole
interview was tape recorded. No youth refused altogether to allow recording, but a few asked
for the machine to be armed Off when talking about very sensitive topies. Two of the

1 8
interviewers usually nomd down everything verbatim whilst the other two interviewers recorded

some responses in summary form.

The 101 delinquents were sub-divided into two sub-groups of recidivists. numbering 62,
who had more than one conviction, and one-time delinquents, of which there were 39. In view
Of the generally homogeneous quality of the delinquents' Offense histories, in which crimes of
dishonesty predominated in nearly all cases, the delinquents were not categorized according to the
nature of their offenses. The only exception to this rule was an attempt which was made to
identify a sub—group of violent delinquents. A delinquent was considered to be violent if it was
stated in ofﬁcial records that he had used physical violence against someone or had threatened to
do so. According to this criterion, '22 of the 101 delinquents were included in the violent
sub-group.

Anumberofquestionsregardingtheamormtandpatternofdrinkingwereaskedduringthe
interviews; frequency of consumption was assessed by asking separately about drinking habits
on each day of the week. The 95 frequent drinkers who said that they usually drank either every
day or on six out of seven days included a signiﬁcantly higher proportion who were delinquents,
41.1%, as opposed to 21.6% in the infrequent drinking group. Throughout the entire sample
beer was found to be the most popular drink. However, nearly half (46.9%) of the 98 who
reported a large weekly consumption of beer, 20 or more pints, were delinquents, whilst of the
121 who drunk less, only 18.9% were delinquents. In addition, delinquency was found to be
associated with taking large quantities of drink in one evening. Eighty one boys reported that on
their longest drinking evening of the week they usually had six or more pints of beer, and of
these 43.2%, in comparison with 21.5% who drank less in an evening, were delinquents. Thus,
in each case approximately twice the proportion of delinquents were found to be in the more
ﬁequent or greater quantity consumption categories than were evident in the light drinking
groups.

Four basic statistics were all signiﬁcantly inter-correlated: quantity of beer consumed per
week. quantity of spirits consumed per week, maximum drink in an evening in an average week,

and the number of drinking days per week. Each of these variables was then allocated a score of

19
1 to 4 points for each respondent, and these scores were subsequently combined by simple

addition to produce a global score of drinking habits. The idea was that this combination would
provide a more realistic summary measure of drinking habits than any single criterion. Where
information in relation to one of the statistics was not available, points were allocated pro rata and
the 24 non-drinkers, only two of whom were delinquent, were given the minimum score. Using
this cumulative score as a basis, 78 youths were classiﬁed as heavy drinkers, with a score of 14
or more points. This group of heavy drinkers was then found to contain 41.0% who were
delinquents as compared with only 22.2% in the non-heavy drinking group. Thus, once more
there was found to be nearly twice as many delinquents in the heavy drinking group as in the
light drinking group. Similarly, recidivists constituted 29.5% of the heavy drinkers but only
12.5% of the light drinkers.

West and Farrington suggested that, in addition to the quantity and frequency of
consumption, the tendency on the part of certain youths to become aggressive after drinking
probably contributed to the link with delinquency. Within the entire sample, more ﬁghts took
place in public houses than in any other location. Fifty seven youths said that they had been in
trouble with the police when they had been drinking, and the majority of these, 56.1%, were
ofﬁcial delinquents. Aggressive reactions after drinking were particularly closely associated with
recidivism. Of the 53 youths who stated that drinks made them more violent, 34.0% were
recidivisrs, as opposed to only 14.0% of the remaining 336 respondents who denied this effect.

Possible Common Causes of Drinking and Delinquency

A number of other suldies have added further support for the existence of a relationship
between alcohol abuse and juvenile delinquency (Jessor et al., 1968; lessor and Donovan, 1978;
Bell and Champion, 1979; Levine and Kozak, 197 9; Barnes, 1984). However, having found a
relationship between deviant drinking and Other socially deviant behavior, attempts to further
deﬁne the relationship in order to discover whether delinquency and problem drinking share any
common causal faCtors have been made with varying degrees of success.

20
Thus, Jessor et al., Jessor and Donovan, and Barnes all identiﬁed a signiﬁcant positive

relationship between heavy drinking and various other forms of deviancy such as lying, stealing.
truancy and smoking marijuana. Given this relationship, each of the ﬁve studies referred to
above tended to stress various aspects of family life as playing a vital role in the development of
deviant behavior. Whilst Jessor et al. were able to obtain signiﬁcant results, Barnes was unable
to determine any statistical signiﬁcance between parental nurturance and deviancy. Bell and
Champion's study design precluded a full analysis of the drinking behavior of the delinquent
sample and the role of the family. Full analysis of these studies and their results follows.

Jessor et al. (1968) found that, among a sample of high school students, both socially '
deviant behavior in general, and problem drinking in particular, were related to such factors as
mOther-child affectional relationship, exposure to deviant models, limited regulations and
sanctions, and mothers' feelings of alienation. In a later study, Jessor and Donovan (1978)
further developed the analysis and concluded that youthful problem drinking is "systematically
related to a multivariate network of personality, environmental and behavioral variables, a
network that can account for a signiﬁcant and sometimes substantial proportion of variation in
problem drinking," and that, "the pattern of characteristics that differentiates problem and
non-problem drinkers is one that can be conceptualized as a pattern of greater proneness to
problem behavior." (Jessor and Donovan, 1978: 1522). Thus, Jessor's two studies
emphasized that problem drinking is part of a more general pattern of deviant behavior and that.
as such, it may- be understood more fully if viewed not as a separate problem but as one
consequence of numerous environmental factors and conditions which cause additional forms of
misbehavior such as stealing and truancy.

The 1960s study by Jessor et al. was concerned with the Anglo-American,
Spanish-American, and Indian populations of a town and its surrounding rural area in South
Westem Colorado within the boundaries of an Indian Reservation. The sample consisted of the
entire local student body in the sophomore, junior and senior classes in the community school, a
total of 93 subjects. The age range was from 15 to 21 years. Data was obtained from

questionnaires, interviews with the subjects, ratings of behavior from teachers, mothers, the

21
school principal, other students, and school records. The mothers of the students were focused

on especially in order to Obtain information on, and to assist in assessing the family situation
relative to beliefs, rewards and controls. Interviewing of mothers was carried out by a team of
ﬁve professionally trained interviewers, all of whom were married women themselves. The
approach of the study was to seek multiple measures of deviance in order that the inadequacies of
any particular measure would not seriously jeopardize the theoretical tests. With regard to
alcohol use, the study attempted to measure the amount consumed, the physical and social
context of drinking, the conditions under which drinlo’ng was barred, the meaning attached to.
alcohol by the drinker, and the consequences which followed its use.

Excessive or deviant use of alcohol was deﬁned by the consequences to which it led, that
is, by the occurrence of behavior which, in itself was seen as a violation of normative
expectations, for example chronic or frequent drunkenness. An effort was made to assess as
wide a variety as possible of problem behaviors likely to be associamd with alcohol use. Whilst
any particular behavioral item was seen as perhaps not in itself being of great social concern, the
assumption made was that its recurrence, and especially its accompaniment by other problem
behaviors, would constitute an adequate deﬁnition of deviant behavior linked to drinking.

A student was considered to have had more exposure to deviance if a family member had a
court record, if his mother reported that a family member had been, in serious trouble, or if the
student himself had, according to his mOther, engaged in deviant conduct of some kind and
himself reported that one or more models of deviance were available in his experience.

In order to establish the amount of control exercised over the student in his home, six items
were used in the interview with the mother, each relating to the stability of the control situation or
to the degree of control used. The theoretical assumption guiding the selection of these variables
was that the more freedom from parental control a student has, the less likely is it that his
conformity will be rewarded and his deviance punished. The items used included rules parents
imposed, strictness, tolerance of mother, parental harmony, family stability, and training in
self-control received by the student in his own home. The measures of affectional interaction

between mother and child were also obtained from the interview with the mother, and included

22
the mother's mode of rewarding the child's conforming behavior and her exercise of regulatory

control. Affectional interaction was examined within the context of a parental reward structure.
It was considered that affection was not only conveyed by the amount of time each parent spent
with the child, but also by the parent's readiness to respond to the child's needs or problems
when they arose.

Alienation was measured by a thirteen-item scale which had been established in previous
research The score range was 0-39, with high scores reﬂecting greater alienation. Maternal
alienation was considered to Operate as an indirect inﬂuence upon the child. The mother's
perspective on life, the future, and relations with others, whilst not necessarily taught to the
child, could well be sensed by him it was believed

Exposure to deviant role models particularly proved to have a signiﬁcant relationship with
the number of times of becoming drunk within the group of high school students. Jessor et al.
were able to conclude that exposure to deviant models, limited regulation and sanction,
mother-child affectional relationship, and mother's alienation inﬂuenced the student's personality
in a way that made deviance or non-conformity more or less likely, and that alcohol abuse was
just one part of general deviant behavior.

The only other family member used in this study apart from the student hirmelf was the
mother; the roles played by the father and siblings were ignored In addition, it was noted that
students are exposed to control structures other than those provided by their parents: the formal
school system, and informal social control in the form of peer groups. Thus, the later study
carried out by Jessor and Donovan (197 8), in order to attempt to correct for these omissions,
included both analysis of parents' attitudes and the role of friends. However, data for this study
was obtained from students themselves via a questionnaire, with no interviews with parents
being carried out. Additionally, the sample was much larger, consisting of 13,122 adolescents in
grades seven through twelve. A problem drinking group was identiﬁed from the joint criteria,
frequency of drunkenness and frequency of alcohol-related negative consequences, thus making
the classiﬁcation similar to that ill the previous study.

23
The notion of problem drinkingas a part of a more general pattem of behavior was

reinforced by the fact that other prOblem behaviors, such as deviance and the use of marijuana
were equally well accounted for by the same set of variables, mother-child affectional
relationship, limited regulation and sanction, and mother's alienation. Deviance was measured
using a 12—item scale concerned with involvement in stealing, ﬁghting, property destruction,
truancy, and Other normative or legal violations during the preceding year. The problem
drinkers' proneness to delinquent behavior was revealed by less involvement in or committrnent
to conventional activities, church and schoolwork, and more involvement with other drugs such
as marijuana and with pro-delinquent activities such as lying, stealing and aggression.

Recently, in 1984, Barnes argued along similar lines to both Jessor et al. and Jessor and
Donovan, by suggesting that problem drinking in adolescents is a multivariate syndrome in
which alcohol use is completely intertwined with other psychosocial variables, and that a high
degree of parental nurturance may be a signiﬁcant deterrence to alcohol abuse and more general
deviant behaviors. Barnes indicated that problem drinking appears to covary with a complex
network of deviant behaviors, thus leading to the suggestion that problem drinking and antisocial
activities represent alternative pathways for the expression of similar need systems. Thus, if
problem drinking is integrally linked with other problem behaviors, both phenomena may have
common causal conditions.

Barnes' study builds upon socialization theory and research which has shown the family
unit to be crucial for childhood development, and has indicated that parental support and
nurturance are positively related to a range Of childhood outcomes. Recognizing the limitations
of not consulting parents directly with regard to questions such as control by parents and
closeness to parents, Barnes arranged for face-tO-face interviews to be carried out with family
members. It could be argued that studies such as that undertaken by Jessor and Donovan which
utilized the school survey method of research, whilst giving a degree of support to the theory that
excessive drinkers are less likely to feel very close to their families and are more likely to feel
loosely controlled, may not accurately reﬂect the true situation since the adolescents' answers

could be biased. On the other hand, studies utilizing parents' own perceptions of these two

24

variables are less open to such criticism. The family member interviews in Bames' research took
place independently and in the family home whenever possible. Interviews were part spoken and
part in the form of self-administered questionnaires when answers were sought to the more
sensitive questions. The sample of 124 families was selected by random digit telephone dialling,
the only constraints being that to be included in the eventual sample, the family had to have at
least one adolescent between 12 and 17 years of age and at least one parent. Subsequent analysis
of the 124 family structures obtained through this sampling method indicated that they were
closely representative of the general population according to 1980 US. Census data.

The survey of the adolescents and their parents obtained extensive information on
sociodemographic factors, drinking behaviors, youthful deviance, relationships between family
members, and parental socialization practices of nurturance and support This information was
then used to construct ﬁve variables: alcohol consumption, alcohol-relamd problems, problem
drinking, deviancy, and parental nurturance.

Alcohol consumption was divided into a three-point, high, medium and low scale; parental
nurturance was similarly divided into a three-level scale, for each parent (mOther and father)
separately, in such a way that approximately one third of each group fell into each category. The
scale was derived by assigning numerical values to such items as receiving praise or
encouragement, relying on parents for advice or guidance, and getting hugged or kissed by each
parent. The alcohol-related problem score was Obtained by adding the frequency of occurrence
within the past year of ﬁve speciﬁc alcohol-related problems: trouble with teachers or principal at
school because of drinking, difﬁculties with friends because of drinking, driving after having a
'good bit' to drink, criticism by girlfriend or boyfriend because of drinking, and getting into
trouble with the police because of drinking. Problem drinking was deﬁned as having been drunk
at least six times during the past year, or having experienced negative consequences two or more
times in the past year in at least three of the ﬁve areas mentioned above, or both.

The deviance scale was developed and condensed based upon previous work. Adolescents
were required to indicate the frequency at which they had done a series of ten problem behaviors

ranging from running away from home to beating up someone on purpose during the previous

25

year. The items were then divided into one group of ﬁve major offenses and another group of
ﬁve minor Offenses. The two sets of ﬁve variables were then used to test whether heavy
drinking is positively associated with alcohol-related problemrs and other social deviance, and
whether parental socialization factors, speciﬁcally parental nurturance/support, are negatively
associated with both alcohol abuse and other problem behaviors.

Using the range of variables as deﬁned above, Bames' study was able to arrive at a
number of interesting conclusions. A signiﬁcant positive relationship was discovered between
adolescent drinking and the frequency of deviance for a number of individual problem behaviors,
including staying out later than parents said, missing days of schools, using marijuana and '
running away from home. The highest and most signiﬁcant correlation formd was between tOtal
alcohol consumption and deviance during the previous 12 months. There were less signiﬁcant
comelations between both alcohol and deviance taken separately and age, alcohol-related
problems and school grades. In order to investigate this particular relationship more closely,
multiple regression was carried out with total deviance as the dependent variable. Total amount
of alcohol consumed was shown to account for 30% of the variance of total deviance, and once
this had been taken into account, age and school grades were not found to add any predictive
power. A similar result was Obtained using total alcohol consumed as the dependent variable; in
this case, deviance was found to be the best predictor.

Given that alcohol abuse and deviance were found to be related to one another, the next
step was to examine whether they bOth had common linkages to other background family factors.
The prOblem-drinking variable (as discussed earlier) was cross-tabulated against parental
nurturance/support, taken separately for both mother and father. Whilst there was a striking
contrast between the two lower nurturance groups and the high nurturnace group with respect to
both parents and adolescent problem drinking, chi-square Statistics did not reach statistical
signiﬁcance because of the similarity of the two groups low and medium ntnturance to one
another. Despite this non-signiﬁcance, it was concluded that the raw data lent support for the
inﬂuence of high parental nurturance/support on the development of non-problematic drinking
behavior. Mean deviance scores calculawd within levels of each mother and father nurturance

26
variable gave very similar results for each parent, indicating that adolescents who have highly

supportive nurturance relationships with their parents have a signiﬁcantly lower prevalence of
problem behaviors. Barnes therefore suggested that parental support serves as a good social
control against deviance.

Levine and Kozak (1979) suggested in the conclusions of their study of students from the
ﬁfth to twelfth grade in a middle class suburb in Illinois that lack of self-control contributed to the
frequency of self-reported antisocial behavior, particularly in younger students. They further
argued that this lack of self-control could be in part attributed to poor parental example and
inﬂuence in rule setting and behavior control. These conclusions would appear to add credence
to the work of Bames, Jessor et al., and Jessor and Donovan. However, a major methodological
problem with Levine and Kozak's study was that there was no attempt made to cross-categorize
students with respect to behavioral traits, and consequently cross-tabulations could not be made.

Data was obtained, once again, from self-administered questionnaires completed by a
random sample of 796 students in four different schools. Responses to the questions concerning
frequency of alcohol use indicated a strong comelation between age and frequency and were
therefore suggestive of habit formation. The relatively high incidence of alcohol use discovered
indicated that its use has become acceptable among many high school students who then serve as
role models for younger children.

Responses to questions regarding parental control over the students' leisure time activities,
such as how frequently they were allowed to go out with friends, who they were allowed to go
out with, where they should go, and so on, indicated a negative comelation with age: the older the
student, the less the control. This result on its own is not surprising, however what was perhaps
a surprising ﬁnding was that there was very little control and frequently marked disinterest
exhibited by parents of Stir and 6th grade students with respect to how their children should
spend their leisure timre. The majority of students in this age range, both male and female,
consistently reported not being subject to any parental rules regarding how Often they could go
out with friends, where they could go, and with whom As previously pointed out, however,

these results were based solely on responses given by the students themselves and may therefore

27
have not been accurately reﬂective of the true situation. Nevertheless. the research results did

imply that normative pressures ensure that younger students tend to follow the trends set by Older
ones.

Bell and Champion (1979), rather than investigating the relationship between alcohol use
and delinquency by consideration of social control factors, concentrated their research upon the
effects of parental separation or divorce upon youthful deviancy. Theirs was a comparative Study
carried out in Australia which was concemed with a range of drugs, including alcohol, and their
use by both deviant and non-deviant groups. Comparisons were effectively made on two levels.
First, frequency and quantity of use were compared between the deviant (risk) and non-deviant
(general) groups; second, correlates of drug and alcohol use were sought using the general group
alone, by asking them to provide self-reported data regarding their own deviancy. This method
was utilized in preference to seeking correlates within the risk group since, by deﬁnition, the risk
group would have the highest rates of all forms of deviance and antisocial behavior, and
consequently any relationship which could be discovered within the general group would
potentially be much more satisfying and conclusive.

The risk group comprised prisoners, delinquents and probationers; the general group was
made up of school and technical college students and trainee muses. When comparisons were
made between the two groups, the age groups of the samples were matched by comparing the
school students with the delinquents and the college students and trainee nurses with the
prisoners and probationers. Data was collected via multiple choice questionnaires which were
completed anonymously.

The deviants in the risk group were found to have a signiﬁcantly higher prevalence of
alcohol use than the members of the general group, the difference being particularly marked in the
younger age groups, in which use was approximately twice as prevalent in the delinquents as in
the school students.

A three-point antisocial deviance scale was then created to subdivide the members of the
general group into non-deviant, moderately deviant, and highly deviant sub-groups. Deviancy

was deﬁned in terms of minor offenses such as truancy, trafﬁc offenses, and riding in stolen

28
vehicles. Alcohol use was divided into a two-point scale of moderate and heavy use; heavy use

involved a combination of frequency and amount of drinking. No significant relationship was
found between members of this general group who were moderate alcohol users and their
self-reported delinquency levels. However, among those who admitted heavy alcohol use, the
relationship was strong, signiﬁcant, and positive.

Parental marital status was then examined for any effect upon drinking behavior. Within
the general group, no signiﬁcant relationship was discovered between present marital status of
parents and alcohol consumption, but the potential for discovering such a relationship was
restricted by two important factors. First, the sample size of respondents whose parents were
either separawd or divorced was very small compared with the number of parents who were still
mamied. Second, and perhaps more important, no differentiation was made in this part of the
study between moderate and heavy alcohol use. The combining of the two types of usage into
one single classiﬁcation which effectively asked the question, "Have you ever used alcohol?"
could have had the effect of masking any underlying trend, such as that discovered with respect
to heavy drinkers and self-reported antisocial behavior in the general group.

It would have been more interesting, and perhaps more useful at this stage to have
analyzed alcohol use in the deviant (risk) group with respect to parental marital status, since this
group reported mruch greatervariance inthisvariable than didthe generalgroup — 28% Ofparents
either divorced or separated as opposed to 8%. Unfortunately, this was not done.

Methodological Problems

Few studies dealing with both delinquency and alcohol abuse have attempted to account for
the many variables which might reasonably be expecmd to be inﬂuencing the determination of
drinking behavior in delinquents. Perhaps this is nOt sm'prising since such an undertaking would
clearly be extremely lengthy and complex. Dawkins and Dawkins (1983) and Jessor et al.
(1968) are two studies which have, to somre extent, succwded in achieving this objective.
However, the lack of consistent research dealing with this study area led Vingilis (1981) to

conclude that "the literature on the association between delinquency and alcohol consumption

29
seems to be tenuous," (p. 28).

In addition, there are a number of other methodological problems frequently encountered in
research literature on alcohol use and delinquency. The deﬁnitions of problem or heavy drinkers
are often variable and ambiguous, making comparisons among studies and the generalization of
results difﬁcult. There is also variability in the measrnement of frequency and quantity of current
and past use of alcohol When taking a straight cumulative count of the total number of times the
respondent has used the substance in question (Dawln‘ns and Dawkins, 1983; Pearce and Garrett,
1970; West and Farrington, 1977), pattemrs of use tend to be ignored The former heavy user,
the longstanding moderate user, and the current abuser may all produce similar totals, thus
making it impossible to differentiate between individuals who no longer drink heavily and those
who have just recently Started to abuse alcohol. In order to deﬁne a problem drinker some
studies not only take frequency of use into accormt but also resultant alcohol-related problems
(Barnes, 1984). However, once again these measures are arbitrary and vary from study to
study.

Another methodological problem is the lack of speciﬁcity Of certain variables, such as the
age of delinquents, which could affect the determination of drinking patterns. A statement by an
eleven year old delinquent that he drank one pint of beer per week during the last year for
example, is a different problem from that identiﬁed if an eighteen year old were to make the same
statement. However, in a number of studies it is found to be the case that all ages, which might
individually have shown great variance in drinking behavior, are collapsed into one mean score
(Pearce and Garrett, 1970; Dawkins and Dawkins, 1983). The validity of using this procedure
for estimating problem drinking among juveniles may result in misleading conclusions.

In addition, when sampling, two major different approaches are generally taken. In the
ﬁrst, researchers sample from populations deﬁned by school or age grade level (Welte and
Barnes, 1985; Jessor et al., 1968; Levine and Kozak, 1979). The second approach involves
sampling teenagers from households (Bames, 1984) or juvenile comections institutions
(Schlesinger, 1978; Dawkins and Dawkins, 1983). The comparisons of rates across studies is
thus impeded. The population of 12 to 17 year olds is not, for example, the same as grade levels

30
ﬁve to ten. Given the strong relationship between age and substance abuse (Radosevich et al.,

1979) the age pade difference between the respective populations cannot simply be dismissed
School samples also exclude school dropouts. There are some indications that school dropouts
are prone to substance use (Hughs et al., 1973; J Ohnston, 197 3) which makes the results of
school-based studies ambiguous unless some attempt has been made to allow for missing data.

One of the most serious methodological ﬂaws of many studies on juvenile delinquency and
alcohol abuse is the lack of an appropriate control poop. Many studies do not use control
groups, and often in those which do the only factor controlled for is delinquency. Pearce and
Garrett (1970), for example, used a sample from a detention home and a control poop from a.
high school, making satisfactory comparisons between the two poops concerning drinking
behavior difﬁcult. Other factors would appear to be relevant in choosing an appropriate control:
age, sex, socioeconomic status, education, race, and the interviewer and his place of interview.
The differences existing between the two groups over these variables could partially accormt for
the variations which are identiﬁed with regard to drinking behavior; the non-delinquent high
school group might drink less simply because of their greater education or socioeconomic status.

Those studies which do not use a control group often analyze the drinking habits of
incarcerated youth (Tinklenberg et al., 1974; Dawkins and Dawkins, 1983). Ill such studies, no
comparisons can be made with the drinking habits of either delinquents who avoid incarceration
or non-delinquents.

The advantage of longitudinal studies of the type camied out by West and Farrington
(1977) is that such variables can be controlled for when analysis of the data is performed. The
delinquent and non-delinquent poops in West and Famington's study developed padually over
time ﬁom the same original sample, thereby overcoming the problems of attempting to match
control to delinquent poops over a number of factors.

Of course, there is even a problem in controlling for delinquency, particularly if the term
delinquency refers to the committing of a crime as in the West and Farrington study. Not all
crimes are detected; undetected delinquents may therefore not be analyzed, resulting in

measurement error and biased results. Moreover, whilst attempting to carry out a crime, the

3 l
likelihood of detection could well be increased if the individual concerned has been drinking.

The implication is that proportionately more drinking delinquents could be detected and
apprehended than non-drinking delinquents. From this point of view therefore, self-reporwd
delinquency, as used in the majority of other studies, would appear to be a preferable measure of
delinquency and deviance. The major problem with self-reported data obtained through either
interviews or questionnaires, however, concerns its reliability and validity and the extent to
which personal responses give a true picture of the situation. Some delinquents have undergone
such extensive testing and intitutionalization that conditioning might have occurred whereby
accurate answers may not be given to direct questions. In addition, questions conceming
drinking behavior may well be regarded by some to be of such a personal nature as to inhibit true
responses (Pearce and Garrett, 1970). One important consideration in this area, which has
previously been noted, is the need to consult parents of respondents in order to obtain a clearer
picture both of the adolescents and of their familial relationships, rather than merely relying upon
the responses of the adolescents themselves.

A further problem is that, when studies do not involve a longitudinal aspect, care must be
taken in analyzing the data. Speciﬁcally it is invalid to infer that the differences between students
of different ages are developmental in nature, since in reality they are more likely to be indicative
of individual personal differences than anything else. Validity of results may also be a function
of sample size. Whilst a number Of studies have utilized large sample sins, a nornber of others
have failed to do so. J essor et al. (1968), in many ways considered a classic piece of research in
its particular ﬁeld, only used a sample of 93 students, for example. Whilst it is acknowledged
that sample size is only one concern regarding validity of research results, nevertheless it is an
important consideration.

Certain literature concerned with OOth delinquency and alcohol abuse concentrates largely
upon alcohol-related crimes. The major problem with this literature is that the term is not
necessarily descriptive of the event. On one hand a crime nriglrt be deﬁned as being
alcohol-related if the use of alcohol is part of its legal deﬁnition, for example driving whilst
intoxicated and drunkenness. On the other hand, the "alcohol-related" deﬁnition might be used

32
simply because the use of alcohol was an accompanying feature to the commission ofthe crime.

forexampleassaultingsomeoneinabarafterhavinghadtoomuchtodrink. Thelackof

consistency in the deﬁnitions is clearly apparent.

Summary and Conclusion

The research canied out to investigate the relationship between drinking and different types
of crimes appeared at ﬁrst sight to present conﬂicting ﬁndings. O'Brian, when studying
delinquency in Warm Springs Indian Reservation, discovered that the majority of referrals to
juvenilecomtforstatus Offensesandothervictimlesscrimes was increasirrgatthesametimeas
alcohol abuse among the teenagers tended to be rising. These two characteristics of the youth led
O'Brian to conclude that the strength of the relationship between victimless crimes and drinking
was stronger than that between drinking and violent serious offenses. In contrast with this
result, Tinklenberg et al. reported that, among male adolescents in Karl Halton School, alcohol
was involved to a sipriﬁcantly peater extent in violent assault cases than in non-assaultive
crimes.

Two possible reasons which may partially accormt for these contradictory ﬁndings were
suggested. First, O'Brian's study relied heavily upon the inclusion of status offenders in the
determination of a comrection between drinking and victimless crimes whilst Tinklenberg et al.
used a sample of incarcerated youth containing few if any status offenders. The absence of status
offenders in the latter sample clearly prohibited the ﬁnding of any relationship between drinking
and status offenses, and reduced the probability of ﬁnding a relationship between drinking and
victimless crimes in general Second, Dawkins and Dawkins' conclusion that racial factors play
an important role in understanding the relationship between drinking and both minor and serious
delinquent Offenses provided additional information to assist in the explanation of O'Brian's and
Tinklenberg et aL's contrasting results. O'Brian's study was concerned solely with the
delinquent behavior of American Indians. The tribal norms and expectations of the Indians may
have exerted certain pressm'es upon the juveniles resulting in delinquent behavior in the form of

status rather than violent or more serious offenses.

33

Dawkins and Dawkins' analysis'of the behavior of juveniles in a public juvenile facility
lent weight to the hypothesis that adolescent abuse of alcohol is related to victimless crimes.
Nevertheless, their ﬁnding that the relationship between drinking and more serious crime is
signiﬁcant for some racial poops and not for Others emphasized the needs to include other
sociocultural factors when examrining the extent to which alcohol abuse is linked with criminal
involvement.

Schlesinger’s study, which failed to discover a relationship between alcoholism and either
victimless or violent crime, used a much more stringent measure of alcohol misuse. Alcoholism
is not necessarily the same as drinking heavily or frequently, although of course it may be the
eventual consequence of such actiOn.

Thus, in those studies concemed with the relationship between drinking behavior and
different types of crime, there were a number of different approaches taken to deﬁning the subject
population. O'Brian's sample solely included American Indians, whilst Dawkins and Dawkins
collected data from various different racial groups; Schlesinger concentrated his analysis upon
identiﬁed alcoholics, whilst O'Brian, Dawkins and Dawkins, and Tinklenberg et al. all attempted
to deﬁne measures of heavy or frequent drinking These variations in sample characteristics both
make true comparisons between the studies difﬁcult, and explain in part the conﬂicting ﬁndings.

Moreover, with the exception of O'Brian's study, the research reviewed selected samples
from convicted and incarcerated youth. The results of these studies can therefore only be applied
to juveniles who have been ofﬁcially labeled as delinquent and placed in an institution. Many
other juveniles commit crimes and avoid capture or are convicted and receive sentences Other than
placement in a juvenile facility. These members of the delinquent population were therefore
excluded from most of the research. The use of samples of incarcerated youth is a problem
which occurred throughout the literattne which was reviewed It was not simply a weakness of
those studies which concentrated upon different types of crimes committed by delinquents and
their drinking behavior.

The research undertaken by Pearce and Garrett together with the study undertaken by West
and Farrington, both of which involved a sample of delinquent youth and a non-delinquent

34
control poop, highlighted the problems involved in selecting a suitable comparison poop in
addition to some of the advantages of undertaking longitudinal research.

Pearce and Gamett's control poop consisted of youth from a high school pOpulation while
the delinquent poop was selected from youths in custody in a detention home. The ﬁnding that a
larger percentage of the delinquents drank alcoholic beverages as compared with the percentage
of non-delinquents failed to take into account differences in the backpounds of the two poops.
Racial or other sociocultural factors, for example, might well have given rise to the variation in
drinking habits. Moreover, the non-delinquent comparison poop could possibly have contained
undetected delinquents or convicted but not incarcerated offenders.

West and Farrington's longitudinal study overcame the problem of identifying a suitable
control poop by the natural and padual separation of delinquents from non-delinquents .over
time. Nevertheless, the use of ofﬁcial statistics rather than self report data by the researchers ran
the risk of excluding boys from the delinquent poop who had committed crimes but avoided
apprehension. Barnes indicated an additional advantage of longitudinal research when she found
that her cross-sectional data analysis was unable to determine whether, in her discovered
relationship between problem drinking and deviant behavior, problem drinln'ng led to deviance or
vice versa. This clearly is a critical problem in the analysis of the relationship between juvenile
delinquency and heavy drinking, and, rather surprisingly, with the exception of Bames'
research, no other study reviewed even mentioned it. longitudinal research, by collecting data
over a long time period, provides an opportunity to compare drinking and delinquency over a
number of years, and thus can potentially assist researchers in detemnining which occurs ﬁrst, or
indeed whether they both occur simultaneously.

Despite its inability to determine the direction of the relationship, the literature dealing with
both delinquency and alcohol abuse was in general agreement that a relationship between the two
variables existed O'Brian, Dawkins and Dawkins and Tinklenberg et aL, whilst disagreeing
over the type of crime most often associated with alcohol misuse, all discovered a basic
relationship between drinking and delinquency. In addition, those studies which attempted to
identify common causal factors of drinking and delinquency ﬁrst dicovered there to be a

35
relationship, prior to searching for causal links.

Relatively few studies have addressed the task of seeking common underlying causal
factors for alcohol misuse and delinquency. Nevertheless those which have, appear to apee
upon the irnportanoe of family relationships and the family environment upon youngsters'
behavioral patterns.

Barnes, Jessor et al. and Jessor and Donovan all concluded that alcohol abuse was part of
a general pattern of deviant behavior, and, as such, suggested that it could be accounted for by
similar environmental factors. In particular, Jessor et al.'s study of an entire school in south
west Colorado, found excessive use of alcohol to be just one aspect of general deviant behavior
inﬂuenced by exposure to deviant models, limited regulation and sanction, mother-child
affectional relationship and mother's alienation. However, the research failed to include in its
analysis the effect of the formal school system and informal social control, in the fomn of peer
groups, upon the youths' behavioral patterns. The later study carried out by Jessor and Donovan
corrected these omissions but Obtained data solely from the students themselves. The importance
of obtaining data from a variety of sources was documented in the previous section concerned
with methodological problemrs, but again serves to highlight one of the many differences that
occurred in relation to the collection of data throughout the literatme reviewed. Other differences
included variation in sample ages and choices of populations from which to select samples, and
differing deﬁnitions of dependent and independent variables.

Thus, in contrast to Jessor and Donovan, Barnes used self report data from a'variety of
family members to determine a signiﬁcant positive relationship between the drinking habits of
adolescents aged 12 to 17 years and a number of problem behaviors, including staying out later
than parents said, missing days from school and running away from home. However, her
analysis was unable to distinguish a signiﬁcant relationship between problem drinlo'ng and lack
of parental nurturance/support.

Levine and Kozak argued that the lack of self-control manifested by the students in their
study, which contributed to the problem of antisocial behavior, was partly due to poor parental

example and inﬂuence in rule setting and behavior control. However, no statistical analysis was

36
undertaken to detemrrine if such parental inaction resulted in deviant behavior amongst

adolescents. Similarly, Bell and Champion's study design reduced their ability to determine the
effect of parental marital status upon alcohol consumption and deviancy in youth, although a
positive relationship was discovered between deviancy and alcohol use.

Thus, while a number of studies have suggested that family variables play an important
role in the development of deviant behavior among juveniles, their results have been somewhat
confusing. Jessor et aL did ﬁnd that imperfect family relationships contributed signiﬁcantly to
the development Of deviant behavior, whereas Bames failed to ﬁnd signiﬁcant results. In
addition, Levine and Kozak's and Bell and Champion's study desiprs precluded such an
analysis from being undertaken.

In order to arrive at a deeper understanding of the effect of family variables upon the
relationship between alcohol abuse and juvenile delinquency, it is therefore appropriate to review
literatme concerned with family relationships and alcohol consumption, and literature concerned
with family relationships and juvenile delinquency. A discussion of these two areas of literatme

comprises the next two sections of this review.

Section 2: Alcohol Abuse by Youth and its Relationship with Family Variables.

The two most signiﬁcant predictor variables in teenage drugand drinking behavior are.
parental inﬂuence and peer inﬂuence. Almost without exception, all research agrees that the best
predictors of an adolescent's abstinence or use, his frequency or pattern of use, and his attitudes
towards use, are the pattemls of use and the attitudes displayed within his farmly and his peer
poop. This ﬁnding would appear to be one of the very few, if nor the only, unequivocal
ﬁndings from numerous teenage drug and drinking studies (Radosevich et al., 1980: 147).

Many studies have been carried out in which the relative influence of parents and peers on
adolescent drinking has been contrasted. Whilst some (Biddle et al., 1980) have chosen
measures for parental pressure which are not comparable with those for peer pressure, the
majority have used comparable measures which, interestingly enough, have led to differing

conclusions being drawn.

37
Thus, Jessor and Jessor (1977) found parental norms to be more inﬂuential than peer

norms with respect to adolescent drinking, whilst Harford (1976) and Smart et al. (1978) both
showed peer modelling to have more inﬂuence than parental modelling. These apparently
conﬂicting results perhaps suggest that parents may have more inﬂuence through normative
standards, whilst peers may be more likely to inﬂuence through behavior modelling. Biddle et
al.'s study supported this theory and suggested that it reﬂected the different type of relationship
which an adolescent has with parents and with his peers. Parents were seen to constitute the
major authority ﬁgures for most adolescents and to represent the standards of the adult world.

Whilst accepting that per inﬂuence on adolescent alcohol use is a very important variable,
this literature review is mainly conﬁned to consideration of pressures exerted on the adolescent
by his family, and in particular by his parents.

Numerous studies have found parental use of alcohol to be predictive of their children's
use. Conversely, Biddle et al. (1980) suggested that parents who express normative standards
against drinking are less likely than those who do not to have adolescents who drink. They
argued (p. 235) that the positive correlation often discovered between generations of a family in
drinking behavior may occur "because parents and their children are likely to be subij to
similar demographic inﬂuences, because of weak though positive correlations between parental
norms and behavior, or because parental behavior may serve to inﬂuence styles of drinking that
adolescents will adopt when they become adults." The researchers therefore implied that
adolescent drinking may be predicted from somewhat different factors than solely parental
drinldng. Taking up this point, whilst recognizing that the literature has frequently found a
relationship between parental and adolescent alcohol abuse, the major focus of attention of the
remainder of this review will be upon the predictive power of other familial factors.

internal Family Relationships

One particularfactorwhichhasbeenfoundtoberelatedtotheexistenceandpattemof
adolescent alcohol abuse is the quality of internal family relationships (Gantman, 1978; Babst et
al., 197 8; Bloom and Greenwald, 1984; Globetti, 1972; Reeves, 1984; and Wechsler and Thum,

38
197 3). The samples used, the methodof obtaining data, and the deﬁnition of the variables have,

not surprisingly, varied between the particular studies.

Gantman's study was conducted at a mental health/mental retardation center servicing a
suburban township area in Pennsylvania. Thirty families were selected on the criteria that they
had to be intact and have children between the ages of 14 to 18. This sample produced ten
families with drug (including alcohol) abusing adolescents, ten with emotionally disturbed
adolescents, and ten with normal adolescents. The ten families with the drug abusing children
were selected from families applying for treatment at the local outpatient drug and alcohol clinic.

Abuse was deﬁned as the individual level of substance use which inhibited the adolescents
from coping with the demands of their daily routines. The adolescents used in the Study were
mostly poly-drug users, utilizing a variety of drugs including cocaine, alcohol, amphetamines,
barbiturates and LSD. The level of use exceeded two times per week and resulted in the
adolescents being unable to assume the responsibilities assigned to them by either their schools,
families or friends. The adolescents were not, however, psychologically addicted, nor was the
administration of the drugs by injection. The determination regarding drug abuse was made by
the referral source, either their family, a school ofﬁcial, the police, or the court system. The
parents of the adolescents were not in treatment at the time of contact with the treatment facility.

In order to be included in the normal control group, an adolescent had to be free from any
overt signs of psychopathy and to have had no referral for treatment since he was twelve years
old. In addition, he had to be free from drug abuse. In other words, use of alcohol or marijuana
was limited to no more than two occasions per week. This level of use was the level which the
drug and alcohol specialists at the clinic believed would not interfere with the adolescents'
abilities to cope with the demands of their daily routines. The families in this control group were
selected from vohmteers from the local community schools.

Information for the study was obtained through a one hour interview with the father,
m0ther and the adolescent together. The interview was carried out in a large room equipped with
a one-way mirror and a sound system. All family members were inforrmd of this and were made

aware of the fact that they were being observed. During the hour interview the families were

39
instructed to work together as a family unit on four assigned verbal tests. Observers of the

interviews rated and recorded the verbal behavior of each family without prior knowledge of
which children were drug abusers and which were members of the control group.

Normal families were found to differ signiﬁcantly from the families with a drug/alcohol
abusing adolescent in many fonns of interaction, including freedom of expression, co—operation,
clarity of communication, teaching techniques, and making the adolescent the scapegoat for
problems. From this result, one of the conclusions of the study was that the family was the
medium through which adolescent problems emerge. The power and potential of family
inﬂuence were further underlined, it was argued, by the ﬁnding that the families with the normal
adolescents interacted in a pattern clearly distinguishable from the families with the drug abusing
adolescents. -

Gantman's study was unusual in its use of observation of family interactions as a means of
data collection. The advantages of interviewing a variety of family members in order to obtain a
clear picture of the true family situation have been mentiomd previously in this review, as have
been the disadvantages of relying solely on the adolescents' responses to either interviews or
questionnaires. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the majority of research studies undertaken
concerning family factors and alcohol or drug abuse still do rely on this latter technique. Indeed
all of the following studies which are to be reviewed obtained their data solely from the
adolescents themselves.

The research conducted by Babst et al. (1978) was based on a sample of 8,553 students
from 102 public schools in New York State. A smvey was administered by the participating
schools during the 1974/1975 school year among seventh through twelﬁh grade students, using
guidelines provided by the New York State Ofﬁce of Drug Abuse Services. The questionnaire
was divided into several major sections: demographic and background items, attitudes towards
and knowledge of prevention programs, risk taking, family afﬁnity, and peer drug and alcohol
intake. Sixitems which appearedinthequestionnaire wereusedincalculatingafamily afﬁnity
index. It was found that in general the majority of students expressed positive feelings towards
their families. However, as they grew older, the adolescents became more independent, felt less

4o
afﬁnity with their parents, and at the same time substance abuse increased. The conclusion was

therefore made that as family affinity decreases, substance abuse increases. Clearly the
comparisons were slightly suspect as the study was dealing with different children at different
ages, but nevertheless it was believed that a deﬁnite pattern of afﬁnity and use had emerged

Bloom and Greenwald (1984) were primarily concerned with describing alcohol use by
early adolescents, 10 to 13 year olds, and by exploring the relationship between this usage and
attitudes towards and knowledge about the effects of alcohol. One of their results, the ﬁnding
that drinking took place within the family context, led to the tentative conclusion that parental
relationships with the child from birth to middle childhood are some of the most signiﬁcant
factors in determining a child's drinking behavior.

Bloom and Greenwald used a sample intermediate in size between that of Babst et al. and
Gantman, utilizing 600 children in the ﬁfth to seventh grades of four schools in Pennsylvania.
The schools were in city and suburban locations and the children were mainly from low middle
and middle class white families. The mean age of the sample was 11 years. Data were obtained
from a self-administered questionnaire completed in class. Anonymity was maintained and
conﬁdentiality was enhanced by asking teachers to leave the classroom during questionnaire
completion. The questionnaire included 71 items measuring self-reported demographic
information, drinking behavior, attitudes concerning drinking, and factual knowledge of the
effects of alcohol use. A model adapted from Jessor et al. (1968) was used to develop a scale of
early adolescent drinking classiﬁcations. However, since the number of drinkers was limited,
rather than subdividing into the more usual light, moderate, and heavy drinking categories, a
scale involving regular drinkers, experimental drinkers and non-drinkers was designed.

Categories were deﬁned by a combination of frequency and intensity of drinking, although
a non-drinker was deﬁned as an individual who had never consumed alcoholic beverages. A
drinking attitude scale was developed by asking respondents to choose one of four possible
responses - deﬁnitely true, probably true, probably false, and deﬁnitely false - to attitudinal
statements such as "Drinking alcohol makes you look cool". Responses which were the most

anti-drinking were rated as 4; those which were the most pro-drinking were rated as 1. The

41
alcohol knowledge scale was constructed by seeking a number of true/false responses to

questions regarding the effect of alcohol use on the body. The scale was scored on the
percentage of correct answers.

Contrary to the ﬁndings of the study by Babst et al., no signiﬁcant variance was found on
drinking behavior with age. In addition, there was no variation with regard to sex or ethnicity.
These ﬁndings allowed the research results to be described in terms of the entire sample. A
chi-square analysis was performed on drinlo'ng behavior with respect to attitudes and knowledge
concerning alcohol by combining the regular drinkers with the experimental drinkers ill order to
produce a simple dichotomous variable of drinkers and non-drinkers. Non-drinkers were found
b0th to have more knowledge about the effects of drinking and to have more anti-drinking
attitudes than drinkers. This ﬁnding, together with that concerning the inﬂuence of parents upon
the drinking development of adolescents, were the two most important conclusions of the study.

The study perfomred by Globetti (197 2) focused upon the drinking practices of a sample
of high school students in two relatively small Mississippi communities. The sample included
.639 students drawn randomly from grades 9 to 12. The respondents were interviewed in a large
conference room in groups of twenty ﬁve. They were not permitted to discuss amongst
themselves and complete anonymity was assured. On the basis of the interviews, it was
considered that the students were being truthful in their answering of the questions. Using 'an
interviewing technique rather than‘a questionnaire has the advantage of obtaining information
through interaction with the subjects; questionnaires allow no contact with the respondents and
also to some extent limit the type of answers which subjects are allowed to give. On the other
hand, it could well be argued that on such a sensitive topic as adolescent drinking, respondents
will be inhibited in their answers when face to face with an adult.

Problem drinkers in Globetti's study were categorized by asking the adolescents a series of
questions which, in previous research, had been identiﬁed as being warning signs of
approaching alcohol abuse. Examples included questions regarding the individual‘s increased
consumption of alcohol and their worry or concern about their drinking habits. Rather than

asking the questions directly, ﬁve items were developed to measure responses to them, and

42
responses were subsequently combined to create a problem drinking index by use of a previously

validated scaling technique. These items were: "Do you ever drink in cars or alleys?", "Do you
sometimes drink alone?", "Do you usually drink in order to get high or drunk?", "Do you drink
whenever you get the chance?", and "Do you ever worry about your drinking?" Three
classiﬁcations of users were developed: students who replied that they did not drink were
classiﬁed as non-users, those who were assigned scale scores of either 0 or 1 as non-problem
users, and those who were assigned scale scores of between 2 and 5 as problem users.

It was discovered that the students who drank usually did so under surreptitious conditions
and tended to be at variance with family norms. Factors of socioeconomic status and racial
afﬁliation were found to have little inﬂuence on problem use of alcohol. Problem users were
found to be predominantly males over the age of 16 who drank without parental approval or
supervision. They had generally been introduced to alcohol outside the home environment, and
they usually drank in uncontrolled situations. It was therefore suggested that problem users
appeared to be circumventing the social control mechanisms of signiﬁcant primary groups
including the home and family.

In addition, Globetti concluded that the nwds of the alcohol users were not being met by
their families who, in general, lacked adjustment to those needs. A parent-child relationship
scale, previously developed by Dynes in 1956, was employed to discover the situation in the
homes of users and non-users. Answers to such questions as "How frequently have you felt that
you were unwanted by your mother or father. ", and "How close are you to yom' parents?", were
classiﬁed as either favorable or unfavorable. It was discovered that as parent-child relationships
improved from poor to good, the percentage of problem users decreased In general, Globetti's
study found problem alcohol users to be problem wenagers. Misuse of alcohol was seen to be a
symptom of a more basic problem which, in order to be overcome would need changes in the
socialization process. It was predicted that the young problem drinkers in the study would
continue to experience difﬁculties in their personal and social lives unless some form of
intervention occurred. The ﬁndings thus reafﬁrmed the important role of the family in the

control of alcohol use by adolescents.

43
Similar to Babst et al. and contrary to Bloom and Grieenwald, Globetti found that misuse

of alcohol was a function of age, primarily in children over sixteen years of age. One suggested
reason for this was that. as an individual approaches adult age he needs to test the adult world in
order to assert his independence, and at the same time he is less likely to show strong attachment
to the family. Using this argument, it was further proposed that problem alcohol use would
actually decrease with maturity. Nevertheless. it was also possible that some of the young
problem drinkers were beginning what would eventually become an adult problem.

Reeves (1984), in his study of alcohol use by adolescents, was concemed with the effects
of parental power on menage drinking. Parental power, deﬁned as the ability of a parent to
control the adolescent's behavior, was studied together with adolescent drinking patterns to test
the hypothesis that the greater the parental power, the greater the likelihood of adolescents not
becoming problem drinkers. The sample for the study was a group of 191 eighteen and nineteen
year old college freshmen who were asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire
concemed with their drinking habits and their perceptions of their parents' parental power over
them. Each variable was trichotomized into low, medium and high levels. Chi-square tests of
signiﬁcance indicated that there was a signiﬁcant relationship between mothers' power and
adolescents' drinking habits, but that there was no signiﬁcant relationship between those habits
and fathers' power. The lack of signiﬁcance between fathers' power and adolescents' drinking
was unexpected and in response to this, it was suggested that perhaps a larger sample would
have yielded a signiﬁcant relationship.

Wechsler and Thum (1973) took their sample from two cities in East Massachusetts. "A"
was a small semi-industrial city with a predominanrly lower-middle and middle class population;
"B" was a middle and upper-middle class residential town commtmity. Students ill junior and
senior schools were sampled including 1,300 city A students in grades 7 to 12 and 700 town B
students in grades 6 to 12. Anonymous questionnaires were used and were designed to provide
self-reported data on personal use of alcohol and illicit drugs, personal and social characteristics,
and perceptions of the extent of drinking amongst friends. The sample was divided into two
groups according to their reported use of alcohol during the year preceding the study. Abstainers

44
and light drinkers consisted of students who reported that they had not dnmk beer, wine or hard

liquor during the year, and drunk wine or beer only, and those who reported using distilled
spirits on one or more occasions during the year but had not been drunk on any alcoholic
beverages during that same period. Heavy drinkers consisted of students who regularly drank
distilled spirits, and those who repomd having been drunk during the past year on either beer,
wine or distilled spirits. Chi-square comparisons were made to evaluate differences between the
two groups, and tests of signiﬁcance were carried out separately on the junior and senior high
school students in each community. '

In borh communities, senior high school students were about twice as likely as the younger
students to report relatively heavy alcohol use. Additionally, compared to students who used
alcohol moderately, if at all, heavy drinkers were less likely to feel very close to their families. It
wasmusconchtdcdmmmamgetswhodrinkfainyheavnytmdmbeanmawdnomm
parents. The actual direction of this discovered relationship, however, was not at all clear. It is
certainly conceivable that teenagers who drink fairly heavily, through their drinking problems
become alienated from their parents, but it is equally possible that teenagers who initially are not
close to their parents express this alienation in the form of heavy drinking. The data presented by
Weschler and Thurn precludes the formulation of a sohrtion to (this dilemma. One major
advantage of a longitudinal study in this situation would be to provide information concerning the
drinking patterns of teenagers and family relationships at various points in time, thus enabling a
detemherbemadeofwhedlerpmblemdﬁnldngmaﬁenaﬁmoccmsﬁrsnmhldeed
whether they both occur simultaneously.

All of the above studies found that the types of family relationships which existed in
various different samples of teenagers homes had a signiﬁcant association with adolescents'
drinking behavior, although each study ten®d to emphasize slightly different aspects of family
life. Gantman was concerned with the interaction between family members; Globetti more with
parental control, as was Reeves. Babsr et al. examined family afﬁnity, whilst Bloom and
Greenwald found that parents played an integral part in the development of the drinking behavior
of teenagers, although the exact role which they played was not clearly deﬁned

45
Family Characteristics

In addition to studying the impact of family relationships upon adolescent drinking habits.
Wechsler and Thum also discovered that alcohol use by adolescents tends to be associated with
certain family characteristics. Students with only one parent present in the home were found to
be somewhat more likely than those living with both parents to report that they had regularly used
distilled spirits or had been drunk. Heavy drinking also tended to be reported more frequently by
only children. No systematic differences were found according to the student's birthplace,
family birth order, father's occupation, or whether or not their mother was employed.

A recent study carried out by Amoeteng and Barr (1986) utilized a comparable sample size
and examined similar family characteristics to those considered by Wechsler and Thum, but
found slightly different results. Seventeen thousand high school seniors were selected from 125
public and private schools in such a way as to provide an accurate cross-section of high school
seniors in the USA. Data was collected from a questionnaire completed by the children in class.

Three family variables were used in the study: employment status of mother, single parent
family, and parental education Employment status of mother was included since it was
considered that an important social change which has occurred during the past two decades has
been an increase in the employment of married mothers. The suggestion was that, if a mother
works, the child might not be supervised as closely as when one parent is at home, and this could
increase the chance of involvement in deviant behavior including alcohol use. To assess this
variable, responses were sought to the question, "Did your mother have a paid job (half-time or
more) during the time you were growing up?" Family fragmentation in the form of physical loss
or separation of parents had previously been noted in the family backgrounds of adolescent drug
and alcohol users in earlier research, and it was felt that there might be a signiﬁcant relationship
to be discovered relating this family characteristic to teenage drinking. The single parent variable
was a simple dichotomous variable based upon whether or not an adolescent lived with both of
his or her parents. Parental education was included as the third family variable since the social
class of parents, especially the father, had been previously cited as a correlate of drug use and
other delinquent acts. Additionally, it was believed that parental education affects parent-child

45
interactions and might therefore have an inﬂuence upon adolescent alcohol use. The theory was

that if the parents have education and status, the costs of deviant behavior are potentially greater
for the child, and this situation may consequently deter them from participating in deviant acts.
Again, a rather simplistic, but nevertheless reasonable measure of this variable was obtained by
adding together the years of schooling of both father and mother.

Alcohol use was calculated by relating current use to frequency of use and by combining
frequency and amount. The frequency of use variable had a range of seven possible responses;
the frequency/amount variable had a range of three possible responses which reﬂected low
frequency/low amount persons, low frequency/high amount and high frequency/low amount
persons, and high frequency/high amount persons. Multiple regression analysis was used to
estimate the effects of each independent variable upon alcohol use without the inﬂuence of the
other variables. Perhaps surprisingly, the effects of mother’ 8 employment status, the number of
parents at home, and parental education were all found to be small and not statistically signiﬁcant.

This result was comparable with the conclusions drawn in an earlier study by Kane and
Patterson (1972) following their examination of the drinking habits of high school and junior
school students in seven northern Kentucky towns. In this study, in which heavy drinkers were
deﬁned as being students who reported drinking alcoholic beverages several times per week, the
parental situation, in the sense both of the number of parents at home and the father’s and '

mother's occupations, amongst heavy drinkers closely resembled that amongst non-drinkers.

Methodological Problems

The methodological problems encountered in the literature dealing with alcohol use by
adolescents and their family environments are very similar to those described previously in the
review of literature relating alcohol abuse and juvenile delinquency. In addition, although many
studies stress the importance of family relationships in the healthy development of teenagers,
particularly with regard to their drinking habits, they fail to deﬁne correlations in a systematic
manner. Moreover, the theory behind the association between adolescent drinking and family

factors is in general either not mentioned, or discussed only brieﬂy and in an unclear way.

47

Summary and Conclusion

Whilst accepting the important role that peer pressure and parental drinking habits and
attitudes have upon an adolescent's drinking behavior, the preceding literature review directed
attention towards the contribution which family relationships and family characteristics make
towards whether or not a teenager abuses alcohol.

Those studies which concentrated their efforts upon examining the association between the
types of family relationships which exist in teenagers' homes and adolescent drinking patterns
not only tended to stress different aspects of family life but they also differed in their deﬁnitions
of alcohol misuse and methods of collecting data. Direct comparisons between studies were
therefore difficult.

Thus, although Babst et al., Bloom and Greenwald, Reeves and Wechsler and Thum all
collected their data from school students via a questionnaire, Bloom and Greenwald, Wechsler
and Thum and Reeves designed drinking scales in order to classify the drinking behavior of their
subjects, whereas Babst et al. attempted to determine under what conditions alcohol consumption
increased, rather than deﬁning certain levels of drinking as being either problem or non-problem.
Moreover, drinking behavior was trichotomized into regular, experimental and non-drinkers by
Bloom and Greenwald, high, medium and low by Reeves, and was simply dichotomized into
heavy and light drinkers by Wechsler and Thum. The exact amount of alcohol which it was
necessary for a subject to consume in order to be included in a problem drinking category
therefore tended to vary from study to study.

Globetti, rather than using a questionnaire, collected information from his subjects through
interviews. It was felt that interaction with the students in an informal atmosphere would both
increase their understanding of the questions and at the same time elicit better responses.
However, young people tend to regard their drinking behavior as a personal issue, and
consequently Globetti's adult interviewers, who may have represented ﬁgures of authority to
their adolescent subjects, could well have run the risk of inhibiting honest answers. Gantman's
study attempted to overcome some of the problems involved in obtaining data via a questionnaire
or an interview solely directed at the adolescent by undertaking observations of family

48
interactions. The mother, father and adolescent were all interviewed simultaneously and their

behavior towards each other noted.

The results of the various studies reviewed provided slightly different information
concerning which particular aspects of family life inﬂuence an adolescent's drinking behavior.
Nevertheless, they were all basically in agreement that family relationships have a signiﬁcant
association with juvenile drinking pattems.

Babst et a1. discovered that, as family affinity decreases, substance abuse increases.
Bloom and Greenwald concluded that parental relationships with a child from birth to middle
childhood cannot be ignored when attempting to determine the reasons for a child's problem
drinking. Both Globetti and Reeves emphasized the importance of the family as a social control
mechanism in the prevention of deviant drinking. Wechsler and Thum concluded that students
who use alcohol moderately are less likely than heavy drinkers to feel very close to the family.

Once again, in all of the above studies the direction of the relationship remained
undetermined. It is arguably equally possible for problem drinking by teenagers to lead to poor
family relationships as it is for poor family relationships to result in adolescents drinking.

Each of the studies used cross-sectional data, thus prohibiting any analysis of the same
students over time. Babst et al. did suggest that as the students grew older they became more
independent and less close to their families, resulting in their experimentation with alcohol.
However, since the study relied upon data obtained from different children at different ages,
rather than from the same children at different ages, this conclusion clearly cannot be relied upon.

Wechsler and Thurn and Amoeteng and Barr bodl examined similar family characteristics
of high school students using data collected via questionnaires, but obtained slightly different
results. Wechsler and Thurn reported that students with only one parent present in the home
were more likely than those living with both parents to have been drunk or to regularly have used
distilled spirits. They additionally found only children to exhibit drinking problems more
frequently than those with siblings. Amoeteng and Barr, on the Other hand, discovered that the
number of parents in the home did not have a signiﬁcant effect upon the juvenile's drinking
behavior. This result supported the earlier work of Kane and Patterson who concluded that the

49
number of parents in the home appeared to be the same both for'heavy and for light drinkers.

The major area of disagreement between the various studies reviewed thus appeared to concern
the signiﬁcance of broken homes as a contributory factor in the development of problem drinking
among adolescents.

Studies examining the relationship between alcohol abuse and delinquency and those
concerned with alcohol abuse by adolescents both tend to indicate that alcohol abuse is part of a
general deviant pattern of behavior. It would thus appear possible that the same pattern of family
relationships and characteristics which tend to be indicators of the potential for problem drinking
amongst adolescents could be predictors of the onset of other general forms of delinquent
behavior. Consequently, a study of family interactions and their effects upon the development of
general deviance amongst adolescents may help to provide greater insight into the role of the
family in teenage drinldng.

Section 3: Juvenile Delinquency and its Relationship with Family Variables

Broken Homes

Analysis of the literature concerning the possible causal factors of alcohol abuse among
juveniles yielded the tentative suggestion that broken homes could be predictors of excessive
drinking by adolescents. However, very few studies actually proposed that such a relationship
existed, and those that did produced. contradictory results. Research dealing with the relationship
between broken homes and juvenile delinquency has been undertaken more frequently, and the
literature is consequently comiderably more extensive. Nevertheless, in a similar way the results
of these various studies have not always been in complete agreement with one another.

Historically, the relationship between broken homes and juvenile delinquency was widely
accepwd from the beginning of the twentieth century until 1932, after which it was rejected for a
period of time. The lack of support for the existence of a relationship, which commenced in the
19305 can amost exclusively be attributed to the results of a classic piece of research canied out
by Shaw and McKay in 1932. Their study questioned the signiﬁcance of the apparent
differences in the proportion of broken homes in the backgrounds of delinquents and

50
non-delinquents. By controlling for age and ethnicity, they were able to ﬁnd the differences

between the two groups to be non-signiﬁcant. They concluded that. although the family might
well be an inﬂuential factor with respect to juvenile delinquency, inﬂuence must be sought "in the
more subtle aspects of family relationships rather than in the formal break in the family
organization." (p. 524).

Although Shaw and McKay's study attempted to correct certain methodological
deﬁciencies of previous studies, it too was criticized for a number of ﬂaws in its design,
including the use of a control group which contained delinquents as well as non-delinquents and
the use of a delinquent sample which only contained serious gang offenders. Nevertheless, these
methodological criticisms did not prevent widespread acceptance of the study and the resultant
temporary rejection of the importance of the broken home factor as a predictor of juvenile
delinquency.

During the past few decades however, there has been a revival of interest in the "broken
homes" theory. Both Wilkinson (1975) and Wells and Rankin (1986) suggest that the variation
in the amount of interest taken in the theory could be due to a number of considerations and not
simply the direct result of scientiﬁc evidence providing apparently conclusive grounds for either
accepting or rejecting broken homes as a predictive factor. According to this argument, changing
cultural conditions and ideologies have been seen to have had a signiﬁcant impact upon theorists'
choices of important variables in their attempts to explain the causes of delinquency;

The renewed attention given to the "broken homes" theory occurred at a time when there
were demographic shifts in the structure of the family away from its traditional form. together
with an increase in ofﬁcially recorded rates of both crime and delinquency. In addition. at the
same time there occurred an ideological shift towards more conservative values which
re-emphasized the importance of the nuclear family both as a basic element of social order and as
a policy focus for handling social problems. Competing theoretical perspectives appeared to be
failing to provide an adequate explanation of the causes of delinquency, while social control
theory, ﬁrst expounded by Hirschi in 1969, was beginning to emerge together with its emphasis
on the importance of the family structure (Wells and Rankin, 1986).

5 l
The result of the various historical developments is that today. in contrast with the

widespread acceptance of the broken homes factor as a major cause of delinquency which was
held in the early part of the twentieth century, there is considerable controversy over its relative
importance. Thus, whilst Monahan considers it to be a strong factor (Monahan, 1957), Carter
(1982), Hennessey et al. (1978), Rosen (1969) and Rosen and Nielson (1982) all disagree.
Even when signiﬁcant relationships have been found between broken homes’and delinquency,
the sizes of the correlations have tended to be small (Ranldn, 1983). In reviewing and
re-analyzing data from ﬁfteen studies in this area, Rosen and Nielson found that

"despite the variation in time, locale, sample size, name of popoulation,
deﬁnitions of both delinquency and broken home, and in basic research
design, the conclusion is clear: the strength of the relationship is very small
(even though in nine studies a signiﬁcant level of at least 0.05 was
reached)." (p. 128).

In order to achieve a deeper understanding of the relationship between broken homes and
juvenile delinquency, if indeed one exists, certain studies have analyzed the effects of a broken
home on delinquency with regard to age and sex of juveniles.

Toby (1957) found a higher relationship between the two variables amongst younger
adolescents. His argument was that parental controls are slowly taken over by peer pressures
and inﬂuences as an adolescent grows older. The younger adolescent, who is therefore more
subject to parental inﬂuence and control, would thus be more affected by a broken home
(Rankin, 1983).

Chilton and Markle (1972) also found a slightly higher proportion of broken homes among
delinquents aged 10 to 13 years than among those aged from 14 to 17. Conversely, West and
Farrington (1973) found no signiﬁcant differences in the incidence of broken homes among
delinquents by age. _

Of the studies which have investigated the effect of broken homes on ofﬁcially recorded
delinquency with regard to the adolescent's sex, Datesman and Scarpitti (1975) and Chilton and
Markle (1972) both found signiﬁcantly higher proportions of broken homes among delinquent
girls than among delinquent boys. However, the study carried out earlier by Weeks and Smith

52
(1939), who argued that the sex differential in the relationship between broken homes and

delinquency based upon ofﬁcial statistics was merely a reﬂection of the differing types of
delinquency for which boys and girls are referred to juvenile court, casts doubt upon the validity
of these results. Since broken homes were a direct cause of delinquency in the form of family
offenses including running away from home and ungovemability, for which traditionally a
greater proportion of girls have been referred to court than boys, then Weeks and Smith argued
that ofﬁcial statistics would appear to indicate that girls from broken homes would be more
predisposed to becoming delinquent than would boys. If this argument is to be persuasive, then
any difference in the significance of the relationship with respect to gender would be expected to
disappear if self-reported delinquency measures were used. Using this approach, Carter (1982)
indeed found that, using self-reported data, the impact of broken homes upon delinquency was
similar for boys and girls.

It is useful at this stage to consider in rather more detail the methodological variations and
the differing conclusions of a number of these studies concerning delinquency and broken homes
and the age and sex of the respondent adolescents.

West and Farrington's longitudinal study of delinquency, in which they considered the
association between drinking and delinquency, also included an analysis of the relationship
between broken homes and delinquency. The study, which has previously been described in
detail in Section 1 of this literature review, was based upon a sample of 411 boys who lived in a
working class area of London. One of the advantages of collecting data regarding the boys over
a number of years was that the relationship between broken homes and ofﬁcial delinquency could
be studied at different ages.

It was discovered that there was no evidence that homes broken at an early age were any
more closely associated with future delinquency than were those broken in later years.
Moreover, broken homes did not occur very frequently in the survey sample, and they were only
signiﬁcantly associated with delinquency when they were due to either parental divorce or
separation rather than due to death. Nevertheless, West and Farrington were able to discover

that, when all permanent breaks from a natural parent up to a boy's ﬁfteenth birthday were

5 3
considered, and using as delinquents all of those boys who had been conviCted of any offense

committed before their twenty ﬁfth'birthday, compared with the remainder of the sample the
delinquents included proportionately more than twice as many boys from homes broken by
circumstances other than death.

One of the conclusions of the study was therefore that, since broken homes due to death
were not signiﬁcantly related to delinquency, family discord was the main reason for the link
between broken homes and delinquency.

Rankin (1983) analyzed the 1967 and 1972 National Surveys of Youth, which in 1967 had
asked a sample of children aged 13 to 16 years, and in 1972 asked a sample of children aged
from 11 to 18 years, to respond to the same questions regarding a number of items including sex,
age and various types of juvenile misconduct. Although it was hoped to be able to investigate the
relationship between race and delinquency by utilizing this data, only four black runaways from
intact homes and seven from broken homes were found in the combined data from both surveys.
too few for any valid study to be carried out.

A total of 2,242 respondents were interviewed during the two survey years, and although
the 1972 sampling procedure differed from that used in 1967, the two samples were considered
to be comparable and to be representative of the national youth population. Interviewers asked
the children in both samples a number of questions relating to juvenile misconduct including such
items as how many times during the past three years they had run away from home, or hurt or
injured someone on purpose. The respondents were dichotomized into delinquent if they
reported at least one incident and non—delinquent if no incidents were reported. Measurement of
the family context of children was carried out by ﬁrst asking them who they were living with at
that time. Children who were living with both biological parents were classiﬁed as living in an
intact home; those not living with both biological parents were classiﬁed as living in a broken
home. Further questions were then asked to construct a more comprehensive pictme of family
context. By incorporating responses about the children's mothers, fathers and step parents into
one single measure, nine theoretically possible combinations of family context emerged.

Children were also asked the reason why they were not living with either their father or morber.

54
Possible responses included death, divorce or separation. Other responses, such as those from

children who stand that they were illegitimate or that their parents had been institutionalized
contained too few cases for analytical purposes.

No research prior to Rankin's had attempted to compare the effects of the absence of either
mother or father, nor had there been any previous research controlling for such variables as the
addition of a step parent into a previously broken home. In these two respects, therefore,
Rankin's study was genuinely unique.

Clearly, one major problem in the analysis was the ordering of delinquency and broken
homes, since the questions referring to with whom the children were living were concerned with
the present, whilst those questions regarding delinquency were concemed with a time period
including the three previous years. In order to attempt to avoid this problem, examination of the
data revealed that 73% of the currently broken homes reported in the surveys had in fact been
broken prior to the three year response period for delinquent acts. Rather than exclude the other
27% of cases, a decision was made to include them in the analysis whilst recognizing that the
temporal ordering was questionable.

Another threat to the validity of results of the analysis was that it was possible that the ﬁve
year time period between the two surveys had ill itself introduced differences in the relationship
between juvenile misconduct and broken homes. One suggestion was that, regardless of the
family context, a greater concern over being drafted into the Vietnam War may have caused an
increase in the number of runaways between 1967 and 1972. Interestingly enough, through
carefulexarnination ofthedata,Rankin was able to satisfy hirnselfthatthere were notime period
effects. I

Whilst the results of Rankin's analysis indicated a signiﬁcant relationship between broken
homes and delinquency, the size of the correlation was small when broken homes were analyzed
on a global scale. However, further analysis indicated that three types of juvenile misconduct,
running away from home, truancy, and auto theft were strongly related to a broken home in
which both biological parents were missing. The implication was thus that broken homes may be
differentially related to speciﬁc types of deviant behavior, and that the relationship may be even

55
stronger when the types of broken home are deﬁned more explicitly. Neither age nor sex,

despite both being related to an adolescent's decision to run away from home, were found to
differentially affect the relationship between family context and running away. In addition, no
clear patterns emerged regarding which speciﬁc reason for parental absence had the greatest effect
upon delinquency. Whilst a greater proportion of the sample were found to have run away from
homes in which the mother had died, when examining those instances in which the father was
missing, the greatest proportion was found to have run away from homes in which the father's
absence was caused by either divorce or separation.

Two earlier studies, by Chilton and Markle (1972) and Datesman and Scarpitti (1975) '
disagree with a number of the ﬁndings of Rankin's 1983 study. Chilton and Markle obtained
data from the Juvenile County Courts of Florida on a form developed by the United States
Children's Bureau One copy of the form was to be submitted for each child referred to court
during the ﬁrst four months of 1969. In the event, 52 of the State's 67 juvenile courts,
representing those counties which contained 96% of the State's population, submitted the forms.
Of the total of 8,944 children concerning whom the forms were submitted, information on the
living situation of 5 .376, or 60%, of the children was also provided This proportion was
constant for both sexes and major age categories, and fairly constant for races. A broken home
was deﬁned as one in which either one or both of the parents were missing. Unlike the study
carried out by Rankin, however, no account was taken of the reason for absence. Similarly, a
broken home in Datesman and Scarpitti's analysis referred to a family situation other than a
husband and wife family, whilst an intact home was operationally deﬁned as one in which both
biological parents were present. Datesman and Scarpitti did, however, classify absence by
separation, divorce or death.

Chilton and Markle's deﬁnition of delinquents included those children in their sample who
had been charged with offenses in Florida which would be crimes if committed by adults, and
those children charged with offenses which referred to juveniles alone. The information obtained
from the sample was then compared to a control group of children obtained through census
information for the entire US population in 1968. A comparison by age group of the living

56
arrangements of children charged with delinquent offenses and those in the general population

suggested that the proportion of younger children, those in the 10 to 13 age range, charged with
delinquency who were not living with both parents was much larger than the comparable
proportion of children in the general population. In addition, the comparison for 14 to 17 year
olds showed that the difference between the juvenile court population and the general population
was not so great for this older age group, although it was accepted that the interpretation of this
subclassiﬁcation by age was complicated by the fact that most seventeen year olds in Florida are
referred to adult courts. When the children charged with delinquency were subclassiﬁed by sex,
it was discovered that the family situation was less important among boys than among girls in
generating serious (adult) offenses.

Datesman and Scarpitti (1975) derived their data from court records and from
questionnaires administered to 1,103 juveniles appearing before the family Court in New Castle
County, Delaware from July lst 1968 to January 3lst 1969 who agreed to participate in the
study. The marital status of parents was found to be weakly related to the adolescent's sex when
the type of offense was not controlled for, such that female delinquents tended to come from
broken homes more frequently than did male delinquents. However, controlling for type of
offense revealed a much stronger relationship between marital status of parents and sex of .
adolescents for public policy offenses, but revealed no relationship for person and property _
offenses. In other words, females referred to court for public policy offences were more likely to
come from broken homes than were their male counterparts.

Ungovemability and running away accounted for approximately two thirds of the public
policy offenses with which females in the sample were charged, as compared with only slightly
more than one quarter of the public policy charges for the males. The data indicated that males
who were charged with ungovemability and running away were about as likely to live in
incomplete families as were males offending against persons or pr0perty. In contrast, females
referred to juvenile court for ungovemability and nrnning away were more likely to come from

broken homes than were females charged with other delinquent offenses.

57
Datesman and Scarpitti suggested that the ﬁnding that females charged with

ungovemability and naming away tended to come from broken homes could be interpreted in
two ways, both of which they considered valid Running away from home and ungovemability
are primarilyreactionstoanunstablehomeenvironment. One argumentwas thusthatthedata
was generally consistent with the idea that the effects of family disruption are more felt by female
adolescents than by male adolescents, since males tend to experience less supervision and
management by parents. The other argument was that the focal concerns of female adolescents
are more closely linked to the family situation than are those of male adolescents, and
consequently this predisposes females rather than males to run away from home during times of
family crises.

The results obtained by both Chilton and Markle and Datesman and Scarpitti indicating a
greater impact of broken homes upon female delinquents as compared with male delinquents
were contradicted by the ﬁndings of research carried out by Carter (1982), who found broken
homes to have a comparable effect upon self-reported delinquency in both females and males. In
fact, ifanything Carter's researchindicatedagreaterirnpactupon males, atleastwithregardto
the status offenses of nlnaways and truancy, thus completely contradicting the ﬁndings of
Datesman and Scarpitti. In defense of his ﬁnding, Carter proposed that status offenses comprise
those behaviors which reﬂect lack of parental supervision or control most clearly. Thus, broken
homes which inevitably lead to reduced parental supervision can be expeCted to increase
involvement in delinquency, particularly among males.

Carter used the ﬁrst ﬁve annual interviews with the sample of 1,725 adolescents, aged
from 11 to 17, who had been interviewed as part of the National Youth Survey, a longitudinal
study of delinquent behavior, for his data. The interviews, which were one hour long and were
performed by trained interviewers ill a private setting, obtained information regarding
respondents' attitudes, values, general behavior, and delinquent and dnlg-taking activities during
the previous year. Each respondent was paid $5 for his or her participation. A measure of
self-reported delinquency was developed containing 47 items which spanned a wide range of
deviant behavior ranging from socially disapproved but not illegal acts through to felony

5 8
offenses. Those respondents who listed only the natural mother and father as living in the home

were classiﬁed as being from intact homes; all other family compositions were classiﬁed as
broken homes.

All four of the above studies suggested that there was sonre relationship between broken
homes and delinquency, but each one varied in its interpretation of the signiﬁcance of the
relationship and the extent to which age and sex of the adolescent increased or reduced the
strength of the relationship. In addition, it was clear from the analysis of all four articles that the
type of delinquency which might result from a broken honre was an important factor which
should be taken into consideration when the effect of a broken honre on adolescent behavior was
being studied.

Rankin (1983) went so far as to suggest that the quality of the relationships is not
necessarily good in intact homes, nor poor in broken homes. He intimated that homes which are
intactbutirrastateofmaritalconﬂictmaybemoreharmfultoachildthanhomesinwhich
parental relationships are completely severed; separation or divorce could possibly restore peace
and end parental conﬂict in sorrre homes. Thus, although broken homes were formd to be
signiﬁcantly related to speciﬁc types of delinquency in some studies, the question of whether or
not this relationship resulted from the quality of the parent-child relationship was not addressed

Relationships within the Family '

Even when juveniles from single parent families have been found to be more likely to be
involved in delinquency than juveniles from intact honres, a number of studies have considered
various other family attributes to account for the apparent association between broken homes and
delinquency. Jensen and Rojek (1980), for example, suggest family characteristics such as
social class, family size, material deprivation, and family relationships to be alternative or related
explanations for delinquency; Thornton et a1 (1982) proposed 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 which is signiﬁcant for illegal
antisocial behavior.

59
Famworth (1984) in her analysis of 99 black ﬁfteen year olds (59 males and 40 females)

obtained results which appeared to support the hypothesis that it is the relationships within the
family unit, rather than the structure of the family itself, resulting from farrrily disorganization in
single parent families that tend to lead to delinquency. The data used by Famworth was colleCted
as part of the Ypsilanti Perry Preschool Project, a longitudinal study carried out in Michigan
which was commenced in 1962 using an original sample size of 123 black children and their
families.

The data was collected when the children were aged 15, and the sample included those
who responded to interview itenm regarding illegal behaviors they had committed prior to
reaching that age. It was felt that the virtually equal distribution of the sample into children from
broken horrres and from intact homes offered a unique opportunity to assess the impact of a
father's absence on delinquency among low-income black adolescents.

Five sets of independent variables were measured: family structure variables when the
child was of preschool age, family structure variables when the child was 15 years old, the home
environment and family mobility, the child's perception of his or her interactions with parents
and the family, and the parents' perceptions of the child's potential and their interactions with the
child. A sixth set of variables consisted of four types of delinquency self-reporwd by the child at
age 15: dishonesty, aggression (including offenses committed against property as well as against
people), escape (including running away from home and drug use), and gang activity.

The analysis was carried out by combining the ﬁve independent variable sets to create a
series of ten reduced form models, each of which was constructed to represent a particular
concept of family structure, environment, or social relationships between parents and their
children. These ten family models were then correlated with each of the four delinquency
dependent vairable outcomes, for the two sub-sets of male and female adolescents separately.
For male adolescents, of the ten models of family attributes estimated, at the 0.05 level of
signiﬁcance none were signiﬁcant for the two delinquency outcomes reﬂecting dishonesty and
aggression. Only the attribute variable based on father's presence and mother's employment at

the time was signiﬁcant for the escape outcome, whilst the two attributes relating to family

60
mobility and family size were both found to be signiﬁcant in predicting the gang activity
outcome. For female adolescents, family structure was not signiﬁcantly related to any of the four
delinquency outcomes. The only family-related variables found to be signiﬁcant were those
based on parents' expectations and perceptions of the parent-child relationship.

These results led Famworth to conclude that "the importance of family structure for
delinquency has been highly exaggerated in the popular thesis linking broken homes to
delinquency." (p. 362). It should be remembered, however, that Famworth's ﬁndings were
based exclusively upon black youths and their families. A study by Rosen (1984) found
discrepancies between black and white subjects, and therefore caution should be exercized in .
generalizing Famworth's results.

Rosen discovered that, in general, measures of father-son interaction were more important
for youths in determining delinquency traits than were structural measures based upon the
father's absence. For blacks, higher delinquency rates were found for lower social class boys
with relatively low father-son interaction and coming from a smaller family. The combination of
doing things with father, tallo'ng to father, social class, number of siblings, and presence of
father accounted for approximately 12% of the delinquency variance in this sub-group. For
whites, father-son interaction exhibited very little relationship to delinquency. Higher
delinquency rates were found for lower class boys with three or more siblings, whilst lower
delinquency rates were found for those reporting a father present in the household and coming
from a middle or worldng class family. The combination of social class, number of siblings, and
presence of father accounted for almost 6% of the delinquency variance in this sub-group.

Overall, the ﬁndings therefore suggested that a complex mix of variables were relawd to
delinquency in black youths, whereas only structural variables appeared to be of importance for
the delinquency of white youths. The analysis should be viewed with a certain degree of caution,
however, since there are a number of inherent problems involved in the Automatic Interaction
Detection (AID) technique which was used by Rosen.

The sample used was derived from a longitudinal study of black and white boys aged 13
and 14 residing in Philadelphia between 1970 and 1971. The sample of black youths was

61
obtained from all 13 year old males attending Philadelphia public schools in 1970. A comparable

sample of white boys was drawn in the second year of the study by selecting one out of every ten
14 year old white nrale students who were attending one particular Philadelphia public school in
1971. A broken home was deﬁned as the absence of at least one parent; the measure of family
size included step-brothers and step-sisters residing in the household at the time of the interview.
Two items were employed as a measrne of father-son interaction: one question asking the
respondent how often he talked to his father about the things that bothered him, such as school
and problems with friends, and one question asking how often he and his father did things
together, such as play cards or go to baseball games. These two items were asked of the
respondents even if their father was not living at honre. Delinquency was deﬁned as having a
police and/or juvenile record.

No analysis was undertaken by West and Farrington, in their study of juvenile
delinquency, to determine the relative importance of broken homes and family relationships in the
developnrent of delinquency. However, a number of variables were included in the study in
order to deﬁne both the relationship between a boy and his parents and the level of marital
harmony which existed between a boy’s parents.

When the boys were either eight or nine years old, psychiatric social workers interviewed
their parents within the marital home in order to obtain information regarding botir parents' .
attitudes towards their son, and the extent of the authority, supervision and discipline they each
exercised over him. The required information was often given reluctantly or not at all, and
consequently the social workers experienced difﬁculties in placing the parents in certain
categories. It was found that if the parents were rated as poor by the social workers in one area
of the boy's upbringing, then they tended to receive similar ratings in other areas. These
problems experienced in obtaining useful data again highlight the difﬁculties inherent in
interviewing subjects about sensitive topics.

West and Farrington also administered a questionnaire to the parents in order to detemrine
their child rearing attitudes. A twelve item authoritarianism scale was derived from responses to

the mothers' questionnaire and a twenty item scale from responses to the fathers' questionnaire.

62
The social workers repeamd their assessment of parents at various ages of the boys, and it

was found that an overall rating of maternal and paternal attitudes, produced by combining data
obtained at ages 8-9, 10-11, and 14—15 was more closely correlated with ofﬁcial delinquency
than any other single attitude rating.

West and Farrington thus found a number of family variables, including maternal and
paternal attitudes, parental discipline and supervision, conﬂict between parents, and a boy's
adjustment at honre all to be related to delinquency. Moreover, since they collected data over a
long period, it was possible for them to determine the predictive nature of certain family
variables. It was discovered, for example, that poor parental supervision and poor parental
behavior were borh equally effective predictors of future delinquency exhibited by the boys.

The Social Control Theory Approach

Biron and Le Blanc (1977) and Gove and Crutchﬁeld (1982) both employed social control
theory as a framework for their studies of the effects of broken homes upon juvenile
delinquency. A social control approach tends to view the family as providing a buffer against
deviant inﬂuences, behavior and situations. The family, by encouraging basic ties and
commitments to conventional social order and conventional activities offers an ongoing source of
motivation to conform, in addition to providing normative deﬁnitions of what is considered
valuable and appropriate in that culture. The family also has an important coercive function,
supervising, punishing and surveilling children. Various versions of social control theory have
been offered (Nye, 1958; Hirschi, 1969; Naroll, 1983), but they all emphasize the importance of
the family as a source of social attachment and normative regulation. The suggestion is therefore
that, when family structure breaks down and adults are not available to accomplish needed
activities, the family tends to lose its ability to motivate, supervise, and discipline its children
(Wells and Rankin, 1986).

The social control theory utilized by both Biron and 1e Blanc and Gove and Crutchﬁeld
relies heavily upon that formulated by Hirschi (1969), in which a delinquent act is the
consequence of a breach or rupture of the ties which unite individuals to society, or, in the family

o3
context, those ties which an adolescent maintains with his own family. Biron and Le Blane

based their perspective upon whether the structural aspects of the family are inﬂuential upon both
the quality of ties between parents and children and the methods of socialization. In their view,
broken homes offer only a partial image of family life, and consequently they included in their
analysis the quality of the ties between child and parent, measured through communication and
affection, and the methods of socialization, measrned through supervision and discipline. In
addition, this approach allowed them to investigate whether methods of socialization were in fact
the foremost causes in explaining delinquency.

A self-report questionnaire was administered in public schools belonging to the French
section of the Catholic school board of Montreal, Canada in May, 1973 as a means of data
collection for the study. The sampling was carried out in eight high schools within which certain
classes were selected because of their adequate sex and age ratios. The consequence of this was
that the ﬁnal sample consisted of 326 subjects whose ages ranged from 12 to 13 years, and who
were nunrerically equally divided between male and female. Structrn'al aspects of the family were
measured by an index composed of three indicators: mother's employment, number of children,
and farrrily cohesion. A score of 0 was given if the subject's mother was a housewife, if there
were less than three children, and if the parents lived together. A maximum score of 3 was
attributed to the subjects who had none of these attributes. One hundred and twenty nine
subjects, or 39.6%, obtained a score of 0, whilst eighty eight, 27 %, scored a maximum of 3. A
total of 27 items were used to measure the psycho-sociological aspects of family environrrrent,
and these were then regrouped using factor analysis into the two dimensions of supervision and
discipline and communication and affection. Home-based delinquency was deﬁned in terms of
ﬁve items ranging from a refusal to do as told by parents to nmning away from home for a period
of more than twenty four hours.

Biron and Le Blarrc's analysis showed that the structure of the farrrily had an indirect effect
upon home-based delinquency, whilst supervision and commrrrrication had a more immediate
impact on this form of deviancy. A preliminary analysis of age and sex differences indicated that

there were no changes in the results when age variations were taken into account, and whilst

64
there were slightly different results obtained for males and females when controlling for sex,

these differences were n0t large enough to be statistically signiﬁcant.

Hirschi's ﬁndings that delinquency is negatively related to the degree of parental-child
attachment led Gove and Crutchﬁeld (1982) to emphasize the importance of this attachment in
their analysis. According to Hirschi, attachments between parents and children are nranifest in a
number of dirrrensions with regard to juvenile delinquency.

Firscanachedchildrenaremore likelytospendtirneinthe presenceoftheirparents,thus
allowing little time to take part in delinquent activities (Hirschi, 1969: 85). Second, parents of
these children are more likely to be 'psychologically preserrt' at other times, causing the child to
ask "What will my parents think?" (p. 88). Third, intimacy of communication is an important
dimension ofparent-child attachnrent; the attachedchildisusedto sharinghis orherlifewith
parents as aresultofahistory ofintimate commrrrricatiorrs, whichinturnenhances
conrrrrrrrrications in the future (p. 96). Within this context, the degree to which a child cares what
his parents think of his behavior is pivotal. The social control functions afforded by the three
dimensions of parent-child attachment will therefore tend to diminish in the absence of a child's
love and respect for his parents.

The study carried out by Gove and Crutchﬁeld differed (from many others with respect to
data collection, since data was obtained from parents in a systerrratic manner rather than from the
adolescents themselves. Households were chosen randonrly in Chicago from census tracts, and
the resultant sample was considered to be fairly accurately respresentative of the entire Chicago
population, numbering some 620 families. Interviews were then carried out with the parents in
each household, and the majority of the questions about their children dealt with a speciﬁc
selected child, namely the child in the home who was closest to 13 years old By focusing on
one clrilditwasfeltthatmoreexactirrformatiorrcouldbeobtained, arrdtheyears arourrdtheage
of 13 were believed by the researchers to be crucial for parent-child interactions.

The range of independent variables utilized in the analysis included race, socioeconomic
status, marital status, nervous breakdowns in the past year, space for child, parents' knowledge

of child's friends, the degree to which parents felt "hassled" by their children, the parents'

65
supportive behavior, good marital interaction, poor marital interaction and the parents' interaction
with the pre-selected child A juvenile was classiﬁed as a delinquent if the parents answered yes
to any of six questions relating to deviant activities, including such items as running away from
home and gettinginto trouble with the police.

In addition to collecting the data from interviews with the parents, a further innovation in
Gove and Crutchﬁeld's study was their attempt to control for the possiblity that the interaction
effect could be either from parent to child or from child to parent. The most serious limitation of
the study, however, was its lack of an objective measure of delinquency and its reliance upon
parents' perceptions and their willingness to report instances of deviant behavior exhibitied by,
their children Virtually all of the studies examined so far in this review have been based upon
either self-report data or ofﬁcial delinquency statistics.

Results of the analysis showed that the way in which the parent experienced the child was
by far the strongest predictor of delinquency. This relationship was interpreted as meaning two
things. First, parents who tend not to get along with their children and who are dissatisﬁed with
how their children behave probably act in ways which promote misbehavior. Second children
who misbehave tend to promOte negative feelings and actions on the part of their parents.
Furthermore, the strength of the relationship was believed to suggest that the way in which
parents feel about their children does have an effect upon whether those children will become
delinquents. Moreover, the delinquency variables were formd to be different for boys and girls.
For boys, those conring from single-parent households were found. to be much more likely to be
delinquent than those from intact homes, in which delinquency was found to be fairly strongly
related to poor marital interaction. The father having a nervous breakdown was positively related
to delinquency, whilst if the mother had a nervous breakdown delinquency tended to be
inhibited. In intact households, the parents' feelings towards their children was the variable most
strongly related to delinquency, yet this relationship was not found in households with a single
parent. Physical punishment was also found to be strongly related to delinquency, but it was

unclear in which direction the relationship was.

66
The pattern for girls was different. Whilst broken homes tended to be conelated with

delinquency, in intact homes the characteristics of marital interaction had little effect upon
delinquency. Parents having a nervous breakdown in single-parent households tended to
increase the likelihood of delinquency, whereas for girls from intact homes it tended to decrease
delinquency. The parents' feelings towards their children was again the variable most strongly
related to delinquency. Overall, the relationship between physical punishment and misbehavior
was similar for boys and girls. Among intact families, the relationship was much stronger for
girls than boys however, and for girls with single parents the relationship was not as strong as it
was for boys.

In general, it was concluded that the characteristics of the parents' marriage appeared to
play a more important role for boys than for girls, whilst in contrast girls appeared to be more
reactive to variables reﬂecting parent-child interaction and parental control. Negative variables
such as broken homes, poor marital interaction, lack of parental control, physical punishment,
and poor parent-child interactions were found to be associawd with juvenile delinquency; positive
variables, such as good marital interaction and being supportive of the child were found to be
unrelated to misbehavior. Overall, whilst revealing that the relationships between the variables in
this particular area are very complex, the research was felt to have provided fairly strong support
for the view that the family plays a key role in the determination of adolescent deviancy, and to
have provided further evidence agreeing with social control theoriSts' assertions that the emphasis

should be placed on examining parent-child attachnrent.

Methodological Problems

There are numerous problems experienced in attempting to compare research studies which
examine the relationship between broken homes and juvenile delinquency. Some studies
(Chilton and Markle, 1972; Datesman and Scarpitti. 1975) have relied upon ofﬁcial statistics to
provide information regarding adolescents' misbehavior. The problems involved in utilizing
such an approach have been well documented in the past. Such measures, rather than recording

the actual amount of deviance, simply reﬂect the authorities' reactions to certain types of illegal

67
behavior. In addition, many offenses remain undetected by juvenile authorities (Sellin and

Wolfgang, 1964).

The problem of bias in the use of ofﬁcial statistics has been found to be particularly great
with regard to the relationship between broken homes and juvenile delinquency. Juveniles from
broken homes are more likely to be referred to the police by neighbors, school ofﬁcials, welfare
workers, and parents in cases of deviant behavior than adolescents from intact homes (N ye,
1958; Datesman and Scarpitti, 1975). In addition, the courts' attitude has tended to be one which
reﬂects the philosophy that children from broken homes need the protective environment of the
justice system more than children from intact homes (Hennessy et al., 197 8; Thomas and
Severdes, 1975). Thus, studies using ofﬁcial delinquency measures generally ﬁnd a stronger
relationship between broken homes and delinquency than do studies examining self-reported data
(J ohnstone, 1980; Rankin, 1983). However, knowledge of a child's family situation may
inﬂuence the perception of their behavior not only by the police but also by their teachers and
even their parents. Hence, studies which have collected data from teachers' and parents' ratings
of delinquent behavior should similarly be treated with caution (Wells and Rankin, 1986; Gove
and Crutchﬁeld, 1982).

Moreover, the term delinquency itself can be used to refer to a wide variety of illegal or
antisocial behavior. Broken homes may be found to be correlated with only certain types of
delinquency rather than being a signiﬁcant predictor of all types. Whilst some studies (Rankin,
1983; Gove and Crutchﬁeld, 1982; Famworth, 1984; Datesnran and Scarpitti, 1975; Chilton and
Markle, 1972) assess the relationship between broken homes and various types of delinquency,
others (Biron and Le Blanc, 1977) concentrate on one speciﬁc type of behavior, for example
running away from home. Since problem homes could be positively related to certain delinquent
acts and negatively associated with Others, the study of delinquency as a general concept could
result in the possible suppression of a signiﬁcantly large association between speciﬁc types of
delinquent behavior and broken homes (Ranldn, 1983).

Similarly, many studies differ in their deﬁnition of what constitutes a broken home. The

majority deﬁne a broken home as being one in which at least one of the parents is absent due to

68
death, separation, desertion or divorce, whilst certain studies make the distinction of which
parent is missing, based upon the suggestion that the effects are not equivalent for mother
absence and father absence since the two parents play different roles in the child's upbringing.
Nye (1958) argues that the ties to the father have a greater inhibiting effect upon delinquency than
those to the motirer; Hirschi, on the Other hand suggests that the attachment to one parent is as
effective as the attachment to both parents in preventing delinquency, and therefore that the
differences in the impact of one parent or the other on delinquency are probably negligible
(Hirschi, 1969). Other studies include a working mother in the analysis of broken homes
(Famworth, 1984; Biron and Le Blanc, 1977).

The problem of deﬁning a broken home as the loss of at least one biological parent is that
the added difﬁculty in raising the child might not be the same for all types of breaks (Willdnson,
1974; Ranldn, 1983). Whilst the death of a parent might remove a role model for the child and
introduce economic hardship, it does not usually involve the conﬂict, friction and breakdown of
relationships normally associated with divorce, separation or desertion.

Most of the studies use cross-sectional data, and even the longitudinal study carried out by
Gluek and Gluek (1950) drew its samme from Ofﬁcially listed delinquents. The relationships
generally reported are therefore those which exist after the juvenile has established a pattem of
rrrisbehavior and delinquency, a fact which calls into question the direction of the relationships.
Thus, poor parent-child relationships, for example, could be a product of juvenile misbehavior,

rather than vice versa.

Summary and Conclusion

This section of the literature review has shown that, in contrast with the widespread
acceptance of broken homes as a major cause of delinquency during the early part of the twentieth
century, today there is disagreenrent among researchers over its relative importance. In addition,
the methodological problems discussed above once again highlight the many differences which
exist in the designs of studies and hinder their comparability. The true association of broken

9 homes with delinquency is therefore very difﬁcult to determine from the literature reviewed.

69
Toby, Chilton and Markle, and Datesman and Scarpitu' concluded that the relationship

between delinquency and broken homes was stronger for younger children and/or females than
for older children and/or males. When controlling for the type of offense, Datesman and
Scarpitti's results indicated an even stronger relationship between the marital status of parents and
the sex of the adolescent for ungovemability and mnning away. Thus, whilst males who were
charged with these two offenses were about as likely to live in incomplete families as were males
who offended against persons or property, females who were referred to court for the former two
Offenses were more likely to corrre from broken homes than were females charged with other
more serious delinquent offenses.

These differences in the strength of the relationship with regard to the age and sex of the
juvenile in part provided an explanation for the initial inconsistencies which appeared to exist
between research results. Even then, however, not all researchers were in agreerrrent since West
and Farrington and Biron and le Blane both found no signiﬁcant differences in the incidence of
broken homes among delinquents by age, and Carter's study indicated dlat broken homes had a
greater impact upon males, at least with regard to status offenses and truancy, than females.

An earlier study carried out by Weeks and Smith argued that any discovered differences in
the strength of the relationship between broken homes and delinquency according to gender
which relied upon ofﬁcial statistics,as did the work of both Chilton and Markle and Datesman
and Scarpitti, were simply reﬂections of the different types of delinquency for which boys and
girls were sent to court. Weeks and Smith further pointed out that broken homes were more
likely to be related to such delinquent offenses as ungovemability and nmning away from home,
for which referrals to court were more frequent for girls than for boys. The argument was thus
that if self-reported delinquency measures were used, as was the case in Carter's study, then the
gender differential in the relationship between broken homes and delinquency would disappear.

Nevertheless, although most of the studies reviewed placed different emphasis upon the
effect of age and sex on the strength of the relationship between broken homes and juvenile
delinquency, they were in general agreenrent that the type of delinquency exhibited was of critical
importance in deﬁning the relationship.

70
Rankin's study was unusual in the sense that he attempted to compare the effects of the

absence of either a mother or father, and the addition of a step-parent into a previously broken
home, upon juvenile misconduct. It was discovered that running away from horrre, truancy, and
autotheft were all strongly related to a broken home in which both biological parents were
missing. NO clear pattems emerged, however, regarding which speciﬁc reasons for parental
absence had the greatest effect upon delinquency. Rankin suggested, however, that one of the
problems which exists in the research analyzing the relationship between broken homes and
delinquency is that broken homes have tended to be considered in isolation from other family
variables. Clearly it is simplistic to assume that family relationships are necessarily good in intact
homes and poor in homes in which at least one natural parent is missing.

A number of studies of the studies reviewed considered a variety of fanrily factors which
might supply alternative or related explanations of delinquency. Jensen and Rojek discovered
that social class, family size, and family relationships all had a part to play in the development of
deviant behavior. Similarly, Thomton et al. proposed that problems within the family, including
poor parental-child relationships and lack of affection were related to delinquency.

Famworth went so far as to say that it was the quality of relationships within the family,
rather than the family structure, which led to delinquency. However, his study was based solely
upon data concerning black youths and consequently generalization of the results is difﬁcult.
Moreover, Rosen's analysis found differences in the strengths of the relationships between both
family structure and delinquency and family relationships and delinquency for black youths as
compared with white youths. West and Farrington found a number of family variables,
including relationships between parents and parents' attitudes towards and supervision of their
sons, to be predictors of delinquency.

Biron and Le Blanc and Cove and Crutchﬁeld relied heavily upon the social control theory
formulated by Hirschi to provide a framework for their studies. Based upon the idea that a
delinquent act is the result of a break in the ties which unite the adolescent with his or her own
family, Biron and Le Blanc included in their analysis of the relationship between broken homes
and delinquency both the quality of the ties between the parent and child, measured through

7 1
comrrrrrrrication and affection, and the methods of socialization through supervision and

discipline. Gove and Crutchfield emphasized the importance of the degree of parental-child
attachment in the development of the adolescent Hirschi had stated that attachments between
parents and children are three dimensional. a theory which provided the basis of their arguments.

Biron and Le Blane found that, while the structure of the family had an indirect effect upon
home based delinquency, supervision and communication had a direct effect. Gove and
Crutchﬁeld discovered very deﬁnite differences in delinquency characteristics for boys and girls.
Relationships between parents were more important predictors of delinquent behavior for boys
than for girls, and girls appeared to be more affected than boys by parental-child relationships
and parental control. Their analysis found broken homes to be associated with juvenile
delinquency.

Gove and Crutchﬁeld differed from the other studies in their means of data collection, in
that they obtained data from parents rather than from the adolescents themselves. Reliance upon
parents as the sole source of information regarding the misbehavior of their children clearly may
lead to severe inaccuracies in the data All of the other studies reviewed relied upon either
self-report delinquency data or ofﬁcial statistics. Each method of data collection has its own
particular weaknesses, however, since both parents and children could be guilty of providing
biased information, particularly regarding sensitive issues such as internal family relationships,
and ofﬁcial delinquency statistics are generally acknowledged to underestimate the true situation.

None of the studies reviewed adequately addressed the direction of the relationship, if
indeed a relationship exists, between broken homes and juvenile delinquency. Do broken homes
lead to juvenile delinquency, or does adolescent deviancy give rise to poor family relationships
which ultimately result in broken homes? Most of the researchers seemed to assume that the
former chain of events was more realistic, although no evidence was provided to indicate that this
was the case. Indeed, the majority of studies utilized cross-sectional data which measured family
and delinquency variables at the same point in time thus precluding any conclusions being drawn
about the direction of the relationship. Rankin's was the only study which attempted to avoid

this problem, being designed in such a way that questions relating to family structure were

72
concerned with the present while delinquency was measured three years previously.

Overall, therefore, the literature concerned with broken homes, family relationships, and
juvenile delinquency provided rather conﬂicting ﬁndings. The major common conclusion
appeared to be that both family structure and internal relationships were potentially powerful
predictors of juvenile delinquency. However, because various family factors tended to exhibit
differential inﬂuence depending upon the gender, race, and age of the subject adolescents, any
strong concensus upon which factors were the most important in deﬁning the relationship

between family variables and juvenile delinquency was effectively ruled out.

Section 4: Overall Summary and Conclusion

The literature reviewed has provided considerable support for the existence of a
relationship between alcohol abuse and juvenile delinquency. Pearce and Garrett (1970), West
and Farrington (1977) and Barnes (1984) found signiﬁcant differences in the drinking patterns of
delinquent and non-delinquent youth. In addition, the studies by Barnes and by J essor et al
(1968) suggested that, as problem drinking among adolescents covaries with deviant behavior,
both problem drinking and antisocial activities represent alternative ways of expressing similar
needs in young people. Common causal conditions may therefore possibly be found.

Bames' study also pointed out the problem of determining the direction of the relationship.
Does problem drinking lead to delinquency or vice versa? This is an extremely difﬁcult problem
to solve, especially when examining cross-sectional data collected at a particular point in time.
For example, if both problem drinking and deviance are fOund to exist in a group of 12 to 17 year
olds, as was the case in Bames' study, it remains unclear which form of problem behavior
occurred ﬁrst. It seems quite plausible to suggest that a teenager, for a number of reasons, began
to abuse alcohol and then subsequently became involved in wider forms of antisocial behavior.
However, if no positive information is available to determine this ordering of behaviors, it is
equally likely that a teenager ﬁrst became involved in deviant behavior and only later did he or
she begin drinking heavily. This problem of direction in the relationship does not negate the fact

that a relationship, either associational or causal, exists, but it does bring to light an issue which

73
must be recognized when exarrrining the relationship between heavy drinking and juvenile
delinquency. It also makes it possible to argue that the assOciation between problem drinking and
juvenile delinquency occurs not because one type Of behavior causes the other, but rather because
they both have a common cause (Trojanowicz and Morash, 1983).

Relatively few studies have attempted to assess possible underlying causes for both heavy
drinking in young people and juvenile delinquency. However, those studies which have
undertaken such an analysis appear to have emphasized the important role the family plays in the
development of a child's behavior. Thus, Jessor et al. (1968) found that exposure to deviant
models, limited sanctions, mother-child affectional relationships and mother's alienation all
inﬂuenced the probability of a school student exhibiting deviant behavior. Similarly, Barnes
(1984) suggested that problem drinking and delinquency could have such corrrrnon causal factors
as problem relationships between family members, and lack of parental nurturance and support.
Bell and Champion (197 9) investigated the relationship between alcohol use and delinquency by
emphasizing the effects of parental separation. These studies met with varying degrees of
success. Barnes was unable to ﬁnd statistical signiﬁcance between different types of parental
nurturance and support and problem drinking, Bell and Champion failed to analyze alcohol use in
the risk group with respect to parental marital status. Nevertheless, taken together the studies did
suggest the possible effect of family variables upon the relationship between alcohol abuse and
juvenile delinquency. J

Research literatme which considers the various types of crimes which appear to be
associated with heavy alcohol use has provided differing results. Thus, Tinklenberg et al. (1974)
and Wolfgang (1966) found that alcohol was involved signiﬁcantly more often in violent
assaultive cases than in non-violent crimes, whilst O'Brian (1977) infened that the connection
between drinking and victinrless crime was stronger than that between drinking and violent
serious offenses. To add to the confusion, Schlesinger (1978) suggested that alcohol abuse
cannor be considered a conelate either of victimless crimes or of more serious offenses. Some
explanation of these conﬂicting ﬁndings was suggested by Dawldns and Dawkins (1983) whose

research indicated that in order to fully understand the relationship between alcohol abuse and

74
different types of crime and deviant behavior, racial factors must also be taken into consideration.

Thus, for example, O'Brian's study, which was based upon a sample of American Indians,
could simply have reflected pressures exerted upon juveniles by tribal norms and expectations.
Dawkins and Dawkins' study additionally suggested that other sociocultural factors should be
considered when assessing whether alcohol abuse is related to serious or victinrless crime. Their
ﬁndings thus further emphasized the importance of common causal factors in the relationship
between heavy drinking and juvenile delinquency.

One major problem in the work carried out by both Tinklenberg and by Dawkins and
Dawkins, and indeed a problem which afﬂicts a number of other research studies in this area, is
the use of a sample of youths who have already been convicted and incarceramd The use of this
type of sample precludes a comparison of the drinking habits of non-delinquent with delinquent
youth In addition, there are many delinquents who are convicted bttt not incarcerated, and a
large number of youths who have comnritted crimes but have not been apprehenad The
appropriateness of utilizing a sample drawn from an incarcerated population is therefore dubious
at best if generalizations of any kind regarding drinking behavior are to be nrade.

Closely aligned with the problem Of selecting a suitable sample of delinquents for the
studies was the difﬁculty encountered in identifying a suitable. control group. The problems
involved in comparing a sample of incarcerated youths and a group of children in a high school
(Pearce and Ganett, 1970) are clear. The two groups in all probability will have had dissimilar,
if nOt very dissimilar, backgrounds and comparisons will result in retrospective bias.

By using a longitudinal study, sonre of the problems of bias and sampling may be
overcome. Glueck and Glueck (1950), for example, canied out a ﬁfteen year follow up study of
500 Boston delinquents and a matched group of non-delinquents. Use of matching techniques,
however, meant that their work was based upon contrasts between well established delinquents
and specially selected non-delinquent controls. The advantage of the longitudinal research
performed by West and Farrington was that a fairly representative sample of urban working class
youths were followed up rather than merely two extreme groups of delinquent and
non-delinquents, thus allowing for all degrees of delinquency to be present. Furthermore, over

75
time the delinquents becanre gradually separated from the non-delinquents so that control groups

could be identiﬁed with relative ease rather than having to rely upon using matching techniques.
In addition, many of the variables were measured before the youths became delinquent, thus
avoiding the problem of retrospective bias. A longitudinal study such as West and Farrington's
therefore enables many possible causal factors of drinking and delinquency to be compared over
a long period of time, rather than simply allowing for time-speciﬁc comparisons. Furthermore,
individuals who have gradually separated into delinquent and non-delinquent groups by a process
of development can be compared, a situation which is proferable to that of utilizing two groups
which the researchers have themselves chosen by the application of sonre selection method. 9

The literatme concerned with identifying causal factors Of alcohol abuse gave further
weight to the important role of the family in determining the drinking habits of teenagers.
Numerous studies have found parental use of alcohol to be predictive of their children's drinking
habits. Biddle et al. (1980), however, concluded that adolescent drinking may be predicted by
somewhat different factors than solely parental drinking. Due to the lack of data available on
parental drinking behavior for this study, other family factors have been emphasized in reviewing
the literature. In addition, certain studies have suggested that peer pressrrre and peer inﬂuence
could have an important effect upon both alcohol abuse and juvenile delinquency. For the same
reason, lack of available data to analyze, peer inﬂuence has not been considered in any detail in
reviewing the literatrrre.

Much of the research on patterns of adolescent alcohol abuse has emphasized the
importance of the quality of intemal family relationships (Globetti, 1972; Babst et a1, 1978;
Gantman, 1978; Bloom and Greenwald, 1984). These studies, however, all tended to use
slightly different measurements of problem drinking and different variables to assess the role of
family relationships in child development. Thus, Gantman concluded that the families of drug
abusing children could be distinguished from normal families in a number of forrrrs of
interaction, including freedom of expression, co-operation, and communication techniques.
Babst et al. found that, as family afﬁnity decreases, substance abuse increases, whilst Bloom and
Greenwald made the tentative conclusion that parental relationships with the child from birth to

76
middle childhood are some of the most important factors in determining the child's drinking

behavior. Globetti suggested that problem drinkers were circumventing the social control
mechanisms including the home and the family. Similarly, Reeves (1984) emphasized the
importance of parental control. Gantman used a sample of mainly polydrug users and a selected
control group, whilst the remainder of the studies used samples of school students. Babst et al.
looked at the level of substance use, whilst Bloom and Greenwald used a scale of regular
drinkers, experimental drinkers, and non-drinkers. Problem drinkers in Globetti's study were
categorized by asking the adolescents a series of questions which, in previous research, had been
identiﬁed as indicators of the warning signs of approaching alcohol abuse.

With the exception of Gantman's work, all of the above studies relied for their data solely
upon adolescents' own responses to interviews or questionnaires. Clearly, when attempting to
obtain a clear picture of the true family situation, there are a number of advantages to be gained in
interviewing a variety of family members. Each member of the family will have their own
particular prejudices and biases which can, to an extent, be negated by analyzing their responses
together with those from the other family members. Furthermore, a student completing a
questionnaire on one particular day may be experiencing strong feelings of opposition towards
his or her parents due to incidents which have occurred within the family environment in the
recent past. The responses obtained in such a situation will not be representative of the normal
family relationships.

Nevertheless, despite the differences in the variables studied and the problems inherent in
the interviewing techniques used, the studies all provide general support for the argument that
family relationships play an important role in the development of adolescents' drinking habits.

A number of other studies emphasized structural rather than interpersonal family variables
in the development of alcohol abuse among children (Weschler and Thum, 1973; Kane and
Patterson, 1972; Amoeteng and Barr, 1986). While Weschler and Thum found that a
relationship existed between the number of parents in the home and the drinking behavior of
adolescents, both Kane and Patterson and Amoeteng and Barr concluded that there was no
signiﬁcant difference between the drinking habits of adolescents with a variety of family

77
structures and parental occupations. Another ﬁnding of Weschler and Thum's study was that

students with only one parent present in the home were somewhat more likely than those with
both parents at home to self-report excessive alcohol use.

There is thus clearly some disagreement over the role of structural family variables in the
development of adolescent alcohol misuse, suggesting the need for further research in this area.
It could well be argued that structural variables, taken together with family relationships, are
related to alcohol misuse in teenagers, rather than considering the effect of structural variables
alone. This consideration is further developed in the research concerning juvenile delinquency
where it is proposed that structural family variables are interwoven with parental behavior in the
relationship of the family with delinquency.

Prior to summarizing this literature, however, it is necessary to indicate the problems
inherent in assuming the direction of the relationship between the role of the family and the onset
of any form of deviant behavior, problem drinking and juvenile delinquency included When
examining cross-sectional data relating to family relationships and drinking behavior at a
particular point in time, it would be perfectly possible to argue that the relationship exists because
the drinking behavior of the children led to a breakdown in farme communication or an alienation
among family members, rather than the other way round Similarly, in cross-sectional research
involving delinquency and family variables, the delinquent behavior of the child could give rise to
poor parental relationships, or vice versa The advantage of longitudinal research is that, through
analysis of both the family and the child's development over a period of time, it proves easier to
distinguish which of two factors appeared to occur ﬁrst, or indeed whether in fact they occurred
simultaneously. Parental separation, for example, might occur prior to the onset of
manifestations of deviancy, or subsequent to them Cross-sectional data will not indicate which
was the case. Additionally, in sonre longitudinal research it is possible to assess from an early
age parental attitude and discipline towards the child, and thereafter to identify whether this
behavior altered at all when the child began to show the ﬁrst signs of antisocial behavior. West
and Farrington's study, for example, was rmusual in its ability to determine the predictive nature

of parental behavior and supervision for juvenile delinquency.

78
The review of the literatme concerned with the role Of family variables in the onset of

delinquency helped further to deﬁne those family variables worthy of consideration. In
particular, there has been a great deal of controversy concenring the existence or otherwise of a
relationship between broken homes and delinquency. Rankin (1983), Datesman and Scarpitti
(1975), Chilton and Markle (1972), Carter (1982) and West and Farrington (1973) all suggested
that there is some relationship between broken homes and delinquency, but they tended to vary in
their interpretation of the signiﬁcance of the relationship and in their opinions of the role that the
child's age and sex plays in reducing or increasing the strength of the relationship. Thus, the
results obtained by Chilton and Markle and by Datesman and Scarpitti indicated a greater impact
of broken homes upon female delinquents as compared with rrrale delinquents, whilst Carter
formd broken homes to have a comparable effect upon self-reported delinquency in both males
and females. Perhaps more importantly, each of these studies suggested that broken homes
might be related to different types of delinquency in varying degrees. Even so, their ﬁndings
were largely incompatible. Carter found that broken homes had a greater impact upon males with
regard to status offenses, such as running away from home and truancy, ﬁndings which
completely contradicted those of Datesman and Scarpitti. Carter argued that status offenses
comprise behavior which best reﬂects lack of parental supervision and control.

Rankin suggested that the quality of relationships between parents is a factor which can not
be ignored Clearly, it is unrealistic to simply assume that the quality of relationships between
parents is necessarily good in intact homes and poor in broken homes. There might, for
example, be a great deal of conﬂict in intact homes while broken homes might be more stable in
the sense that relationships between parents have been severed, thus reducing conﬂict.

The problem of the interaction of other family variables and broken homes was addressed
more explicitly in further studies of delinquency. Jensen and Rojek (1980), for example,
suggested that alternative or related explanations of delinquency might be social class, family
size, and family relationships. Thornton et al. (1982) proposed that conﬂict in the family,
parents' social control, maternal employment, and the quality of parent-child relationships might

account for the development of delinquency in addition to the predictive value of broken homes.

79

In summary, delinquency research therefore appears to suggest that structural family
variables such as broken homes and family size are somehow interwoven with certain family
behavioral variables including parental supervision and parent-child relationships in predicting
delinquency. Given the generally agreed relationship between juvenile delinquency and alcohol
abuse, the implication is that similar results could possibly be found with regard to alcohol abuse
among adolescents.

The review of the literature concerned with juvenile delinquency suggested a theoretical
approach which could be taken in researching the role Of the family in the development of deviant
behavior, namely social control theory. Biron and Le Blanc (1977) and Cove and Crutchﬁeld
(1982) both used social control theory as a framework for their studies of the effects of broken
homes upon juvenile delinquency. The two studies particularly emphasized the work of Hirschi
(1969), who argued that delinquency is the result of the separation of individuals from the ties
which unite them to society or, in the context of the family, those ties which the adolescent
maintains with his or her own family. Biron and Le Blanc regarded broken homes as offering
only a partial image of family life and consequently they included in their analysis the quality of
the ties between the child and parent, measured through communication and affection and
through supervision and discipline.

Existing research concerned with the relationship between drinking behavior and
delinquency has been seen to provide very little conclusive evidence regarding possible common
causal factors of the two behavioral traits in young people. Whilst the literatme dealing with
alcohol abuse alone has suggested a number of possible predictive variables, as has the literature
dealing with juvenile delinquency alone, very few attempts have been made to bring these two
bodies of knowledge together in order to suggest common causal factors of bOth.

In attempting to do just that, this review of the literature has emphasized the role of the
family in representing a possible source of common causal links between delinquency and
problem drinking. It has been possible to identify a number of family variables which may be
useful in increasing the understanding of the development of alcohol abuse and juvenile

delinquency, and the relationship between the two. Family structure, including size and

80
completeness, parental attitudes, supervision by parents, and the relationships between parents
and children within families have all been suggested in the literature as being potentially useful
for explaining the development of all types of deviant behavior.

The various methodological probelrns identiﬁed in much of the work already carried out in
this area suggest the necessity for further research to be undertaken in order to add to the existing
knowledge concerning the role of the family in the development of problem drinking and
delinquency in adolescents.

The choice of samples and controls has been particularly emphasized as creating a number
of problems for researchers. Many of the studies have used samples of delinquents who had _
already been convicted and incarcerated, which not only prevented any study of delinquent youth
who had not been institutionalized, but also created problems in ﬁnding suitable control groups.
It is entirely possible that the control groups used, which were usually drawn from high school
students, contained youths who had committed crimes but who had not been apprehended, or
even youths who were on probation.

The relative advantages and disadvantages of utilizing self-report data of delinquency and
problem drinking as opposed to ofﬁcial statistics are many and complex. Nevertheless, the
problems inherent in interviewing or collecting data solely from the adolescents themselves has
been discussed in this review. The possibility of bias being introduced into a study through
adopting that particular approach has suggested the value of obtaining information from as many
family members as possible when family variables are being investigated. The necessity of
clearly deﬁning the variables to be used has also been stressed throughout the review of the
literature. Differing deﬁnitions of broken homes, problem drinking, and delinquency have
created problems in comparing the frequently very different ﬁndings.

A number of the difﬁculties involved in sampling can be overcome with the use of
longitudinal data, which enables control and delinquent groups to develop naturally, and which
measures the whole range of variables to be used in analysis at various points in time.
Commencing to measure variables at a very young age in the subjects of the study can assist in

the determination of the direction of experimentally discovered relationships.

8 1
It is therefore proposed that the current study will adopt a longitudinal approach to

examining the relationship between problem drinking and delinquency in adolescents, and will
explore the role played by certain family variables in the establishment of that relationship.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The previous chapter of this study identiﬁed various family factors as being possible
common causal factors in the development of both problem drinking and delinquency.- In
addition, the employment of longitudinal data was suggeswd as representing one method of
overcoming a number of methodological problem previously experienced by other researchers in
this area.

The present chapter opens with a description of the sample used and the nrethod of data
collection, followed by a statement of the research questions to be examined The variables
employed in investigating the relationship between juvenile delinquency and heavy drinking are
thendiscussed Afulldescription ofthe statisticaltechniquesusedprewdestheﬁnalsectionof

the chapter which analyzes the extent to which those methodological weaknesses present in
earlier studies have been avoided

Survey Sample and Data to be Used
Thedatatobeusedinthisstudyhasbeenobtained fromanEnglish longitudinal survey
which took nearly twenty years to complete between 1961 and 1981. The survey was directed
throughout by Dr. D.J. West of the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge. A number of other
peOple worked on the project, which was known as the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development, although Dr. West's chief collaborator was Dr. D.P. Farrington, who devised and
carriedoutmost ofthe statistical analysis ofthematerial.

82

83
The Sample

The Cambridge Survey was based upon a group of boys from an ordinary school
population, the study sample including all of the males on the register of six state primary schools
who were old enough to be in the fourth year classes in 1961. In addition to these 399 boys, 12
boys from a local school for the educationally subnorrnal were included in the cohort in an
attempt to make it more representative of the true population of boys living in the area. The boys
were either eight or nine years old when ﬁrst contacted. The six primary schools were situated
within a one mile radius of the research ofﬁce, which was located in a crowded urban area of
London. N0 boy of the correct age attending any of the schools in the sample was left out.

Two consecutive classroom generations were included in order to spread the work of
intake-interviewing over a reasonable period of time. A majority of the cohort belonged to the
ﬁrst generation and were taken from all six schools. A smaller number, recruited from four of
the six schools were a year younger. In addition, one whole class from one of the schools taken
from the year previous to the main group, provided what originally was intended to be a small
pilot sample, but was subsequently incorporated into the study cohort. Thus, the total cohort
consisted of 231 boys born between 1st September 1952 and 3lst August 1953, 157 born
between lst September 1953 and 31st August 1954, and 23 born between lst September 1951
and 31st August 1952. The age groups and classroom groups did not exactly coincide, since one
or two of the boys were not in the classes expected from their dates of birth. The cohort included
14 pairs of brothers so that the actual number of families involved was 397.

The reason‘for excluding girls from the survey was that since relatively few girls become
ofﬁcially delinquent, the size of the cohort would have to be greatly increased in order to include
a sufﬁcient number of them. It was considered that this would be too difﬁcult to achieve. The
neighborhood of the study was chosen because it had a reasonably high delinquency rate,
migration was low, and because a convenient ofﬁce was located in the local social center from
which it was possible to direct all of the research throughout the survey. The nearby primary
schools were allocated by the education authority and were typical of most local schools.

84
It was felt that the cohort obtained was fairly representative of the schoolboy population in

the neighborhood, a typically working class residential area where families generally were
housed in local authority accommodation and rarely rrroved. There were few immigrants in the
area and so the boys were almost all white caucasian in appearance. Only 12, most of whom had
at least one parent of West Indian origin, were black. The vast majority of the boys, 371 were
brought up by parents who had themselves been reared in the United Kingdom or Eire. Judged
on their fatlrers' occupations, 93.7% could be described as being from working class families
(categories 111, IV or V on the Registrar General's Scale of Occupational Prestige), as compared
withthenationalﬁgmeof78.3% atthattime. T'hecohortcouldthereforebedescribed as a
traditional white, urban working class sample of British origin. The ﬁndings in this study
therefore couldbe gerreralizedto sirrrilarareas inthe sorrthofEnglandbutthey provideno
information on deviant behavior in the middle classes, or among girls or inrrrrigrant groups.

Data Collection

Whilst the boys were at school, psychologists were employed to visit the schools, contact
the boys and their teachers, and administer tests and questionnaires. Between the ages of eight
andnine, all411 boys were seenas aresultofrepeatedvisitstotlresciloolsinorderto catch
some of the persistent absentees. Nearly all were seen between the ages of ten and eleven,
duringtlreirlastyearatprimary school. andagainbetweentheagesoffourteenandﬁfteen,
shortly before the earliest age permitted for leaving school.

Between. the ages of sixteen and seventeen and also between the ages of eighmen and
nineteen the cohort was interviewed by young nrale social workers. The interviews carried out
betweerrtlreages ofeighteenandnineteentookplaceintheresearchofﬁce, weretaperecorded
and, on average, were two hours long. Both open-ended enquiries, designed to encourage the
boys to talk, and a large number of speciﬁc questions were posed Between the ages of twenty
one and twenty two, the interviews were repeated along similar lines to those conducted three
years earlier, but whilst all of the delinquents were interviewed, only a quota sample of

non-delinquents were seen. Between the ages of twenty three and twenty four only certain

85
particular sub-groups were interviewed, including persistent recidivists, former recidivists who
had been free from convictions for ﬁve years, men from deprived backgrounds who had not
become delinquent, and a random selection of non-delinquents for comparison purposes.

The youths were offered a small fee for attending the interviews at the age of sixteen and
above. At the age of sixteen, 96.8% of the original 411 boys were traced and interviewed; at the
age of eighteen, the ﬁgure was 94.7%. Of the 22 boys who were not seen at the age of eighteen,
14 refused to co-operate, 6 had gone abroad, 1 was untraceable, and 1 had died From a target
sample of 241 men at the age of 21, 218 or 90.5% were successfully interviewed

Up to the age of twenty four there was a very low attrition rate due to the efforts of the ‘
researchers in tracldng down the boys. The higher attrition rate at the age of twenty four, it has
been suggested, could well have been as a result of the reduced level of spending on the project at

that time, which reduced the time and resources available to track down the youths.

At most ages, the majority of the boys were interviewed between ﬁve and eleven months
after their birthdays. For example, for the interviews canied out at age foruteen, 211 of the 406
seen were aged between 14 years and 7 months and 14 years and 11 months, while 97 were
younger and 98 were older. The median age at interview was 14 years and 9 months. For the
interview at age eighteen, the median age was eighteen years and seven months, and for the
interview at age twenty one it was 21 years and 5 months. The largest age variability occuned
for the interview at age twenty four when the median age was 24 years and 11 months. Of the 85
young men interviewed at that stage of the survey, 11 were twenty three, 34 were twenty four,
23 were twenty ﬁve, and 17 were twenty six.

It was particularly important that the boys were interviewed as close as possible to their
14th, 16th and 18th birthdays, since the gap between each of these ages is only two years. Thus.
if interviewee age had been allowed to vary too much at each stage of the study, the situation
might have arisen whereby, for example, some 15-year old boys could have been interviewed
and included in the 14—15 year old group, whilst others of almost the same age could heve been
included in the 16-17 year old group. Given this condition, the results of any analysis would not

accurately reﬂect the true differences in behavior of the boys at the two ages. The main age

86
discrepancies which occmred in the 24-year old group resulted from the inclusion within it of
individuals older than 24 years. Since this was the ﬁnal age at which the young men were
interviewed for the study, incorporation of these older subjects in this particular group does n0t
present a problem.

In addition to the interviews and tests with the boys, whilst they were still of school age
experienced female psychiatric social workers were employed to interview the parents, talking
whenever possible to the father as well as the mother. It was believed that the psychiatric social
workers' experience and training would be of help in establishing and maintaining the necessary
rapport with the parents so as to successfully elicit information about sensitive issues, detect and
circumvent evasive responses, and identify signs of disturbances in family relationships.

In order that the social workers nright obtain the maximum amount of information possible
whilst being allowed to work in ways to which they were accustormd, they were provided with a
schedule of topics to be covered in interviews, but it was left to their personal discretion as to the
manner in which information should be sought and the order in which the topics should be dealt
with. Interviews were conducted in an informal, conversational manner, in order to take
advantage of every possible opportunity to alter the tone of individual interviews depending upon
the interviewee's mood and their levels of intelligence and co-operativeness. Although a few
written notes were sometimes taken during interviews, in the main the psychiatric social wOrkers
relied upon dictating their impressions into portable tape recorders as soon as possible after
visits. Each social worker had her own group of families to work with, so that each family was
always seen by the same interviewer, except in a few cases of very reluctant parents when a
change of visitor was made ill the hope of improving their co-operation.

No stipulation could be made concerning which members of the family should be present
at any given interview, but every effort was made to ensure that at least one of the family
interviews in each household was held with the mother alone. Whilst mothers tended to be the
primary informants, the study was unusual in that it considered fatlrers' as well as mothers'
attitudes, and, to this end, fathers were also interviewed whenever they could be persuaded. Out

of the entire sample of 411 boys, a father was interviewed in 70.8% of the cases, although in

87

nearly half of these the father was not seen except in the mother's presence. Mothers were
sometimes reluctant for fathers to provide information, with the result that they themselves
provided the stumbling block for the interviewers. In such cases, if the psychiatric social
workers were able to talk to the fathers on their own, they were frequently found to be very
willing to give information, often leading to changes being made in the original family
assessments. The few fathers who happened to have been interviewed ﬁrst before their wives
were found to be particularly informative, possibly because they were not inhibited by the
thought that they might contradict what the psychiatric social workers had already been told.

Over all, most of the parents were co-operative and the interviews ranged over a large
number of topics including the boys' health and development, conduct and habits, parental
disciplinary methods, attitudes to their children, and their ﬁnancial and marital situation. During
three or four interviews with the parents, each lasting approximately one hour, the social workers
recorded an assessment of the home with respect to over 50 items such as maternal attitude,
paternal attitude, child's separations from his parents, parental vigilance, parental inconsistency
and mother's job record. Each item was categorized according to previously deﬁned criteria,
maternal attitudes, for example, being categorized as either cruel, passive, neglecting, loving,
anxious, or overprotective. Previous research by McCord et al. (1959) was used to obtain
deﬁnitions of these descriptors. These assessments were ﬁrst completed and recorded by the
time the boys were ten years old, and the parents were then re-interviewed approximately once a
year until the boys were either fourteen or ﬁfwen. The parents of 22 of the boys totally refused
to be interviewed and in a further 21 cases parental co-operation was very reluctant and gave rise
to unreliable information.

This relatively unstructured method of obtaining information from parents, utilizing social
workers as interviewers, gave rise to a number of speciﬁc problems. Interviewers were given a
great deal of scope in their assessment of parents, which allowed for many subjective Opinions to
creep into the data. Thus, for example, when one or two items were found to be rmfavorable by
social workers, most of the other items tended to be similarly assessed In addition, if the

parents happened to be communicative and were happy to talk to someone about their troubles

88
then they were generally regarded as having a large number of family problems, although in

reality they may have had no more, or indeed may even have had less problems than parents were
not so communicative or willing to talk. Nevertheless, it was found that the parents generally
preferred the open approach to interviewing rather than being asked to answer a standard
questionnaire.

The interviews with the boys at eighteen and later ages were more structured, utilizing
prepared questions to which replies could usually be recorded directly in the form of prearranged
numerical codes. Exceptions were questions regarding delinquency, violence, and sexual
experiences, all sensitive topics which, it was believed, necessitated unstructured discussion.
Self-report questionnaires administered to the boys at various ages measured not only the
commission of delinquent and violent acts, but also attitudes, for example towards the police, and
delinquent behavior of friends. The questionnaires completed by the parents provided
information about their own health and their child rearing attitudes.

A number of problems are involved in obtaining information from interviews. The
interviewers themselves must be selected with care so that they not only report responses
accurately, but also are able to extract relevant information from interviewees without intimidating
them or indicating their own personal attitudes and judgements. In addition, when dealing with
very sensitive issues, individuals not only are often reluctant to give personal information, but
they may also tend to distort their true positions in order either to be viewed favorably or to
provide those responses which they believe are expected of them. With these problems in mind,
West and Farrington made numerous attempts to verify as much of the information received from
the interviews as possible, and they found that the interviewees were generally being frank and
honest. For example, information provided conceming family circumstances, school work or
careers at different times throughout the survey was generally consistent; similarly, when
compared with the same information provided by other individuals it nearly always agreed on the
essential points. Different accounts of the same incident provided by different youths were
compared, as were responses given at age eighteen with those given by the same youth at age

sixteen. In addition, responses in one part of the interview could be compared with those given

89

elsewhere in the same interview. Differences between interviewers was also investigated, but
none of these checks provided any suggestions that the information obtained from the interviews
was either incorrect or invalid Data concerning the boys' conviction records was obtained from
the Crinrinal Records Ofﬁce and other ofﬁcial sources such as local police or court records.

NO attempt was made to determine the effects of the survey upon the boys or their families
over a sustained period of time. However, it was generally believed that the occasional intrusion
of the researchers into their lives probably had little effect upon either. The interviewers did not
interfere in the lives of the subjects. although occasionally they would provide information
advising individuals where to go for help with regard to ﬁnancial, horrsing or health needs.

Research Questions
The data collected by West and Farrington will be used in the context ofthis study to
answers the following research questions, each of which was developed from previous research

ﬁndings reported in the literature review:

1) Is heavy drinking among adolescent males positively related to delinquency?

Many researchers (for example Barnes, 1974; and Donovan and Jessor,
1978;) have suggested that heavy drinking constitutes one distinct form of
deviant behavior. If indeed problem drinking is part of a more general
pattem of deviancy, it would be expected that a relationship would exist
between adolescent drinking habits and juvenile delinquency.

2) Is heavy drinking among adolescent males more closely associated with certain types of
delinquency than others?

The literature review clearly demonstrated the possibility that the
relationship between heavy drinldng and delinquency is stronger when
delinquency is categorized into different types of crime. Those individuals
who commit public nuisance offenses are not necessarily the same type of
peOple as those who commit more serious offenses. Consequently,
different results may be obtained in the analysis of the relationship between
juvenile delinquency and heavy drinking if this fact is taken into
consideration than would be obtained were all delinquent acts to be
considered equivalent.

3)

4)

5)

6)

90

Is family structure in the form of family size and broken homes related to heavy drinking

and to delinquency among adolescent males?

Do inter-parental relationships exhibit an association with heavy drinking and with
delinquency in adolescent males?

Do parent-child relationships exhibit an association with heavy drinking and with
delinquency in adolescent males?

The above three questions are based upon the theory that disturbed
inter-parental and parent-child relationships provoke deviant behavior in
some children. Social control theory emphasizes the family as an important
source of social attachment and normative regulation. Thus, when a family
structure breaks down, it is to be expected that the family will tend to lose
its ability to motivate its children to actively avoid deviancy (Biron and Le
Blanc, 1977; Gove and Crutchﬁeld, 1982).

Does parental control and authoritarianism imposed upon male adolescents show a
relationship with their drinking habits and their delinquency? Speciﬁcally, are both low
and high levels of discipline or supervision associated with higher levels of drinking

and delinquency than are average levels of discipline or supervision?

High levels of discipline may create rebellious behavior amongst
adolescents, and this behavior will tend to lead to a weakening of the ties
which adolescents maintain with their families. In a slightly different way,
those ties may be perceived to be already weak by a child whose parents '
exercise minimal supervision over him. Social control theory would
therefore suggest that average or moderate levels of discipline or
supervision will tend to be the most effective in controlling all forms of
deviant behavior.

7) Are family structure, inter-parental relationships, parent-child relationships, and parental

supervision more closely associated with certain types of delinquency than Others?

Based upon the arguments presented in support of Research Question 2
above, individuals who commit minor acts of delinquency might be
expeCted to come from different home backgrounds than those who are
responsible for more serious crimes.

91
Variables to be Used

Those variables available from the Cambridge Study in Delinquency Development which

are relevant for the examination of the seven research questions are described below.

Delinquency variables

Many arguments exist concerning the relative merits of using either ofﬁcial statistics or self
report data as measures of delinquency. West and Farrington. in their analysis of the
relationships between drinking and delinquency and between delinquency and family factors,
employed ofﬁcial statistics rather than the boys' own self reported offenses as an indication of
delinquent behavior. However, in the present study, greater emphasis is placed upon self report
data in the examination of the various relationships under consideration. The following
discussion therefore includes a full description of both the ofﬁcial and self report delinquency
variables together with the reasons for the inclusion and perceived importance of the self report
data over the ofﬁcial statistics.

Juvenile convictions, adult convictions, total convictions, and a delinquency scale
developed by West and Farrington provide the delinquency variables measured by ofﬁcial
statistics to be used in the present study. Juvenile convictions were defined as "proved
convictions for any offense of sufﬁcient seriousness to belong to categories routinely reported by
the police to the Criminal Records Ofﬁce, or conviction for any offense invloving personal
aggression" (West and Farrington, 1977: 6).

In order to obtain accurate information conceming the boys' ofﬁcial conviction records,
repeated searches at the Criminal Records Ofﬁce (CR0) and the relevant Local Authority
Childrens' Departmmts were made. In the few cases when information obtained from the boys
or elsewhere did not agree with that in the CRO ﬁles, discrepancies were resolved by reference to
local police or com records. Six boys spent over one year of their juvenile lives outside England
and Wales. In their cases, approaches were made to the appropriate authorities and, as a result,

one of the six was counted as a delinquent.

92
Juvenile convictions concern offenses committed between an offender's tenth and

seventeenth birthdays. The age of criminal responsibility was raised to ten from eight on
February 1, 1964, on which date most of the younger boys were nine years old The
consequence was that only the older boys ran the risk of conviction for the full period between
their eight and tenth birthdays, and, in the event, the three convictions which occurred under the
age of ten were discormted. On their seventeenth birthday, the boys were legally deﬁned as
adults. Thedate ofan offense committed ratherthan the date ofappearance in court was
therefore used to decide whether to classify an offense as juvenile or adult.

The decision to deﬁne juvenile convictions as those ﬁndings of guilt for offenses normally
registered in the CRO resulted in court appearances for minor non-indictable trafﬁc offenses,
breaches of regulations, non-payment of ﬁnes, and non-attendance at school resulting in care
and proteCtion preceedings being excluded from the study data. The added exclusion of breaches
of conditional discharges, probation orders, and attendance center orders avoided the problem of
exaggerating recidivism statistics by counting one criminal offense as two.

With respect to juvenile offenders, any ﬁnding for assaultive or disorderly behavior, such
as common assault or insulting behavior, were counted as delinquency convictions regardless of
whether or not they were recorded at the CRO. Adult convictions, however, were strictly
deﬁned according to entries made in the CRO, since for adults, other sources of information such
as social services department juvenile records were not available. These adult convictions
included ﬁndings of guilt for offenses committed between the boys' seventeenth and twenty
fourth birthdays.

West and Farrington formd that ofﬁcial convictions were very largely the result of police
action against stealing, while other forms of delinquent behavior such as causing bodily harm or
arson occmred only occasionally. They therefore concluded that the number of convictions was
the best available index of severity of delinquency. Nevertheless, in order to investigate
borderline delinquents, a group of 56 boys were isolated from the rest of the non-delinquents (in
other words those with no convictions), and were described as 'police contact' cases. Those

included in this group had experienced some form of ofﬁcial police action resulting from their

93
misbehavior, although they had not received a court conviction. In more detail, police contact

cases consisted of boys who had been involved in:

a) 3);) ﬁnding of guilt for a minor offense not normally recorded in the

b) Police prosecutions which either failed or were nOt fully proceeded with

c) Misconduct notiﬁed by the police to a Childrens' Department or dealt
. with by the police juvenile bureau without prosecution

d) Ofﬁcial cautions or serious warnings from the police involving a
summons to the police station or a visit to the parents.

Each of these incidents were counted only when the information was obtained from ofﬁcial
sources or when a report by a boy- was corroborated by his parents. Nevertheless, the problem
of failing to identify all of the boys who could have been included in the police contact group
proved unavoidable.

Maldng use of this police contact group, West and Farrington were able to create a scale of
ofﬁcial juvenile delinquency. Recidivists (37 boys) consisted of those youths who had received
two or more convictions for juvenile offenses, whilst one-time delinquents (47), by deﬁnition
had been convicted only once as juveniles. The remaining non-delinquents were then separated
into those with no police record (271) and police contact cases (56). Those in the police contact
group included 33 who had been dealt with for acts which, had they appeared in court and been
convicted would have resulted in their inclusion in the delinquent group. The other 23, who had
been involved in more minor incidents, included 14 who had been found guilty by the courts of
trafﬁc offenses. Although they created these four sub-groups, most of West and Farrington's
analysis consisted of comparing those boys who were recorded at the Criminal Records Ofﬁce.
in other words the ofﬁcial delinquents, with the remainder of the sample, the non-delinquents.

One of the main problems involved in the use of official statistics is that, in addition to the
uncertainty introduced by the chances of being caught, the acquisition of a juvenile criminal
record depends upon the willingness of neighbors, parents and schoolteachers to report
children's deviant acts. Ofﬁcial statistics may also reﬂect the amount of time children spend on
the streets where their misbehavior is visible and the local police policy regarding the prosecution

94
of juveniles (West and Farrington, 1973:186).

In the simplest of terms, youths who are involved in criminal activity but who are clever
enough to manage to avoid capture or conviction are excluded from a delinquent group based
upon ofﬁcial statistics. West and Farrington's Study took place at a time when, unlike the
present. it was police policy to prosecute as many arrested juveniles as possible, such that known
delinquents acquired a police record Nevertheless, a number of delinquent boys would
inevitably fail to receive convictions for crimes committed, even when their identity was known
to the police, thereby creating the problem of including-delinquents in the non-delinquent group
and biasing the results. Moreover, samples of ofﬁcial delinquents run the risk of being biased in
the direction of over-representation of juveniles who obviously come from unfavorable
backgrounds. Young people who attract the attention of the police frequently come from poor
areas or have known criminals already in their farme (Hood and Sparks, 1970). It is possible
thattheauthorities maytendtoviewchﬂdrenwhocomeﬁomastableenﬁrorrmennwithboth
parents at home, a reasonable family income and no history of criminal convictions as simply
having strayed temporarily into crime and deserving of anOther chance. On the other hand,
children from broken homes, with a father or mother in jail and little family income, may receive
much stricter treatment, resulting in prosecution and conviction (Black. 1980). Clearly, the
distinctions made here are rather overstated, but they assist in highlighting the problem of bias in
the use of ofﬁcial criminal statistics as a measure of delinquency.

In addition to collecting ofﬁcial statistics, West and Farrington obtained a self report
measure of delinquency by giving the boys a self report delinquency questionnaire which had
previously been developed by Gibson based upon the unpublished work of H D. Willcock of
the Government Social Survey (West and Farrington, 1973: 153). The questionnaire consisted
ofthirtyeightdescriptions ofacts,eachonesetoutonaseparatecard. Thecardswere shuffled
into arandomorderandtheneachboy wasrequiredtosortthemomintofourpilestoindicate
whether they had frequently, sometimes, once or twice, or never committed each act.
Questionnaires were completed by 405 boys at age 14.15 and by 397 boys at age 16-l7. The
thirty eight acts, together with the percentages of boys admitting each act at the two ages the

9S
questionnaire was administered are displayed in Appendix I.

The problem of accuracy of self report data as compared with ofﬁcial delinquency statistics
was considered by West and Farrington. One common source of error in self report data, that of
non-response bias, or the effect of failing to include the less willing or more elusive clients, who
frequently tend to be the most delinquent, was largely avoided in the Cambridge study. Virtually
every member of the cohort was questioned on one or more occasions. In addition, the
researchers compared the 80 boys with the highest self report scores, that is, the boys who
admitted at least twenty one of the thirty eight acts. with the 84 ofﬁcial delinquents. It was found
that 41 boys were characterized as delinquents on both the ofﬁcial and self report scores, 39 were
self reported delinquents but not ofﬁcial, and 43 were ofﬁcial but not self reported The
conclusion drawn from these ﬁndings was that, since the two measures of delinquency did not
always pick out the same boys, they were probably subject to different types of bias. Thus, the
39 self reported but not ofﬁcial delinquents could have resulted from the boys exaggerating the
number of delinquent acts they had committed An alternative explanation, however, could have
been that this group of boys were genuine delinquents but that. because of the selectivity of
ofﬁcial processes towards labelling as delinquents those individuals who possess certain
characteristics, these self report delinquents were not processed by the police. West and
Farrington discovered that the boys who were self reported but not ofﬁcial delinquents were a
deviancy prone group. Despite not having juvenile conviction records, 19 of the 39. boys later
had either police contact or adult convictions. The conclusion was subsequently drawn that this
group of boys probably avoided ofﬁcial convictions not because their delinquent conduct was
unknown to the police, but rather because their background characteristics failed to ﬁt the
stereotype of a juvenile delinquent.

The problem of the 43 boys who were ofﬁcial but not self reported delinquents is harder to
explain, but nevertheless ﬁts into the general pattern the researchers found of the boys tending to
minimize the number of delinquent acts they had committed The interviewers knew the boys
and had been involved with their families when the self report data was collected, a situation
which may have resulmd in attempts by the boys to put themselves in a good light.

96

Ifadmissions from the selfreport questionnaire were to be trusted as accurate, then the
proportionofboysclaimingtohavecommimdaparticulardeviantactatsometimeinthepast
shouldalways havebeenatleastaslargeattheage ofsixteenasattheageoffourteen. In
addressing this particular aspect of the data, West and Farrington found that responses proved to
be consistent for nearly all of the 38 acts. Some of the minor acts, such as riding a bicycle
without lights or trespassing did not increase greatly between the two ages (an increase of 1.8%
was recorded for the former act and 3.3% for the latter), whilst some of the more serious acts,
such as using any kind of weapon in a ﬁght and buying cheap or accepting as a present anything
known or suspected of being stolen, increased by at least 5%. These results supported the theory
that delinquent boys, as they grow older, become more involved in serious crime rather than
simply continue to commit an increasing number of nuisance oﬂ’enses. Items of minor
misconducttendedtobeadmittedbythegreatmajorityofboysatbothages,veryfewinthe
sample claiming always to have behaved with near-perfect conformity to the law.

The validity of the self report scores was further conﬁrmed by the ﬁnding that self report
delinquents had also frequently been reported troublesome in a variety of ways in their school
classes. Correlations between self report delinquency and "tmublesomeness" were found to be
signiﬁcant, with 34% of the boys assessed as being troublesome also being self reported
delinquents, compared with only 15% among the remainder of thecohort.

In conclusion, a number of speciﬁc reasons exist why, in the context of this study,
employing self reported data as a measure of delinquency offers advantages over the use of
oﬂicial statistics:

a) Not all crimes are detected; undetected delinquents may therefore not be
considered in the analysis if ofﬁcial statistics are utilized. Additionally,
the data will only tend to be representative of either the most serious
delinquents or those who possess certain background characteristics.

b) When perpetrating a crime, the likelihood of apprehension could well be
increased if the individual concerned has been drinln'ng. The
implication is thus that proportionately more drinking delinquents could
be arrested than non-drinking delinquents and that this bias may be

reﬂected in ofﬁcial data. The use of self reported delinquency statistics
would appear to be one way of avoiding this inbuilt bias.

97

c) A similar problem ofbias in ofﬁcial statistics occurs with respect to the
relationship between broken homes and delinquency. Not only are
children from broken homes more likely to be referred to the police by
schools and neighbors than are juveniles from intact homes, but also the
courts tend to view them as being in need ofgreater care and protection.

d) In order to achieve consistency, since the only data available for use
concerning drinking habits is self reported, it would seem logical to also
use self reported delinquency measures.

c) When examining their data for internal validity, West and Farrington
found that the self reported data collected drning their survey was

generally consistent and honest when compared with other independent
measures.

t) The inclusion of 38 different acts in the self report delinquency variable
introduces the possibility of creating several different categories of
crime based upon these acts. These categories may then be examined
separately in the analysis of the relationship between drinldng and
delinquency, thereby helping to identify more clearly those offenses
most strongly associated with drinking in young offenders. Similarly;
the determination of different categories of crime enables any possible
variations in the importance of family relationships upon the
development of different types of delinquency to be discovered.

Self Report Delinquency Measures Used in this Study - Rather than isolating
different types of delinquency, West and Farrington simply obtained a ﬁnal self report score for
each boy. In the present study, however, the 38 self report delinquency acts are divided into four
separate categories of offense: public nuisance, minor property, serious property, and personal
Details of the four categories and the 38 delinquent acts which are contained within them are
presented in Appendix II. The division of the self report data into four categories represents an
attempt not only to differentiate between types of offenses, but also between levels of
delinquency.

A large number of the acts consisted of behavior constituting borderline delinquency.
Examples were such things as going to see X-rated (adult) ﬁlms under the age of eighteen, letting
off ﬁreworks in the street, and travelling without a ticket or paying the wrong fare on a bus.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the percentage of the cohort admitting to such minor examples of
misconduct (80% at the age of sixwen in the three examples mentioned above) tended to be high.
It was therefore considered appropriate that these minor forms of misbehavior should be

98
separated from the more serious types of crime, particularly offenses against the person,
committed by only a small proportion ofthe cohort.

In addition, the self report questionnaire included a variety of property offenses, which
constituted a distinct category, but which in themselves were very diverse, ranging from breaking
windows of empty houses and stealing a bicycle to breaking into a small shop. It was therefore
considered necessary to introduce a division between minor and serious property offenses.

Thus, four categories of self reported delinquency were created The public nuisance
group includes 13 acts of minor misconduct, while the personal offense category, including
delinquency involving the use of violence against others or the carrying of a weapon with the
intention of committing violence, consists of 5 acts. The serious property group represents 4
breaking and entering offenses, with the remaining 14 crimes against property constituting the
minor property category. The four categories were then used to provide a measure ofthe
diversity of the boys' delinquent behavior in each category. To create this measure, once any act
hadbeencommittedononeoccasion,thecommission ofthesameactonasubsequentoccasion
was disregarded In this way, percentage scores were obtained of the proportion of boys in the
sample who had committed either none or any speciﬁc number of deviant acts in each of the four
categories public nuisance, minor property, serious property, and personal For example, an
admission of having broken into houses on three occasions and a garage on one occasion would
be classiﬁed as the commission of two of the acts in the serious property group, rather than the
commission of a serious property offense on four separate occasions. The 'diversity' variable
was thus intended to reﬂect variety rather than frequency of deviant conduct. (See Appendix II).

At the age of14-15 years, the self report delinquency data was manipulated so as to
provide three additional self report delinquency variables in each of the four categories: 'ever
done', 'sometimes', and 'frequently'. At the age of 16-17 years, because of the method of data
collection utilized, it was only possible to introduce the 'ever done' variable.

The 'ever done’ variable was created by isolating from the rest of the sample those boys
who had refrained from engaging in any deviant behavior in each of the four categories. In
reath however, so few boys (1.2% of the sample at age 14-15 years) reported never having

99
committed public nuisance offenses that the creation of an 'ever done' variable in this category

would have been meaningless. Similarly, at the age of 16-17 years, it was possible to divide the
different types of delinquency, with the exception of public nuisance offenses, into a group of
boys who had never commitwd the acts and another group who had admitted to at least one
offense in the category. The self report delinquency data collected by West and Farrington at
16-17 years simply asked the boys to indicate those acts which they had been involved in rather
than enquiring how frequently they had done them , and any further development of the four self
report categories at this age was thus precluded However, at age 14-15 years, the boys'
responses had been separated into never, once or twice, sometimes or frequently, a categorization
which enabled the additional variables 'sometimes done' and 'frequently done' to be developed
within each of the groups of offense types.

The 'sometimes' variable consisted of two groups of boys, one consisting of those boys
who had either never committed any of the offenses in a particular category, or had done so once
or twice, while the second group contained boys who had admitted to carrying out the acts either
sometimes or frequently. The 'frequently' variable similarly consisted of two groups, the ﬁrst
consisting of those boys who never, once or twice, or sometimes engaged in any of the acts in a
particular category, and the second consisting of those who had frequently been involved

In summary, therefore, at the age of 14-15 years the self report data was used to categorize
four distinct categories of offense, each of which then gave rise to the four variables 'diversity',
'ever done', 'sometimes', and 'frequently'. At the age of 16-17 years, the four delinquency
categories merely provided for the 'diversity' and 'ever done' variables. For ease of reference,
the four types of offense variable, together with their possible values and short deﬁnitions are
presented in Table 3.1 below.

This extensive development of the self report delinquency scores by no means suggests
that the data collected concerning the boys' admissions of misconduct were without problems or
bias. West and Farrington discovered, in analyzing the self report responses, that the boys
tended to underestimate their involvement in illegal activity. In addition, the very large number of
public nuisance offenses admitted to resulted in an over-representation of boys in this category.

100
Nevertheless, these disadvantages to no extent outweigh the numerous advantages outlined above
concerning the use of self reported delinquency data.

Table 3.1 - Types, values and definitions of offense variables to be used in each offense category ‘

 

 

 

in the present study.
Variable type Possible levels Deﬁnition
Diversity Continuous Number of different types of offense
committed (Public nuisance, 0—13;
Minor property. 0-11; Serious
property, 04; Personal, 0-5).
Ever Yes Committing any number of offenses
N 0 Never having committed an offense
Sometimes Yes Sometimes or frequently committing
offenses
No Never or once or twice committing
oﬂ’enses
Frequently Yes Frequently committing oﬁ‘enses
No Never, once or twice, or sometimes
committing offenses
Drinking Variables

Thosedrinkingvariablesdescribedinthe literaturereviewsection ofthis studyindicated
the problem ofdeterrnining a true measure of levels of drinking. An individual who consumes a
certain amount of alcohol per week may be classiﬁed as a heavy drinker by some deﬁnitions, and
not by others. The decision as to what level or frequency of consumption constitutes alcohol
abuse is to some extent an arbitrary one. Whilst some levels of drinking, for example ﬁfteen
pints of beer per day each day of the week. are excessive according to everyone's standards,
Other levels near the borderline of acceptability are open to differences of opinion. Societal
standards may change with time such that the levels of consumption considered excessive in the

past may be viewed as acceptable today, or vice versa. Similarly, in different sections of society

101
patterns of drinking tend to vary. Working class areas in England, for example, are characterized

by beer drinking, while in more middle and upper class areas wine or spirits are favored. Whilst
this statement may be considered by some an over generalization, it is consistent with West and
Farrington's ﬁnding that the boys' most popular drink at the age of 18-19 years was beer. Only
19 youths (4.9% of 389 respondents) reported that they never drank beer, whereas 110 (28.4%)
never drank spirits and 265 (68.3%) never drank wine. The relative prices of the three types of
drink is also an important factor since boys with little money could rarely afford the more
expensive drinks including spirits (West and Farrington, 1977: 45).

The data collected concerning the drinking variables did not differentiate between types of
drinks at the age of 14-15 years nor at 16-17 years. At these two age groups, as part of the self
report delinquency the boys were asked whether they had drunk alcohol in pubs under the age of
eighteen. The possible responses in the 14-15 age group included 'never', 'once or twice',
'sometimes', and 'frequently', whilst at 16-17 years the boys were simply asked to answer 'yes'
or 'no'.

The legal drinking age for drinking alcohol in pubs in England is 18 years, therefore one
interpretation of the data could be that those boys who responded in the afﬁrmative to the above
questions were the more serious drinkers. However, although 298 of the boys when responding
at the 14-15 year age group reported never having drunk alcohol in pubs, this number reduced to
only 83 at the age of 16-17 years. An alternative interpretation of the data was therefore that,
rather than the vast majority of the boys at the later age being serious drinkers, as they grew older
and drew nearer to the legal drinking age, consuming alcohol in pubs became a more acceptable
pastime for them. Nevertheless, despite the possible differing interpretations of the data and the
rather arbitrary name of the two variables, they do represent measures of drinking for the boys at
early ages.

At the age of 18-19 years, the interviewers asked the boys a number of questions
concerning their drinking pattems. Frequency of consumption was assessed by asking
separately about drinking habits on each day of the week, while quantity consumed was simply

determined by recording the most drunk in any one evening. In the present study however,

102
rather than using one single criterion, West and Farrington's global drinking score will be
employed in order to obtain a more comprehensive summary measure of drinking behavior.

The global score was created by combining four drinking variables, all of which were
signiﬁcantly inter-correlated: quantity of beer consumed per week, quantity of spirits consumed
per week, maximum drink in an average week, and number of drinking days per week (West and
Farrington, 1977: 45). Each of the four variables were individually allocated a score ranging
from one to four points, and then a summary total was obtained by simple addition. Where
information in relation to one of the variables was not available, points were allocated pro-rata.
the 24 non-drinkers being given the minimum score. The new 'drinking combined' variable was
then tlichotomized so as to identify low, average and heavy drinkers.

Although it is known that the heavy drinkers scored at least fomteen points out of a
maximum possible score of sixmen, West and Farrington tmfortunately provide no information
as to the number of points necessary to be included in either the average or low groups.
Nevertheless, the result of the points classiﬁcation was that 20.0% of the 411 boys were
categorized as heavy drinkers, 51.2% as average and 28.8% as low. The number of drinking
days per week is no longer coded as a separate item. Although this prohibits the exact amount of
alcohol consumed by the heavy drinkers to be determined. the other variables included within the
global score do give some indication as to the general level of drinking by those boys who
obtained high scores. Thus, those respondents who scored sixteen points reported drinking at
least20pints ofbeerandmorethan6single spirits perweek, withthemostdnmkinone
particular evening being 13 units or more, one unit being the equivalent of either half a pint of
beer or cider, a glass of wine, or a single spirit

The global score of drinln’ng provides an acceptable measure of the drinking behavior of
boys in the sample. Whilst the quantity of alcohol consumd by the heavy drinkers is not
precisely known, from the information available it would appear to be well in excess of the
amount drunk by an average youth.

The Cambridge Study data therefore provides the following three measures of drinking
behavior which will be used to examine the research questions previously stated: drinking in

103
pubs lmder 18 years (measured at age 14-15), drinkiing in pubs under 18 years (measured at age

16—17), and drinking combined (measured at age 18-19).

Family Factors

In the context of the present study, an assessment of the role of the family in the
development of delinquency and heavy drinking will be achieved through employing and
analyzing a number of variables which describe family structure and family relationships, and
which were initially created from the data collected by West and Farrington.

Family income - Although the entire sample for the Cambridge Study was taken from a
single neighborhood in which the range of occupations was limited, it was discovered that family
income provided a realistic measure of variations in life style. Life style supplies evidence
concerning the general environment and upbringing of the boys, since childrm who live in
homes where there is a shortage of money may experience tension and arguments between
parents due to ﬁnancial difﬁculties. Therefore, whilst recognizing the lack of emphasis placed
upon income as an important factor in the relationship between juvenile delinquency and drinking
in the literature review, since it provides some relevant information concerning the background of
the boys, income is included as an independent variable in the present research.

The psychiatric social workers (PSW) experienced some difﬁculties in categorizing family
income. The boys' parents were often reluctant to discuss such a sensitive issue, and many
mothers were either vague about their husbands' total earnings or they simply did not know what
they were.

The case record forms completed by the PSWs included spaces for recording father's
earnings, mother's earnings, contributions from other members of the household, mother's
housekeeping allowance, amount of family allowances and national assistance, in addition to
regular ﬁnancial committrnents such as rent or any other special payments. The presence or
absence of speciﬁed items of household equipment was noted by the PSWs on a printed list
which included car, refrigerator, television, telephone, washing machine, carpets, plentiful toys.

104
and a cocktail cabinet (a local status symbol). The less co-operative familes were often reluctant

to show visitors very much of their homes. which made this particular part of the PSWs task
difﬁcult.

Information obtained was used by the PSWs to make an impressionistic rating of each
family's ﬁnancial situation as being either comfortable, adequate, or inadequate. In general,
families with a total income of £15 per week or less for two adults and four children were
assigned an 'inadequate' income rating, while those believed to have £20 or more net to spend
each week were classed as being ﬁnancially comfortable. At ﬁrst sight, the difference of £5
between inadequate and comfortable income may not appear substantial, but the family income
data was collected in the early 19605, at which time £5 represented considerable spending power.
When the information volunteered by the parents was insufﬁcient or unreliable, the PSWs judged
the family income by taking into account their style of living, number of visible possessions, and
general appearance. In this way, 22.8% of the boys were found to come from families which
were struggling on inadequate incomes, while 21.3% lived in ﬁnancially comfortable homes.

The data on family income was collected when the boys were 8 or 9 years old, in either
1962 or 1963, and the three categories developed therefore reﬂect the relative standards of living
at that time. Most of those families classiﬁed as having inadequate incomes were existing at a
level little different from that of families which qualiﬁed for or were actually receiving NatiOnal
Assistance at that time, so their degree of material deprivation was relatively severe.

As a check on consistency of standards, all records were read and reclassiﬁed by other
members of the research team and discrepant cases were referred back to the PSWs for
conﬁrmation or reconsideration. Sixteen cases left as unclassiﬁed by the PSWs were later
allocated classiﬁcations on the basis of data concerning the boys' situations at age 8-9 years

obtained from outside agencies and subsequent enquiries.

Broken Homes and Family Size - The literature review emphasized broken homes
and family size as being two family structural variables worthy of consideration in analyzing the
relationship between juvenile delinquency and heavy drinking. Previous research has, however,

105
provided conﬂicting results concerning the importance of these variables in the development of

deviant behavior. One factor contributing to the problem of comparing ﬁndings is that a number
of differing interpretations of what constitutes a broken home have been used.

West and Farrington similarly experienced difﬁculties in precisely deﬁning a broken home.
At the age of 9 years, 44 boys (10.7% of the cohort) were living in incomplete families, the
father having died in ten cases and the mother in four. In the other 30 families, the natural father
was permanently away due to divorce, separation or desertion in 21 cases, the mother in 6, and
both parents in 3 cases. The family breaks did not automatically mean that boys were
permanently deprived of parental care, however, since some were very well settled with
step-parents or foster parents. Nevertheless, the Cambridge Study researchers decided to deﬁne
a broken home as being a permanent separation from one or both natural parents due to either
death, desertion, separation or divorce, without making any provision for the addition of a
step-parent to the family. By the time the boys had reached the age of 15, 76 boys (18.5%) were
permanently separated according to this deﬁnition. The present study utilizes the same deﬁnition
of a broken home as that proposed by the Cambridge researchers.

The family size variable obtained from the Cambridge data is deﬁned as the number of
children in the family when the boys were either 8 or 9 years old This deﬁnition includes the
number of children surviving for at least one year born to the parents before the boys' tenth
birthdays, and siblings living away from home. In the case of uncooperative families or
illegitimate births it is possible that siblings existed who were unknown to the researchers.

Family Relationships - The psychiatric social workers (PSWs) who collected data
from the boys' parents in the Cambridge Study often experienced problems in appraising such
variables as maternal conﬂict, maternal discipline, and marital harmony. A true description of the
ldnds of relationships which exist between family menrbers is extremely difﬁcult to achieve, and
almost inevitably involves subjective judgements. The creation of variables describing family

relationships and family afﬁnity therefore met with varied success.

106
When the subjects were 8 years old the PS Ws categorized the attitudes of the mothers

towards their sons as being either e'loving normal', 'loving anxious', 'over-protective', 'cruel',
'passive', or 'neglecting'. These categorizations formed the basis of a ’matemal attitude'
variable. At the same age, paternal attitudes were assessed by the PSWs as being either 'warm'.
'passive', or 'cruel'. Their judgements concerning parental attitudes were repeated at later ages.

In a similar way, the PSWs attempted to categorize the mothers' and fathers' operative
discipline styles as being either 'normal', 'lax', 'strict‘, 'very strict' or 'erratic', and their quality
of discipline as being either 'spoilt', 'harsh', 'disinterested', or none of these three. These
different ratings were primarily attempts to measure the nature and severity of methods of control
and punishment.

It was discovered that a considerable overlap existed between the various ratings of
parental attitude and discipline. For example, 36 of the 43 boys assessed as having been exposed '
to maternal discipline of a harsh quality, and 27 of the 42 described as having experienced cruel,
passive or neglecting maternal attitudes also ﬁgured among the minority who had received either
'erratic' or 'very strict' maternal discipline Styles. Whilst it could be argued that this overlapping
simply reﬂected the family situations, such that parental attitudes were genuinely inter-linked,
West and Farrington discovered that the inter-correlations among the PSWs' ratings were much
higher with regard to those factors which required subjective judgements than those which
derived from more direct and objective observations. This suggested that, as mentioned
previously in this chapter, that the overlap between the attitude and the two discipline rating was
largely due to the tendency of the PSWs to view each parent either positively or negatively and to
rate them accordingly on all three scales.

A more meaningful score for each boy at the age of 8-9 years was therefore developed
based upon two combined scales, one reﬂecting maternal attitude and discipline, and the other
paternal attitude and discipline.

In view of the potential disturbing effects of parental conflicts upon children, the PSWs
were asked to pay particular attention to marital harmony in their interviews, to ask speciﬁcally
about marital difﬁculties, and to record any indications of conﬂict. Originally, the PSWs record

107
forms included a four-point rating scale of parents' marital adjustments, but this proved difﬁcult

to complete. The rating standards of the interviewers at different times with the same parents
proved so discrepant that a simple dichotomous division into satisfactory marriage or
disharrnonious marriage was all that could be obtained.

Disharrnony between parents was often found to be associated either with inconsistency
between the father and mother in the handling of their children or with an undue dominance by
one parent in family matters. The PSWs therefore also tried to assess both of these aspects of
family life. Inconsistency between parents in their handling of the boys was deﬁned as
'sufﬁcient to be confusing to the child or to permit him to play off one parent against the other or
to enable him to avoid conforming with either (West and Farrington, 197 3: 73). If the parents
claimed complete agreement between themselves, if there appeared to be no more than a normal
amount of disagreement between the parents' standards, or if the parents concealed their
disagreements from the child, the rating was 'not inconsistent'. A parent was characterized as
being dominant if he or she took the lead in the organization of family life, excluding the other
partner from decisions or leaving the partner with very little to say. The rating of 'neither
dominant' indicated that the parents discussed their plans together and arrived at joint decisions.

Since the PSWs assessments of marital disharmony, parental inconsistency, and parental
dominance were all closely inter-related, the three were merged into a combined scale of parental
conﬂict measured when the boys were 8-9 years old.

When discussing all of the above family characteristics with parents, the psychiatric social
workers were dealing with very sensitive issues. Even when the parents are highly morivated to
give truthful reports, problem of communication, faulty recollections, and confused emotions all
interfere with the accuracy of the measures. In the end, the result was that matemal attitude,
paternal attitude, parental discipline, marital harmony, parental inconsistency, and parental
dominance were all found to be closely inter-correlated and reﬂective of the PSWs general
Opinions of whether or not the parents exhibited good management styles. The researchers
further discovered that no one single item from the above list could be identiﬁed as being more
important than the rest. Their conclusion that the psychiatric social workers had found it

108
impracticable to rate all aspects of family life independently led to the combining of all of the

items in this cluster into a single score representing a global rating of parental behavior.

Details of the scoring systems used in the creation of the four combined variables described
above, maternal attitude and discipline, paternal attitude and discipline, parental conflict, and
parental behavior are indicated in Appendix III.

One aspect of parental behavior which did not seem to be closely associated with any of the
above variables was parental supervision. When the boys were 8-9 years old, their parents were
rated according to their vigilance and their rules by the PSWs. 'Vigilance' referred to parental
watchfulness, concern and closeness of supervision, while 'nrles' referred to whether parents
were rigid or lax in their application of rules of behavior and penalties for non-conformity (West
and Farrington, 1969: 73-74).

The ratings of rules and vigilance were found to overlap considerably, just one example
being that 25 out of the 41 boys classiﬁed as having under-vigilant parents were among the 66
whose parents were considered to be lax in rules. Due to this overlap, the two assessments were
subsequently combined into one single measure of parental supervision. Within this variable,
the standard of behavior which parents attempted to enforce and the consistency with which they
applied their rules were measured as being either 'good', 'average', or 'poor‘. Appendix [11
indicates the scoring system under which these sub-classiﬁcations of parental supervision were
made. .

In order to assess the boys' attitudes towards their parents, a number of questions were
desigled for inclusion in the interviews at age 18. The vast majority of boys, 87.8% of 389,
named the home of a parent or guardian as their usual place of abode. The remaining youths
were either living in lodgings, hostels, servicemens' quarters, sharing accommodation with
others, or, in 6 cases. were living in their own marital home. All of the youths were asked if
they would prefer to live with their parents or elsewhere. The 249 boys who answered in the
afﬁrmative were asked to give their reasons and these were subsequently placed in one of the
following four non-mutually exclusive categories: ﬁnancial convenience and home comforts,

good relationships with parents, security of the parental home, and companionship of parents.

109
Financial convenience and home comforts, reported by 62.2% of the cohort, were the most

popular reasons, followed by good relationships with parents which accormted for a further '
26.5%. The secrnity of the parental home and the companionship of parents were less frequently
reported, being speciﬁed by only 10.0% and 8.8% respectively. Of the remaining 116 who
would rather live away from their parents, 60.3% mentioned either a desire for independence, a
wish for a less restricted life, or a need to cope with their own problems without help as being
major reasons for their preference.

In a rather more direct question, the youths were asked how they related to their parents,
either 'very well', ‘OK', or 'not so well'. A further indication of home circumstances was
obtained by asking the boys whether they felt happy about bringing friends or girls home. By
utilizing all of this data, West and Farrington were able to create a combined variable which
described the boys' relationships with their parents as falling into one if three categories: 'good',
'average', or 'poor'. According to this classiﬁcation, 86 boys were identiﬁed with evident
parent-son discord. These tended to be youths who either were living away from home because
of having experienced tension with their parents, had mentioned tension as being a major reason
why they wanted to live away from home, or reported not getting on so well with one or both
parents.

In summary, the three combined variables deﬁning the relationships between members of
the boys' families which are to be included in the analysis of the relationship between drinking
and delinquency are parental behavior, measured at 10-11 years, parental supervision, measured
at 8-9 years, and boy's relationship with parents, measured at the age of 18. Since the latter
variable represents emotions which are built up over a long period of time it is appropriate that it
is measured at 18 years rather than at an earlier age. In addin'on, eighteen year old youths'
responses concerning such sensitive issues are more likely to be meaningful than answers
obtained from young children. The problems experienced in attempting to obtain realistic
measures of the boys' attitudes towards their parents at earlier ages are highlighted by their
responses at age 16 to a question concerning arguments with their parents. Ninety six boys

replied that they had never even had a minor disagreement with their parents, and a further 262

1 10
had no unfavorable comment to make about their adjustment at borne. Clearly, one would have

expected the vast majority of the youths to have indicated that arguments had occurred at home.
The boys' responses would therefore appear to be indicative of their attempts to create an
impression of good behavior with their interviewers.

West and Farrington employed both the structural and behavioral family variables outlined
above in their study of the development of delinquency. The present study additionally attempts
to determine the role of the family in the onset of drinking problems. If the two types of deviant
behavior are found not only to be positively related to one another, but also both to be associated
with problems in the family, then this information will assist in understanding in more depth the
relationship between juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse.

Analysis

The analysis undertaken in this study provided an opportunity to increase the existing
knowledge and understanding of the link between delinquency and heavy drinking, the main
purpose of the investigation being to provide answers to the seven research questions by using
some of the data collected in connection with the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development.

A variety of bivariate relationships were explored in the analysis with the use of the
Chi-square statistic and Gamma, since each variable was based upon at least ordinal level data.
While Chi-square indicates whether or not a relationship exists, Gamma describes the strength
and direction of a discovered relationship on a scale ranging from -1 to +1. Gamma provides a
proportional reduction in error measure of association for ordinal scales, and is particularly
appropriate for use with ordinal variables which have, for the sake of analysis, been subdivided
arbin'arily into categories (Mendenhall, Ott and Larson, 1974).

The bivariate analysis began with the determination of an association between the array of
self reported delinquency variables, created from the boys' responses to the delinquency
questionnaire, and the three drinking variables, drinking in pubs under 18 years (measured at
14-15 years), drinking in pubs under 18 years (measured at 16-17 years), and drinking combined

(measured at 18-19 years).

ll 1
It was decided that the diversity. variables, which described the number of public nuisance.

minor property, serious property, and personal offenses committed by the boys would be better
handled for cross-tabulation purposes if they were each reduced in size by creating
sub-classiﬁcations of certain numbers of acts. Therefore, for example, while still measuring the
diversity of the boys delinquent behavior, the public nuisance variable at bOth l4 and 16 years
was divided into four groups containing 0-4, 5-6, 7-8, and 9-13 acts. Similar divisions were
also carried out with respect to minor property, serious property, and personal offenses
(Appendix IV).

This manipulation meant that it proved possible to determine whether the drinking behavior
of the boys in pubs under the age of 18 years and heavy drinking at the age of 18 were more
closely associated with certain types of delinquency measured at 14 and 16 years than with
others. In addition, the development of the variables 'ever done', 'sometimes done', and
'frequently done' enabled a comparison of the degree of association between the drinking
patterns of the boys and contrasting levels of delinquency to be undertaken.

Public nuisance offenses were not categorized into 'ever done' due to the very small
proportion of boys who who responded that they had never committed such minor acts.
Furthermore, the delinquency self report variables measured at 16 years only include 'diversity'
and 'ever done', resulting from the limitations of the data collection at that age, when boys, rather
than being asked to specify the number of occasions on which they had committed certain acts,
were merely asked whether they had committed them or not.

In recognition of the limitations of the self report data, both in the sense of including too
many minor offenses and underestimating the crimes committed by the boys, the statistical
analysis includes an investigation of the relationship between the three drinking variables and
juvenile convictions, adult convictions, convictions between 10 and 24 years, and ﬁnal ofﬁcial
juvenile coding. 7

The inclusion of ofﬁcial statistics in the analysis stage of the study increases the
information available concerning the relationship between juvenile delinquency and heavy

drinking, thus assisting in the formation of sound conclusions. However, as had been the case

l 12
with the self report data, the large number of categories recorded in each conviction variable

forced the aggregation of categories into groups, as indicated in Appendix V.

The results of the bivariate analysis thus include numerous cross-tabulations which
describe the zero-order relationships between drinking, measured at 14, 16, and 18 years, and
both self reported delinquency, measured at 14 and 16 years, and ofﬁcial delinquency.

The bivariate analysis further includes an investigation of the relationships between all of
the delinquency data, bOth ofﬁcial and self report, and the family variables which describe family
income, family size, broken home before the age of 15 , behavior of parents, supervision of
parents, and relationships within the family. Again, cross-tabulations are computed to describe
the associations which exist. In addition, the ﬁnal stage of the bivariate analysis examines the
relationship between family factors and drinking by employing the three drinking variables as
dependent variables.

Several multivariate analyses were also tmdertaken in order to examine the separate effects
of each family and drinking variable upon delinquency whilst controlling for other independent
variables. Regression analysis was employed with the 'diversity' self report and conviction
variables as the dependent variables and family factors and the three measures of drinking as the
independent variables. The dependent diversity and conviction variables were used in their
original form rather than employing the categories developed for the bivariate analysis.

Multiple regression applies best to an analysis in which both the dependent and
independent variables are normally distributed interval measrues. Nevertheless, despite past
controversies surrounding the use of regression for ordinal level data, in general it has been
found to be a robust procedure, providing reasonable results despite the violations of its
underlying assumptions (Kerlinger and Pedhazur, 197 3). Thus, ordinal variables have
commonly been used in regression analysis.

Multiple regression can not, however be used effectively when the dependent variable is
dichotomous since a number of assumptions concerning the error term in the regression equation
are violated If the dependent variable is restricted to two values, for example 0 and l, the error

term can also only take on two values and as such cannot be normally distributed. The violation

l 13
of the assumption of normally distributed error temns results in the R-squared and t-statistics used

with the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) procedure failing to be meaningful (Bynum, 1982). In
addition, when the dependent variable only takes on two values, the assumption of equal variance
of the error term is also violated (Palmer and Carlson, 1976). In such a situation an 01.8
technique would result in inefﬁcient estimators.

A solution to the problems involving the distribution of the error term is the use of a
Generalized Least Squares (GLS) technique. However, this procedure does not overcome the
problem of using a linear solution to an equation involving a dichotomous dependent variable.

' Consequently, in order to investigate the seperate effects of the independent variables upon
the 'ever done' dichotomous delinquency variables, loglinear regression analysis was used. The
loglinear technique surrnounts both of the difﬁculties presented by the violation of the 01.8
assumptions conceming the error term and the problems of a linear functional form. Multiple
regression minimizes the distance between observed and expected values, while loglinear
analysis maximizes the probability of obtaining the observed data given a set of independent
variables. The two types of multivariate analysis, although different in their methods of solution,
are very similar in use and interpretation with the statistical signiﬁcance of individual variables
being computed in similar ways.

Summary of Methodological Advantages and Limitations

A number of the methodological problems encountered in previous research analyzing both
juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse were outlined in the literature review. The employment
of longitudinal data obtained from the Cambridge Study helps to overcome some of the more
serious methodological ﬂaws which afflicted earlier research, but cannot eradicate certain other
limitations of the present study.

One of the main considerations to be made during any research involving juvenile
delinquency is whether ofﬁcial statistics or self-report data should be relied upon as a measure of
deviant behavior. The reasons for the heavy emphasis upon self report data in the present study

were discussed in some detail earlier in this chapter. Of particular importance is the need to avoid

1 14
the bias which may occur in the use of ofﬁcial statistics, resulting from the uneven actions both

of the police and the courts in their dealings with children who come from unfavorable
backgrounds (Hood and Sparks, 1970; Black, 1980). Frequently, these youngsters may live in
broken homes, low income families, or homes where there is marital disharmony. Additionally.
ofﬁcial statistics possibly reﬂect the fact that children who are heavy drinkers tend to be
apprehended more frequently than do youths who either abstain. or drink very little, simply
because they are often under the inﬂuence of alcohol at the time they commit crimes. In both of
the above examples of bias, the use of ofﬁcial statisties tends to result in over-representing in the
delinquent group the number of boys who experience the very problems being investigated.

Broken homes and drinking were found in some studies described in the literature review
to be conelated with only certain types of delinquency. The classiﬁcation of the self report data
into four separate categories undertaken in the present study enable both the association between
different types of delinquency and drinking and the association between different levels of
deviant behavior and family relationships to be determined

The self report data is not, however, without problems. The reliability and validity of the
subjects' responses cannot completely be assrned. West and Fanington discovered that the boys
were pronetounderestinurtethenumberandtypeofoffensesthay hadcommittedresultingirr
some discrepancies between the self report and official delinquency statistics. Moreover, the self
report data contains a large number of infringements admitted to by a high proportion of the '
sample, and consequently it suffers from bias in the direction of over-representation of public
nuisance offenses. '

Nevertheless, despite the tendency of the boys to understate their delinquent behavior, the
Cambridge researchers generally found that, when compared with information obtained from
independent sources, for example schools, the boys' responses were valid. In contrast therefore
with the boys' conviction records, which represent only the most severe delinquents, the self
reported delinquents, which include a wide range of offender types, constitute a group of boys

some of whose crimes remain undeected

l 15
One of the considerable advantages of using the data collected by West and Farrington is

that it encapsulates the natural development of control and delinquent groups whose drinking
behavior can then be contrasted. As the boys grew older they either remained law abiding or
committed delinquent acts. The problems of matching techniques are thus avoided since all of the
members of the two groups are derived from the same original sample. A number of previous
studies in this area have failed to use a control group, and those which have frequently only
controlled for delinquency in the sense of comparing a school population with a convicted
delinquent sample, thereby nmning the risk of including undetected delinquents, individuals on
probation, or those recently released from correctional institutions in the non-delinquent group.
The analysis employed in the present study, utilizing self report longitudinal data completely
overcomes these difﬁculties. Even the additional use of the Cambridge ofﬁcial statistics simply
poses the single problem of whether undetected delinquents are included within the control
group.

The use of a sample of boys selected from a school population presents a number of threats
to the validity of results. School samples tend to exclude school dropouts, and often data is
simply categorized as missing when, in reality, the information is difﬁcult to obtain from certain
pupils due to their regular truancy. Moreover, those children who are heavy drinkers or who
engage in delinquent activities are often the very individuals who play truant from school and
thus are omitted from the research. The repeated efforts on the part of the research team in the
Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development to see the boys if at all possible enabled the whole
sample to be interviewed at the age of 8-9 years, and 96.8% of the original boys to be traced and
interviewed at age 16. Although the study was longitudinal, taking twenty years to complete, the
attrition rate was extremely low.

The deﬁnitions of the variables to be used in investigating the relationship between
drinking and delinquency are also not without problems. The drinking variables measured at
ages 16 and 18 years do not describe speciﬁc amounts of alcohol consumption, but rather reﬂect
the frequency with which the boys drank alcoholic beverages in pubs under age. The

classiﬁcation of heavy, moderate and light drinkers at 18 years was determined by a cumulative

l 16
count of both the total amount of beer and spirits respondents reported consuming per week and

the frequency of their drinking The pattems of alcohol use by the boys are therefore largely
ignored. Consequently, it is impossible, for example, to determine or differentiate between those
individuals who were originally heavy drinkers but who then reduced their alcohol consumption,
and those who only later started to abuse alcohol.

Nevertheless, the three drinking variables represent assessments of the boys' drinking
habits at three different ages and describe to some extent the change in their drinking behavior
over time. The inability to obtain the original codings of all of the variables which made up the
global score of drinking prohibits a complete calculation of the amount of beer and spirits
consumed by those boys included in the heavy drinking group. This group however includes
boys who drank at least 20 pints of beer per week and 6 single spirits, which suggests that the
heavy drinkers are representative of boys whose alcohol consumption is well above normal, even
when the heavy beer consumption which tends to occur within working class areas is taken into
account.

West and Farrington's separation of broken hones' classiﬁcations into either the loss of
one biological parent due to death or due to separation or divorce takes into account the fact that
the death of a parent may not involve the conﬂict, friction and tension which a child frequently
experiences in a home in which the parents separate. A child does not necessarily receive better
parental care in an intact home as compared with a broken home, and so the present study
incorporates into its analysis an examination of three global scores representing parental
behavior, parental supervision, and the boys' own descriptions of their relationships with their
parents. '

A discussion of the difﬁculties involved in collecting data regarding such sensitive issues
was presented in the section of this chapter which described those variables to be used The
psychiatric social workers (PSWs) were expected to make subjective judgements about items
such as marital disharmony, mother's attitude, or father's discipline quality, which clearly some
of the parents would be reluctant to discuss. The result was that, while the distribution of the
more objective items, such as number of children in the family, overall did not vary from one

1 17
social worker to another, the frequencies with which they located such items as physical neglect

of boys or erratic paternal discipline were very different

Despite their efforts to do so, the PSWs appeared unable to produce comparable ratings.
The global scores therefore represented the researchers' attempt to join together a number of
highly inter-correlated items so as to produce a general picture of parental care and supervision
and the boys' own attitudes towards their parents.

An alternative to personal interviews with the parents would have been formal
questionnaires. However,‘it was found that the parents were extremely reluctant to divulge
infomnation which was immediaely placed upon impersonal forms, and consequently the
interviews with the PSWs were considered to be the best method of eliciting useful data. The
interviews with the boys to determine the type of relationships they had with their parents were
undertaken when they were 18 years old since it was felt that they were more likely to give
accurate responses at that age than they would have been if questioned when younger.

One of the major advantages of longitudinal data is that the variables can be measured over
a long period of time, so enhancing the researchers ability to detemrine die direction of any
relationship discovered to exist between the variables being studied. West and Farrington
collected information conceming home backgrounds when the boys were very young. The
combined score of supervision of parents, together with infomnation regarding family income and
size were all measured before the boys' ninth birthdays, and behavior of parents before their
eleventh birthdays. Juvenile delinquency variables indicating their deviant behavior were
assessed at the later ages of 14-15 and 16-17 years. However, the drinking variables were also
measured when the boys were teenagers, thus prohibiting an accurate determination of the
direction of any relationship discovered to exist between juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse.

The problem of whether juvenile delinquency leads to alcohol abuse or vice versa cannot
therefore be clearly ascertained in the present study. If a relationship does indeed exist, it could
be argued either that frequent drinking by the boys resulted in their commission of offenses, or
alternatively that their involvement in crime led to alcohol abuse. The question of which fomn of

deviant behavior cannot easily be answered unless it is known at what age drinking began and

l 18
how old the boys were when they ﬁrst became involved in criminal activity. In a similar way.

although information conceming the boys' families was obtained when they were young, it is
possible that those who admitted to the commission of offenses at 14-15 or 16-17 years were
referring to offenses committed when they were much younger, or even when they were below
the age of criminal responsibility. Thus, whilst early measurement of the family variables can
help to give some indication of the direction of the relationship, it is not possible, for example, to
state that poor supervision or poor parental behavior always occumed prior to the boys'
involvement in delinquent conduct

Moreover, interpretations of comelations as constituting a chain of causation are always
problematic. Clearly, certain other variables, such as patterns of parental drinking and peer
group pressure are possibly contributory factors in the development of alcohol abuse and even
delinquency, but due to the lack of availability of data describing these variables, they have
necessarily been excluded from this investigation. Nevertheless, any ﬁndings which result from
examining data collected at different ages potentially can provide insights into the role of family
variables in the development of drinking and delinquency.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Introduction

The previous chapter introduced seven general research questions and deﬁned the
independent and dependent variables to be employed in their investigation. In this chapter, the
ﬁndings ofthe study are presented First, bivariate relationships are examined with the use of
Clﬁ-squaretodeterminetheexistence ofarelationship andGammatoindicatethestrengthofthe
association between dependent and independent variables. The second section of the chapter
presents multivariate analyses. These analyses explore the relative importance of the three
drinking and six family variables upon different types of delinquency. Multiple regression and
loglinear regression are used in the multivariate analysis phase. Selfreport delinquency data, in
the fomn of the 'diversity' variables, and the ofﬁcial conviction rates of the boys provide suitable
Continuous measures for multiple regression. However, the deveIOpment of the 'ever done' Self
report delinquency variables, which only permitted either a 'yes' or a 'no' response resulted in
the need to employ a model which could provide satisfactory results using dichotomous
variables, hence the inclusion of loglinear regression in the multivariate analysis.

Tie analysis and ﬁndings are presented within the framework ofthe research questions.

Bivariate Analysis
In this section a variety of bivariate relationships are examined Reviewed ﬁrst are the
associations between drinking and self report delinquency. Examined next are the relationships
between drinking and ofﬁcial delinquency. Throughout the bivariate analysis, the delinquency

119

120
variables are considered as the dependent variables with the drinking variables as the independent

variables. In a third section, bivariate analysis between delinquency and family factors is
undertaken with both self report and ofﬁcial delinquency variables being considered dependent
variables and the family factors representing the independent variables. Finally, the associations
between the drinking variables, now considered to be dependent, and the independent family
variables are considered. Deﬁnitions and full descriptions of all of the variables included in the

bivariate analysis are included in the previous chapter.

Self Report Delinquency and Drinking

This phase of the analysis was undertaken with the intention of providing infomnation
concerning whether drinking and different types of delinquency are related

Self Report Delinquency at 14-15 years - The delinquency variables used at this
stage were measured at 14-15 years, while the drinking variables consisted of drinking in pubs
under 18 years measured at 14-15 years, drinking in pubs under 18 years measured at 16-17
years, and drinking combined measured at 18-19 years.

The results of the investigation of the bivariate relationship between the three drinking
variables and the self report delinquency data categorized into public nuisance, minor property,
serious property, and personal offenses are presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.12. The analysis was
performed with each type of offense having been further developed into 'diversity', 'ever' done,
'sometimes' done and 'frequently' done variables. The 'diversity' variable described the
proportion of boys who had committed either one or any speciﬁc number of deviant acts in each
of the four categories of offense, whilst the 'ever' done variable was created by isolating from the
rest of the cohort those boys who had refrained from engaging in any deviant behavior in each of
the four categories. The 'sometimes' variable divided the boys into two groups, one consisting
of those who had either never committed any of the offenses in a particular category or had done
so once or twice, and the other comprising those who had admitted to involvement in the acts
either sometimes or frequently. The 'frequently' variable again consisted of two groups, the ﬁrst

including those boys who had never, once, twice or sometimes committed any of the acts in a

121
particular category, and the second those boys who had frequently been involved. The drinking

variables will be considered chronologically and will be related to each delinquency variable in
turn.

Tables 4.1, 4.4, 4.7 and 4.10 indicate that, when using the Chi-square test as the indicator
for the presence or absence of an association, at the .05 level of signiﬁcance a relationship exists
between drinking in pubs under 18 years, measured at 14—15 years and all of the self report
delinquency variables measured at the same age, with the single exception of the 'frequently'
variable in the minor property category. Moreover, the majority of the relationships are
signiﬁcant at the .001 level.

The use of the Chi-square statistic in this manner does not, however indicate the strength
of the relationship. Gamma, used as a measure of the strength of an association takes on a value
of 1 or -1 when a perfect relationship exists between the two variables under consideration and 0
(zero) when the two variables are independent. The strengths of the relationships in the present
analysis as indicated by the values obtained for Gamma suggest a reasonably strong association
between the variables with Gamma generally being around the .4 or .5 levels. The highest values
of Gamma occur in the public nuisance offense categories, as indicated in Tables 4.1 to 4.3,
providing evidence that drinking among the boys at the younger age of 14—15 years is most
closely associated with minor types of misbehavior. In particular, Gamma takes on the value of
l for the 'sometimes' variable in the public nuisance category (See Table 4.1) which, at ﬁrst
sight, implies a perfect relationship between drinking in pubs under 18 years of age and
sometimes committing public nuisance offenses. On a closer examination of the Table, the
reason for the unusually high value of Gamma can be determined. The only boys who do not
commit public nuisance offenses either sometimes or frequently are those same boys who do not
drink, 8.1% of the sample of 405. In all of the drinking cells of the Table, whether they relate to
drinking once or twice, sometimes, or frequently, 100% of the boys who commit public nuisance
offenses report doing so either sometimes or frequently, with no boys drinking and admitting to

never or only once or twice being involved in this type of behavior.

122
Although drinking in pubs under 18 years measured at 16—17 years and drinking combined

measured at 18-19 years are both measures of the drinking behavior of the boys at a later age than
the delinquency measures under present consideration, their inclusion in the bivariate analysis
provides further evidence for a relationship between drinking and delinquency. The tables show
that, similar to drinking in pubs measured at 14-15 years of age, drinking in pubs measured at the
later age of 16-17 years appears to be more strongly associated with the public nuisance offense
categories, Chi-square being signiﬁcant for all of the public nuisance variables at at least the .01
level. However, while relationships exist between drinking in pubs measured at 16-17 years and
all of the minor property together with most of the personal offense variables at the .05 level of
signiﬁcance, there is no association indicated between the same drinking variable and the
commission of serious property offenses at the age of 14-15 years (Table 4.8).

Similarly, the most systematic results in the bivariate analysis between drinking combined
(18-19 years) and self report delinquency (14-15 years) were obtained for the public nuisance
offense categories. Thus, heavy drinking at 18-19 years appears to be more closely associated
with committing minor rather than serious offenses at 14—15 years (Tables 4.3 and 4.6).

On examination of those relationships between drinking combined and self report
delinquency which were signiﬁcant at the .05 level, Gamma took on its highest values, .628 and
.401, within the 'sometimes' and 'frequently' committing public nuisance offenses cells of the
tables (Table 4.3). Whilst Chi-square was signiﬁcant in other cases, for example for sometimes
committing minor property and personal offenses, at the .001 level, Gamma was no higher than
.3 indicating that the strengths of the relationships between those variables and drinking
combined were not very great (Tables 4.6 and 4.12).

123

Table 4.1- Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 14-15 years). (N: 405)

 

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (14-15 yrs)
Drinking in pubs Diversity
under 18 yrs
(14—15 yrs) 0-4 5-6 7-8 9-13
Never 41.6 31.5 21.5 5.4
Once or twice 11.1 33.3 38.9 16.7
Sometimes 12.5 22.9 39.6 25.0
Frequently 4.9 12.2 34.1 48.8
Chi—square = 99.74***
Gamma = .648
Drinking in pubs Sometimes Frequently
under 18 yrs
(14—15 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Never 91.9 8.1 64.8 35.2
Once or twice 100 0.0 83.3 16.7
Sometimes 100 0.0 91.7 8.3
Frequently . 100 0.0 97.6 2.4
Chi-square = 9.16* Chi-square = 3145*"
Gamma = l Gamma = .733

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

124

Table 4. 2- Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 16- 17 years). (N: 393)

 

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (14-15 yrs)
Drinking in pubs Diversity
under 18 yrs
(16—17 yrs) 0-4 5-6 7-8 9-13
No 53.1 33.3 9.9 3.7
Yes 26.9 27.9 30.1 15.1
Chi-square = 3096*"
Gamma = .519
Drinking in pubs Sometimes Frequently
under l8yrs
(16-17 yrs) Yes No Yes No
No 82.7 17.3 58.0 42.0
Yes 97.4 2.6 76.9 23.1
Chi-square = 26.65*** ' Chi-square = 10.72“
Gamma = .776 Gamma = .414

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

125

Table 4.3 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14—15 years) by drinking combined

(at 18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (14-15 yrs)
Drinking Diversity
combined
(18-19 yrs) 0-4 5-6 7-8 9-13
Low 48.2 25.5 16.4 10.0
Average 31.7 32.7 27.1 8.5
Heavy drinker 12.8 24.4 35.9 26.9
Chi-square = 4243*“
Gamma = .374
Drinking Sometimes Frequently
combined
(18-19 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Low 88.2 11.3 61.8 38.2
Average 95.0 5.0 71.9 28.1
Heavy drinker 100 0.0 89.7 10.3
Chi-square = 12.02" Chi-square = 1801*“
Gamma = .628 Gamma = .401 ,

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

126

Table 4.4 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 14-15 years). (N = 405)

 

 

 

 

 

Minor Property (14-15 yrs)
Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(14-15 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Never ’ 19.1 29.5 36.6 14.8 80.9 19.1
Once or twice 5.6 16.7 50.0 27.8 94.4 5.6
Sometimes 6.3 16.7 50.0 27.1 93.8 6.3
Frequently 2.4 12.2 39.0 46.3 97.4 2.4
Chi-square = 4023*“ Chi-square =12.95**
Gamma = .476 Gamma = .641
Drinking in pubs mm: W
under l8yrs
(14—15 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Never 58.7 41.3 27.9 72.1
Once or twice 77.8 22.2 38.9 61.1
Sometimes 81.3 18.8 31.3 68.8
Frequently 80.5 19.5 46.3 53.7
Chi-square = 16.17*** Chi-square = 6.43
Gamma = .451 Gamma = .226

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

127

Table 4.5 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 16-17 years). (N = 393)

 

 

 

 

 

Minor Property (14-15 yrs)

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever

under 18 yrs

(16-17 yrs) 0 1 24 Yes No

No 25.9 30.9 35.8 7.4 74.1 25.9

Yes 11.5 24.4 40.4 23.7 88.5 11.5
Chi-square = 1898*" Chi-square = 9.61“
Gamma = .398 Gamma = .457

Drinldng in pubs Sometimes Frequently

under l8yrs

(16-17 yrs) Yes No Yes No

No 48.1 51.9 21.0 79.0

Yes . 69.2 30.8 33.0 66.7
Chi-square = 1163*" Chi-square = 4.04*
Gamma = .416 Gamma = .306

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.6 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14—15 years) by drinking combined

128

(at 18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

 

 

 

 

Minor Pr0perty (14-15 yrs)

Drinking Diversity Ever
combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2—4 5-11 Yes No
Low 20.9 31.8 32.7 14.5 74.1 25.9
Average 13.6 25.6 43.2 17.6 86.4 13.6
Heavy drinker 9.0 17.9 37.2 35.9 91.0 9.0

Chi-square = 22.07 ** Chi-square =5.61

Gamma = .276 Gamma = .287
Drinking Sometimes Frequently
combined
(18—19 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Low 55.5 44.5 24.5 75.5
Average 62.3 37.7 30.7 69.3
Heavy drinker 82.1 17.9 42.3 57.7

Chi-square = 1481*"
Gamma = .323

Chi-square = 6.78*

Gamma = .233

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

129

Table 4.7 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14—15 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 14-15 years). (N = 405)

 

Serious Property (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever

under 18 yrs

(14—15 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No

Never 89.6 7.7 2.7 10.4 89.6

Once or Twice 88.9 5.6 5.6 11.1 88.9

Sometimes 87.5 6.3 6.3 12.5 87.5

Frequently 70.7 9.8 19.5 29.3 70.7
Chi-square = 2282*" Chi-square =ll.69**
Gamma = .351 Gamma = .341

Drinking in pubs Sometimes Frequently

under 18yrs

(14-15 yrs) Yes No Yes No

Never 5.7 94.3 1.0 99.0

Once or twice 5.6 94.4 5.6 94.4

Sometimes 8.3 91.7 0.0 100

Frequently 29.3 70.7 17.1 82.9

Chi-square = 2622*"

Gamma = .529

Chi-square = 37.17***

Gamma = .760

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

130

Table 4.8 — Self reported serious property offenses (at 14—15 years) by drinking in pubs under 18

years (at 16-17 years). (N = 393)

 

Serious Property (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(16-17 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No
No 92.6 4.9 2.5 7.4 - 92.6
Yes 85.9 8.7 5.4 14.1 85.9
Chi-square = 2.64 Chi-square =2.02
Gamma = .339 Gamma = .345
Drinking in pubs Sometimes Frequently
under 18yrs
(16-17 yrs) Yes No Yes No
No 3.7 96.3 1.2 98.8
Yes 9.6 90.4 2.9 97.1
Chi-square = 2.20 Chi-square = .197
Gamma = .469 Gamma = .408

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

131

Table 4.9 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years) by drinking combined
(at 18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

 

 

 

 

Serious Property (14-15 yrs)
Drinking Diversity Ever
combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No
Low 91.8 6.4 1.8 8.2 91.8
Average 87.4 8.5 4.0 12.6 87.4
Heavy drinker 78.2 9 0 12.8 21.8 78.2
Chi-square = 1326* Chi-square =7.53*
Gamma = .334 Gamma = .328
Drinking Sometimes ‘ Frequently
combined
(18-19 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Low 5.5 94.5 0.9 99.1
Average 7.5 92.5 2.5 97.5
Heavy drinker 16.7 83.3 6.4 93.6
Chi-square = 7.90* Chi-square = 5.16
Gamma = .365 Gamma = .530

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

132

Table 4.10 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14—15 years) by drinlcing in pubs under 18 years
(at 14-15 years). (N = 405)

 

Personal (14—15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever

under 18 yrs

(14-15 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No

Never 75.5 11.7 7.7 5.0 24.5 75.5

Once or twice 66.7 5.6 22.2 5.6 33.3 66.7

Sometimes 45.8 22.9 20.8 10.4 54.2 45.8

Frequently 41.5 22.0 17.1 19.5 58.5 41.5
Chi-square = 3890*“ Chi-square =31.90***
Gamma: .458 Gamma: .515

Drinking in pubs Sometimes Frequently

under 18yrs

(14-15 yrs) Yes No Yes No

Never 17.8 82.2 7.7 92.3

Once or twice , 27.8 72.2 5.6 94.4

Sometimes 43.8 56.3 8.3 91.7

Frequently 46.3 53.7 29.3 70.7
Chi-square = 2777*" Chi-square = 1939*“
Gamma = .503 Gamma = .416

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

133

Table 4.11 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14—15 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 16-17 years). (N = 393)

 

Personal (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever

under 18 yrs ~

(16-17 yrs) 0 l 2 3-5 Yes No

No 82.7 8.6 6.2 2.5 17.3 82.7

Yes 63.8 15.4 12.2 8.7 36.2 63.8
Chi-square = 10.95 * Chi-square =9.69**
Gamma = .437 Gamma = .462

Drinking in pubs Sometimes Frequently

under l8yrs

(16-17 yrs) Yes No Yes No

No 13.6 86.4 7.4 92.6

Yes 27.6 72.4 10.9 89.1
Chi-square = 6.03* Chi-square =. .51

Gamma = .415 Gamma = .209

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

134

Table 4.12 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years) by drinking combined
(at 18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

Personal (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Drinking Diversity Ever

combined

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No

Low 75.5 8.2 9.1 7.3 24.5 75.5

Average 71.9 14.1 10.1 4.0 28.1 71.9

Heavy drinker 48.7 23.1 12 8 15.4 51.3 48.7
Chi-square = 2336*“ Chi-square =17.55***
Gamma = .274 Gamma = .322

Drinking Sometimes Frequently

combined

(18-19 yrs) Yes No Yes No

Low 19.1 80.9 10.9 89.1

Average 20.1 79.9 7.0 93.0

Heavy drinker 39.7 60.3 14.1 85.9
Chi-square = 1379*" Chi-square = 3.56
Gamma = .289 Gamma = .062

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

135
Self Report Delinquency at 16-17 years - Undertaking a bivariate analysis of the

relationship between the early drinking variable, drinking in pubs measured at 14—15 years, and self
report delinquency measured at 16-17 years made possible the study of whether a relationship exists
between the early drinking habits of the boys in the sample and their subsequent delinquent behavior
a few years later. However, it did not prove possible from the data to distinguish those boys who
engaged in delinquent activity only at the age of 16-17 years from those who committed delinquent
acts also at the age of 14-15 years, or indeed from those boys who reported delinquent behavior at
14—15 years and then refomned. Therefore, while providing evidence concerning which types of
delinquency are more closely related to early drinking, the analysis did not make it possible to
conclude that, where relationships exist, drinking frequently in pubs at 14-15 years necessarily leads
to delinquency at 16-17 years, since a number of the delinquent boys at this age may also have
committed offenses at 14—15 years. .

Nevertheless, it can be seen from Tables 4.13 to 4.24 that when Chi- square is employed to
test the existence of a relationship, the only signiﬁcant relationships which are discovered are those
between drinking in pubs at 14-15 years and the 'diversity' public nuisance variable (see Table 4.13)
together with both the 'diversity' and 'ever’ done personal offense variables (see Table 4.22). The
Gamma values for these relationships are not very large, being approximately 0.3. However, the
results do suggest that those boys who drink illegally in pubs at age 14-15 years tend to be involved
in minor and personal offenses at age 16-17 years. Thus, while only 37.2% of those boys who do
not drink engage in personal offenses, 64.1% of the frequent drinkers do (see Table 4.22). In
contrast, the drinking behavior of the boys at 1415 years has very little effect upon whether or not
they engage in serious property offenses (see Table 4.19).

The results therefore provide evidence that, while early drinking among the boys was
associated with their committing minor crimes and crimes against persons, it did not appear to be
related to their criminal involvement in property offenses.

A slightly different pattem emerged when the results of the bivariate analysis between drinking
in pubs under 18 measured at 16-17 years and the self report delinquency variables measured at the

same age are considered. Once again, employing the Chi-square statistic, a signiﬁcant relationship is

136
discovered at the .05 level between drinking in pubs at 16-17 years and all of the delinquency

variables with the exception of the serious property 'diversity' variable (Tables 4.14, 4.17, 4.20 and
4.23). Gamma reaches its highest values for public nuisance and minor property offenses (Tables
4.14 and 4.17). Similarly, signiﬁcant relationships at the .05 level occur between drinking combined
(18-19 years) and all levels and types of delinquency, with Gamma tending to be approximately at the
.3 level, thus suggesting that, although relationships exist, they are not very strong (Tables 4.15,
4.18, 4.21 and 4.24).

Table 4.13 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16—17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 14-15 years). (N = 393)

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)

Drinking in pubs Diversity,

under 18 yrs '

(14-15 yrs) 0-4 5-6 7-8 9-13
Never 16.7 23.6 31.9 27.8
Once or twice 11.1 11.1 50.0 27.8
Sometimes 4.2 16.7 45.8 33.3
Frequently 5.1 15 .4 30.8 48.7

Chi-square = 1877*
Gamma = .286

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

137

Table 4.14 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16—17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18

years (at 16-17 years). (N = 397)

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (16—17 yrs)
Drinking in pubs Diversity
under 18 yrs
(16—17 yrs) 0—4 5-6 7-8 9-13
No 38.6 26.5 - 25.3 9.6
Yes 7.6 19.7 36.6 36.0

Chi-square = 6330*“
Gamma = .618

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.15 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking combined

(at 18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)
Drinking Diversity
combined
(18-19 yrs) 04 5-6 7-8 9-13
Low 23.9 25.7 33.0 17.4
Average 10.6 21.1 36.7 31.7
Heavy drinker 9.1 15.6 31.2 44.2

Chi-square = 2433*"
Gamma = .307

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

138

Table 4.16 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 14—15 years). (N = 393)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(14-15 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Never 10.1 16.2 45.5 28.1 89.9 10.1
Once or twice 0.0 22.2 44.4 33.3 100 0.0
Sometimes 4.2 10.4 47.9 37.5 95.8 4.2
Frequently 5.1 20.5 25.6 48.7 94.9 5.1
Chi-square = 14.41 Chi-square =4.36
Gamma = .208 Gamma = .429

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.17 - Self reported minor pr0perty offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18
years (at 16-17 years). (N = 397)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity ‘ Ever

under 18 yrs ,

(16-17 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No

No 19.3 24.1 43.4 13.3 80.7 19.3

Yes 5.7 14.3 43.6 36.6 94.3 5.7
Chi-square = 2897*" Chi-square =13.70**
Gamma = .483 Gamma = .594

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

139

Table 4.18 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking combined
(at 18—19 years). (N = 385)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

Diversity

 

Drinldng Ever
combined

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2—4 5-11 Yes No
Low 15.6 19.3 45.9 19.3 84.4 15.6
Average 7.5 16.1 40.7 35.7 92.5 7.5
Heavy drinker 2.6 11.7 46.8 39.0 97.4 2 6

Chi-square = 19.30“

Gamma = .274

Chi-square =10.33**
Gamma = .482

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.19 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under
18 years (at 14-15 years). (N = 393)

 

Serious Property (16—17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(14-15 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No
Never 88.5 5.2 6.3 11.5 88.5
Once or Twice 77.8 5.6 16.7 22.2 77.8
Sometimes 85.4 6.3 8.3 14.6 85.4
Frequently 74.4 10.3 15 .4 25.6 74.4
.Chi-square = 8.01 Chi-square =7.05
Gamma = .289 Gamma = .297

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

140

Table 4.20 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under
18 years (at 16-17 years). (N = 397)

 

Serious Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinldng in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(16-17 yrs) 0 1 24 Yes N o
No 94.0 2.4 3.6 6.0 94.0
Yes 84.1 6.7 9.2 15.9 84.1
Chi-square = 5.39 Chi—square =4.59*
Gamma = .482 - Gamma = .494

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.21 - Self reported serious prOperty offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking combined
(at 18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

Serious Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking Diversity Ever
combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 24 Yes No
Low 91.7 4.6 3.7 8.3 91.7
Sometimes 87.4 5.5 7.0 12.6 87.4
Frequently 76.6 9.1 14.3 23.4 76.6
Chi-square = 9.79* Chi-square =9.14*
Gamma = .345 Gamma = .351

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

141

Table 4.22 - Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 14-15 years). (N = 393)

 

Personal (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(14—15 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No
Never 62.8 16.0 11.5 9.7 37.2 62.8
Once or twice 44.4 33.3 5.6 16.7 55.6 44.4
Sometimes 43.8 . 22.9 14.6 18.8 56.3 43.8
Frequently 35.9 30.8 15.4 17.9 64.1 35.9
Chi-square = 19.18* Chi-square =15.70"*
Gamma = .303 Gamma = .391

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.23 - Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 16-17 years). (N = 397)

 

Personal (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(16-17 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No
No 68.7 24.1 6.0 1.2 31.3 68.7
Yes 54.1 17.5 13.4 15.0 45.9 54.1
Chi-square = 1721*" Chi-square =5.09*
Gamma = .362 Gamma = .300

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

142

Table 4.24 - Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years) by drinking combined
(at 18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

Personal (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking Diversity Ever

combined

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No

Low 68.8 18.3 7.3 5.5 31.2 68.8

Average 60.3 17.6 12.1 10.1 39.7 60.3

Heavy drinker 35.1 23.4 18.2 23.4 64.9 35.1
Chi-square = 2816*" Chi-square =22.22***
Gamma = .350 Gamma = .375

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

In conclusion, from the above results of the bivariate analysis between the three drinking
variables and self reported delinquency measured both at 14-15 years and at 16-17 years, overall
it can be stated that a relationship between self report juvenile delinquency and drinking has been
identiﬁed. The strength of the relationship appears to vary when different types of delinquency
are taken into consideration. The analysis suggests that minor public nuisance offenses are more
closely related to drinking than the more serious property offenses. These ﬁndings are consistent
with the theory that drinking is a form of deviancy distinct from criminal behavior, for the boys
who appear to be the more frequent drinkers in the sense of drinking in pubs under the age of 18
also engage in a wide variety of misconduct.

The serious property offenders, who tend to have planned their criminal activities in
advance, drink less frequently. The association between drinking and committing personal
offenses could reﬂect the violence which often erupts among drinkers, although it is not possible
to tell whether the personal offenses were committed whilst the boys were under the inﬂuence of

alcohol.

143
Official Delinquency and Drinking

Tables 4.25 to 4.36 which present the results of the bivariate analysis between the ofﬁcial
delinquency variables, considered as the dependent variables, and the three independent drinking
variables supply further evidence for the existence of a relationship between juvenile delinquency
and drinking.

The dependent variables are represented by juvenile convictions (10-16 years), a juvenile
delinquency scale (10-16 years), adult convictions (17-24 years), and the ﬁnal total number of
convictions (10-24 years). These four variables have each been further developed into a
'diversity' (number) and 'ever' done variable as described earlier, with 'ever' done consisting of
two categories: never having received a conviction and having one or more convictions.

The analysis of the associations between the drinking variables and the 'ever’ done official
delinquency variables utilizing the Chi-square statistic indicate that both drinking in pubs at 14-15
years and drinking combined (measured at 18-19 years) are related to all of the 'ever' done
variables, Chi-square being signiﬁcant at at least the .05 level in all cases (Tables 4.25, 4.27,
4.28, 4.30, 4.31, 4.33, 4.34 and 4.36). In other words, those boys who drink more frequently
in pubs under age at 14—15 years or who are heavy drinkers at 18-19 years, are more likely to
have ofﬁcial conviction records at any age than those boys who abstain from alcohol or only
drink in moderation. Thus, for example, only 24.6% of the boys who do not drink in pubs at
14-15 years have 1 or more adult convictions compared with 46.2% of boys who frequently
drink in pubs at the same age (Table 4.31). Gamma for all of the relationships outlined above is
relatively low, around .3, which suggests that the association between these particular variables
is not very strong. Moreover, there can be seen to be very little difference between the strength
of the relationships between the various drinking variables and each different ofﬁcial conviction
variable when the respective values of Gamma are compared, although the indication is perhaps
that the Gamma values are slightly higher when they are describing the drinking behavior at
18-19 years than they are at 14-15 years.

Drinking in pubs at 16-17 years is only signiﬁcantly related at the .05 level to the 'ever'
done category of the ﬁnal total number of convictions variable (10-24 years) (Table 4.35). i

144

Table 4.25 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 14-15 years). (N = 405)

 

Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Number Ever
under 18 yrs
(14.15 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21
Never 82.2 11 1 6.7 . 82.2 17.8
Once or twice 77.8 5.6 16.7 77.8 22.2
Sometimes 79.2 10.4 10.4 79.2 20.8
Frequently 61.0 19 5 19.5 61.0 39.0
Chi-square = 13.11* Chi-square = 10.02“
Gamma = .286 Gamma = .290

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.26 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 16-17 years). (N = 397)

 

. Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Number Ever
under 18 yrs ,
(16-17 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21
No 85.5 6.0 8.4 85.5 14.5
Yes 78.0 12.7 9 2 78.0 22.0
Chi-square = 3.12 Chi-square = 1.84
Gamma = .221 Gamma = .250

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

145

Table 4.27 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10—16 years) by drinking combined (at 18-19 years).

 

 

 

(N = 389)
Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 yrs)
Drinking Number Ever
combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21
Low 86.6 8.0 5.4 86.6 13.4
Average 78.9 13.6 7.5 78.9 21.1
Heavy drinker 67.9 12.8 19.2 67.9 32.1
Chi-square = 14.82" Chi-square = 9.62“
Gamma = .318 Gamma = .320 ‘

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.28 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 14-15 years). (N = 405)

 

Juvenile delinquency scale (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs
under 18 yrs No police Police Convicted
(14—15 yrs) record contact once only Recidivist
Never 70.1 12.1 11.1 6.7
Once or twice 50.0 27.8 5.6 16.7
Sometimes 58.3 20.8 10.4 10.4
Frequently 48.8 12.2 19.5 19.5
Chi-square = 19.76”“
Gamma = .285

 

*p<.05; **p<.Ol; ***p<.001

146

Table 4.29 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 16-17 years). (N = 397)

 

Juvenile delinquency scale (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs .
under 18 yrs No police Police Convicted
(16-17 yrs) record contact once only Recidivist
No 69.9 15.7 6.0 8.4
Yes 64.3 13.7 12.7 9.2
Chi-square = 3.15
Gamma = .126

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.30 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by drinking combined (at 18-19 years).

 

 

 

(N = 389)
Juvenile delinquency scale (16-17 yrs)

13 . l . g
combined No police Police Convicted
(18—19 yrs) record contact once only Recidivist
Low 74.6 9.5 9.5 6.3
Average 67.9 15.4 9.6 7.1
Heavy drinker 52.3 10.5 19.8 17.4

Chi-square = 19.20"

Gamma = .282

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.31 - Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years

147

(at 14-15 years). (N = 392)

 

Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Number Ever
under 18 yrs
(14-15 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4—10 0 21
Never 75.4 11.9 6.1 6.5 75.4 24.6
Once or Twice 80.0 6.7 6.7 6.7 80.0 20.0
Sometimes 71.1 6.7 15.6 6.7 71.1 28.9
Frequently 53.8 15.4 15.4 15.4 53.8 46.2
Chi-square = 14.85 Chi-square =8.58*
Gamma = .242 Gamma = .250

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4. 32- Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17- 24 years) by drinking rn pubs under 18 years

(at 1o17 years). (N: 384)

 

Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Number Ever
under 18 yrs
(16-17 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4-10 0 21
No 78.8 5.0 7.5 8.8 78.8 21.3
Yes 71.1 13.8 8.2 6.9 71.1 28.9
Chi-square = 4 96 Chi-square =1 52
Gamma = 143 Gamma = .203

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

148

Table 4.33 - Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by drinking combined (at 18-19 years).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 379)
Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)
Drinking Number Ever
combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4-10 0 21
Low 81.7 6.4 8.3 3.7 81.7 18.3
Average 73.7 13.4 8.2 4.6 73.7 26.3
Heavy drinker 57.9 14.5 7.9 19.7 57.9 42.1
Chi-square = 2684*“ Chi-square =12.93**
Gamma = .318 Gamma = .333
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Table 4.34 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years) by drinking in pubs under 18 years
(at 14-15 years). (N = 392)
Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)
Drinking in pubs Number Ever
under 18 yrs ‘
(14-15 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-14 Yes No
Never 69.6 13.0 9.9 7.5 69.6 30.4
Once or twice 80.0 0.0 13.3 6.7 80.0 20.0
Sometimes 68.9 8.9 15.6 6.7 68.9 31.1
Frequently 43.6 15.4 28.2 12.8 43.6 56.4
Chi-square = 1755* Chi-square =11.84**
Gamma = .215 Gamma = .226

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 _

149

Table 4.35 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (10—24 years) by drinlu'ng in pubs under 18 years
(at 16-17 years). (N = 384)

 

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)

 

 

Drinldng in pubs Number Ever

under 18 yrs

(16-17 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-14 Yes No

No 78.8 3.8 6.3 11.3 78.8 21.3

Yes 63.8 14.8 14.5 6.9 63.8 36.2
Chi-square = 13.19" Chi-square =5.72*

Gamma = .251

Gamma = .355

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.36 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years) by drinking combined (at 18-19 years).

 

 

 

Chi-square = 29.93"
Gamma = .288

(N = 379)
Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)

Drinking Number Ever
combined .
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-14 Yes No
Low 76.1 9.2 11.0 3.7 76.1 23.9
Average 67.5 12.4 14.4 5.7 67.5 32.5
Heavy drinker 52.6 15.8 10.5 21.1 52.6 47.4

Chi-square =11.25**
Gamma = .300

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

150

The most systematic results concerning the number of ofﬁcial convictions are to be found
in the bivariate analysis of 'drinking combined' (measured at 18-19 years) with the delinquency
variables. This drinking variable is signiﬁcantly related with all of the conviction variables, with
Chi-square signiﬁcant at least at the .05 level (Tables 4.27, 4.30, 4.33 and 4.36). Drinking at
the late age of 18-19 years is thus associated within the sample with both adult and juvenile
convictions, suggesting that those boys who drink heavily at the older age have, through their
deviant acts, attracted the attention of the authorities when younger.

Thus, while the bivariate analysis using ofﬁcial delinquency statistics tends to support the
results of the examination of the relationship between drinking and self report juvenile
delinquency, in the limited sense of discovering a relationship between the two types of
deviancy, the data provides only limited additional information concerning the effects of drinldng
at different ages upon the development of delinquency.

Chi-square is signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the analysis of the relationship between drinlo'ng
in pubs under 18 years measured at 14—15 years and the number of adult convictions for both the
'diversity' and 'ever' done variables. Thus, it is possible to conclude from this particular result
that those boys who drink frequently in pubs at 14-15 years are more likely than those who either
seldom or never drink illegally at that age to have a conviction later in life. Whilst 75.4% of
those boys who do not drink illegally at age 14-15 years have no adult convictions, for example,
only 53.8% of those who drink frequently are unconvicted as an adult by the age of 24 (Table
4.31). However, the bivariate analyses concerned with conviction rates ignore those variations
in the strengths of the relationship between delinquency and drinking which are due to the boys
being involved in different types of crime.

The existence of an array of variables which measured the number of ofﬁcial convictions
for offenses committed between a variety of ages provided sufﬁcient data for a variable to be
created which described the ages at which boys acquired their ﬁrst convictions. It was therefore
possible to determine the percentages of boys who were ﬁrst convicted early in life (prior to age
13), and those ﬁrst convicted later (between age 14 and 20). In addition, through the
manipulation of the variables 'drinking in pubs under 18 years (14-15 years)’ and 'drinking in

151
pubs under 18 years (16-17 years), a variable describing the onset of drinking was developed.

Those boys who began drinking prior to age 15 were regarded as being early drinkers, whilst the
later drinkers were those who began to drink between the ages of 16 and 17. Through the
bivariate analysis of these two newly-created variables, a greater understanding of the effects of
early drinking behavior, as compared with later drinking, upon delinquency was obtained. The
results showed that 48% of the early delinquents drank later as opposed to 61% of the late
delinquents, and that 36% of the early delinquents drank early in comparison with 32% of the late
delinquents. These ﬁndings suggest that early drinking tends to lead to early delinquency and
that later drinking tends to lead to late delinquency.

Self Report Delinquency and Family Factors

Bivariate analysis between the six independent family variables, as deﬁned in the previous
chapter, and self report delinquency was undertaken with the intention of discovering those
family factors which appear to be related to or to contribute towards the development of deviant
behavior amongst the sample of boys. 0

To assist in the understanding of the large number of crosstabulations presented in the
following pages, the outcome of the investigation concerning whether or not each of the family
factors are associated with self report delinquency will be discussed by considering the respective
independent family variables in the order in which they appear in the tables.

Self Report Delinquency at 14-15 years - Tables 4.37, 4.43, 4.49 and 4.55
indicate that family income is related only to serious property offenses, with Chi-square being
signiﬁcant at the .05 level for the 'sometimes' variable and at the .01 level for the 'ever' done and
'diversity' variables (Table 4.49). Gamma is approximately .4 for all three associations,
signifying a moderate relationship. These results suggest that boys who come from low income
families attempt to compensate for their poor life styles and lack of material goods by involving
themselves in crimes through which they can acquire those items they covet and wish to possess.
However, since the more minor types of crime, or those involving violence aganist persons do

not necessarily result in any great material gain, family income does not play a signiﬁcant role in

152

the commission of these offenses.

Family size, although having a signiﬁcant relationship with at least one variable included in
each of the public nuisance ('diversity'), serious property ('diversity' and 'sometimes'), and
minor property ('diversity' and 'sometimes') categories, consistently exhibits a signiﬁcant
association with personal offenses (Table 4. 56). Chi-square is signiﬁcant for all four personal
offense variables at least at the .05 level, albeit Gamma varies around .2 and .3 implying that the
relationship between family size and personal offenses is not very strong. Nevertheless, these
ﬁndings do provide some evidence that. as family size increases, the boys at the age of 14-15
years are more likely to become involved in violent types of crime than in minor or property
offenses.

The family structural variable 'broken home' only has a signiﬁcant relationship at the .05
level with frequently committing serious property offenses (Table 4.51) and personal offenses
(Table 4. 57). The strengths of both relationships are moderate with Gamma taking on values of
.476 and .356 respectively. Whilst 8.5% of those boys who do not come from broken homes
admit to involvement in personal offenses at 14-15 years, compared with 7.4% of boys whose
homes are broken due to death, the much larger ﬁgure of 20.8% of boys'whose homes are
broken due to separation or divorce admit to the same type of actrvrty (Table 4.57). These
percentages suggest that the reason for the broken home is a factor which rrrust be taken into
account when analyzing the relationship between broken homes and delinquency. A similar
pattern emerges when the results of the analysis between broken homes and the commission of
serious property offenses are considered. Thus, whilst 2.1% of boys from intact homes and
none of those from homes broken by death admit to serious pr0perty offenses, 8.3% of boys
whose parents are either separated or divorced have had some involvement in these types of
crimes (Table 4.51).

Previous research outlined in the literature review of this study indicated that disagreement
between parents, and their attitudes towards their children both play a role in the development of
juvenile delinquency. In the present study, the variable 'behavior of parents combined' provided

an early indication of such parental conduct, being measured when the boys were only 10-11

153
years old. However, from the results displayed in Tables 4.40, 4.46, 4.52 and 4.58, it can be

seen that behavior of parents exhibits no systematic relationship with any type of self report
delinquency. Indeed, the only one variable found to be associated with parental behavior at the
.05 level of signiﬁcance is the 'frequently' committing category of serious property offenses
(Table 4.52).

In contrast, according to the Chi-square test the variable 'supervision by parents' is
associated at the .05 level of signiﬁcance with the majority of the self report delinquency
variables included in the study. Gamma tends to vary around the .3 level indicating very
moderate relationships (Tables 4.41, 4.47, 4.53 and 4.59). Nevertheless it is clear from the
results that, as supervision by parents decreases in quality, the boys become more vulnerable to
involvement in every type of crime. Serious property offenses are the only category in which
only one variable, 'ever' done, is signiﬁcantly related to parental supervision (Table 4.53), whilst
for all other types of offenses, the association involves at least two variables in each category.

The commission of serious property offenses is the one type of juvenile delinquency which
exhibits a systematic relationship with the variable which describes the boys' attitides towards
their parents: 'relationship with parents combined' (Table 4.54). From this table it can be seen
that the proportion of boys who indicated that they had a poor relationship with their parents at
18-19 years and that they had committed serious property offenses at 14-15 years (23.3 %), is
considerably higher than the proportion who had been involved in the same type of crime at the
younger age but who reported a good relationship with their parents at 18-19 years (6.3%). The
only Other variable for which Chi-square is signiﬁcant at the .05 level in describing associations
between the boys' relationships with their parents and other factors is the 'diversity' minor

offense category.

154

Table 4.37 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years) by family income
(at 8-9 years). (N = 405)

 

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (14—15 yrs)
Diversity
Family income
(8-9 yrs) 04 5-6 7-8 9-13
Comfortable 32.8 26.4 28.0 12.8
Adequate 34.6 29.3 27.1 9.0
Inadequate 30.4 30.4 19.6 19.6
Chi-square = 7.86
Gamma = .015
Sometimes Frequently
Family income
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Comfortable 94.4 5.6 69.6 30.4
Adequate 94.1 5.9 71.3 28.7
Inadequate 93.5 6.5 77.2 22.8
Chi—square = .08 Chi-square = 1.63
Gamma = -.048 Gamma = .109

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

155

Table 4.38 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14—15 years) by family size (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 405)
Public Nuisance (14-15 yrs)
Family size Diversity
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) 04 5-6 7-8 9-13
None 43.2 31.8 18.2 6.8
One 36.0 28.0 31.0 5.0
Two 38.0 27.0 26.0 9.0
Three 20.6 28.6 33.3 17.5
Four 20.0 28.6 25 .7 25.7
Five or more 33.3 30.2 14.3 22.2
Chi-square = 31.49"
Gamma = .160
Family size Sometimes Frequently
(Number of siblings) ’
(8-9 yrs) . Yes No Yes No
None 93.2 6.8 65.9 34.1
One 94.0 6.0 67.0 33.0
Two 96.0 4.0 73.0 27.0
Three 93.7 6.3 74.6 25.4
Four 94.3 5.7 68.6 31.4
Five or more 92.1 7.9 82.5 17.5
Chi-square = 1.21 Chi-square = 6.00
Gamma = -.044 Gamma = .159

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

156

Table 4.39 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years) by broken home before 15

 

 

 

 

 

years. (N = 405)
Public Nuisance (14-15 yrs)
Diversity
Broken home
before 15 years 0-4 5-6 7-8 9-13
Not broken 33.9 29.4 26.1 10.6
Broken by death 29.6 22.2 25 .9 22.2
Broken otherwise 29.2 27.1 22.9 20.8
Chi-square = 6.66
Gamma = .148
Sometimes Frequently
Broken home
before 15 yrs Yes No Yes No
Not broken 93.6 6.4 71.2 28.8
Broken by death 96.3 3.7 81.5 18.5
Broken Otherwise 95.8 4.2 72.9 27.1
Chi-square = .62 Chi-square =1.33 V
Gamma = .228 Gamma = .106

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

157

Table 4.40 — Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years) by behavior of parents
combined (at 10-11 years). (N = 390)

 

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (14—15 yrs)
Behavior of Diversity
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) 0-4 5-6 7-8 9-13
Good 32.0 32.0 28.0 8.0
Good average 37.6 24.7 27.1 10.6
Poor average 33.0 27.3 22.7 17.0
Poor 30.4 29.3 23.9 16.3
Chi-square = 7.30
Gamma = .057
Behavior of Sometimes Frequently
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good . 93.6 6.4 - 70.4 29.6
Good average 91.8 8.2 68.2 31.8
Poor average 94.3 5 .7 72.7 27.3
Poor 95.7 4.3 76.1 23.9
Chi-square = 1.60 Chi-square =1.53
Gamma=.111 Gamma=.083

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

158

Table 4.41 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14-15 years) by supervision by parents
(at 8-9 years). (N = 377)

 

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (14-15 yrs)
Supervision Diversity
by parents
(8-9 yrs) 0-4 5-6 7-8 . 9-13
Good 48.9 30.7 12.5 8.0
Average 27.5 31.7 29.4 11.5
Poor 28.2 21.1 29.6 21.1
Chi-square = 2482*"
Gamma = .286
Supervision Sometimes Frequently
by parents
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good 93.2 6.8 61.4 38.6
Average 93.6 6.4 71.4 28.4
Poor 95.8 4.2 88.7 11.3
Chi-square = .554 Chi-square =14.92***
Gamma = .126 Gamma = .386

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

159

Table 4.42 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 14—15 years) by relationship with parents
combined (at 18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (14-15 yrs)
Relationship with Diversity
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) 04 5-6 7-8 9-13
Good ‘ 38.1 31.7 20.6 9.5
Average 31.9 28.6 26.9 12.6
Poor 30.2 27 .9 26.7 15.1
' Chi-square = 2.67
Gamma = .098

Relationship with Sometimes Frequently
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good 90.5 9.5 65.1 . 34.9
Average 94.5 5.5 73.5 26.5
Poor 95.3 4.7 75.6 24.4

Chi-square =' 1.80 Chi-square =2.28

Gamma: .218 Gamma: .137

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

160

Table 4.43 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by family income
(at 8-9 years). (N = 405)

 

 

 

 

 

Minor Property (14-15 yrs)
Diversity Ever

Family income
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Comfortable 16.8 28.0 36.8 18.4 83.2 16.8
Adequate 18.1 23.4 41.0 17.6 81.9 18.1
Inadequate 7.6 27.2 38.0 27 .2 92 4 7.6

Chi-square = 8.86 Chi-square = 5.54

Gamma = .120 Gamma = .194

Sometimes Frequently

Family income -
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Comfortable 60.0 40.0 . 28.8 71.2
Adequate 63.8 36.2 29.8 70.2
Inadequate ' . 71.7 28.3 34.8 65.2

Chi-square = 3.24 . Chi-square = 1.01

Gamma=.151 Gamma=.080

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

161

Table 4.44 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by family size (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

 

 

m=wn
Minor Property (14-15 yrs)
Family size Diversity Ever
(Number of siblings) -
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 - Yes No
None 20.5 31.8 34.1 13.6 79.5 20.5
One 18.0 27.0 42.0 13.0 82.0 18.0
Two 13.0 29.0 45.0 13.0 87.0 13.0
Three 19.0 19.0 28.6 33.3 81.0 19.0
Four 8.6 20.0 45.7 25.7 91.4 8.6
Five or more 11. 1 23.8 34.9 30.2 88.9 11.1
Chi-square = 25.74* Chi-square = 4.63
Gamma = .174 Gamma = .145
Family size Sometimes Frequently
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
None 52.3 47.7 34.1 65.9
One 61.0 39.0 24.0 76.0
Two 60.0 40.0 26.0 74.0
Three 65.1 34.9 38.1 61.9
Four 77.1 22.9 31.4 68.6
Five or more 77.8 22.2 38.1 61.9
Chi-square = 11.59* Chi-square = 6.64
Gamma = .222 Gamma = .117

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

162

Table 4.45 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by broken home before 15

 

 

 

 

 

years. (N = 405)
Minor Property (14-15 yrs)
Diversity Ever

Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Not broken 17.0 25.8 39.1 18.2 83.0 17.0
Broken by death 7 .4 22.2 44.4 25.9 92.6 7.4
Broken otherwise 8.3 27.1 35.4 29.2 91.7 8 3

Chi-square = 6.78 Chi-square = 3 80

Gamma = .204 Gamma = .388

Sometimes Frequently

Broken home
before 15 yrs Yes No Yes No
Not broken 64.2 35.8 28.5 71.5
Broken by death 63.0 37.0 . 44.4 55.6
Broken otherwise 66.7 33.3 37.5 62.5

Chi-square = .135 Chi-square =4.20

Gamma = .027 Gamma = .231

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

163

Table 4.46 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by behavior of parents
combined (10-11 years). (N = 390)

 

Minor Property (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Behavior of Diversity Ever
parents combined
(10-11yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Good 15.2 28.0 39.2 17 .6 84.8 15.2
Good average 16.5 25.9 41.2 16.5 83.5 ' 16.5
Poor average 14.8 22.7 43.2 19.3 85.2 14.8
Poor 17.4 26.1 29.3 27.2 82.6 17.4
Chi-square = 6.78 Chi-square =.303
Gamma = .044 Gamma = -.033
Behavior of Sometimes Frequently
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good 57.6 42.4 25.6 74.4
Good average 68.2 31.8 31.8 68.2
Poor average 68.2 31.8 31.8 68.2
Poor 65.2 34.8 33.7 66.3
Chi-square = 3.61 Chi-square =1.99
Gamma = .103 Gamma = .107

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

164

Table 4.47 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by supervision by parents

(8-9 years). (N = 377)

 

 

 

 

 

Minor Pr0perty (14-15 yrs)
Supervision Diversity Ever
by parents
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Good 21.6 ‘ 33.0 33.0 12.5 78.4 21.6
Average 15.1 24.8 40.8 19.3 84.9 15.1
Poor 9.9 19.7 40.8 29.6 90.1 9.9
Chi-square = 13.35“ Chi-square = 4 20
Gamma = .249 Gamma = .256
Supervision Sometimes Frequently
by parents
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good 51.1 48.9 21.6 78.4
Average 63.8 36.2 29.4 70.6
Poor 80.3 19.7 46.5 53.5
Chi-square = 1448*" Chi-square =11.91*
Gamma = .357 Gamma = .319

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

165

Table 4.48 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 14-15 years) by relationship with parents
combined (18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

Minor Property (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Relationship with Diversity Ever
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Good 15.9 36.5 36.5 11.1 84.1 15.9
Average 15.5 23.1 42.4 18.9 84.5 15.5
Poor 11.6 25.6 31.4 31.4 88.4 11.6
Chi-square = 14.30* Chi-square =.850
Gamma= .182 Gamma= .107
Relationship with Sometimes Frequently
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good 54.0 46.0 27.0 73.0 .
Average 64.3 35.7 29.4 70.6
Poor 72.1 27 .9 39.5 60.5
Chi-square = 5.20 Chi-square =3.65
Gamma = .219 Gamma = .174

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

166

Table 4.49 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years) by family income

(at 8-9 years). (N = 405) ‘

 

 

 

 

 

Serious Property (14—15 yrs)
Diversity Ever
Family income
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No .
Comfortable 92.8 4.0 3.2 7.2 92.8
Adequate 88.8 8.0 3.2 11.2 88.8
Inadequate 77.2 12.0 10.9 22.8 77.2
Chi-square = 14.47" Chi-square = 12.40"
Gamma = .387 Gamma = .395
Sometimes Frequently
Family income
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Comfortable 5 .6 94.4 2.4 97.6
Adequate 6.9 93.1 1.6 98.4
Inadequate 15.2 84.8 5.4 94.6
Chi-square = 7.37* Chi-square = 3.51
Gamma = .339 Gamma = .277

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

167

Table 4.50 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years) by family size
(at 8-9 years). (N = 405)

 

 

 

 

 

Serious Property (14-15 yrs)
Family size Diversity Ever
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No
None 93.2 6.8 0.0 6.8 g 93.2
One 91.0 6.0 3.0 9.0 91.0
Two 91.0 5.0 4.0 9.0 91.0
Three 85.7 9.5 4.8 14.3 85.7
Four 74.3 20.0 5 .7 25.7 74.3
Five or more 81.0 6.3 12.7 19.0 81.0
Chi-square = 21.03““ Chi-square = 11.70*
Gamma = .297 Gamma = .296 .
Family size Sometimes Frequently
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
None 4.5 95.5 0.0 100
One 6.0 94.0 2.0 98.0
Two 4.0 96.0 2.0 98.0
Three 14.3 85.7 3.2 96.8
Four 14.3 85 .7 8.6 91.4
Five or more 12.7 87.3 3.2 96.8
Chi-square = 10.05 Chi-square = 6.26
Gamma = .302 Gamma = .344

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

168

Table 4.51 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years) by broken home before 15

 

 

 

 

 

years. (N = 405)
Serious Property (14—15 yrs)
Diversity Ever
Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 24 Yes No
Not broken 88.8 7.0 4.2 11.2 88.8
Broken by death 81.5 14.8 3.7 18.5 81.5
Broken Otherwise 81.3 8.3 10.4 18.8 81.3
Chi-square =5 .75 Chi-square = 3.08
Gamma = .269 Gamma = .274
Sometimes Frequently
Broken home
before 15 yrs Yes No Yes No
Not broken 7.6 92.4 2.1 97.9
Broken by death 14.8 85.2 0.0 100
Broken Otherwise 10.4 89.6 8.3 91.7
Chi-square = 1.99 Chi-square = 6.93“
Gamma = .222 Gamma = .476

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

169

Table 4.52 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14—15 years) by behavior of parents
combined (10-11 years). (N = 390)

 

Serious Property (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Behavior Of Diversity Ever
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) _ 0 1 2-4 Yes No
Good 88.0 10.4 1.6 12.0 88.0
Good average 89.4 7.1 3.5 10.6 89.4
Poor average 90.9 3.4 5 .7 9.1 90.9
Poor 81.5 8.7 9.8 18.5 81.5
Chi-square = 11.72 Chi-square = 4.32
Gamma = .137 Gamma = .124
Behavior Of Sometimes Frequently
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) Yes No Yes NO
Good 8.0 92.0 1.6 98.4
Good average 5 .9 94.1 2.4 97.6
Poor average 5.7 94.3 0.0 100
Poor 13.0 87 .0 6.5 93.5
Chi-square = 4.22 Chi-square = 8.56*
Gamma = .146 Gamma = .400

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

170

Table 4.53 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14-15 years) by supervision by parents

(8-9 years). (N = 377)

 

Serious Property (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Supervision Diversity Ever

by parents

(8—9 m) 0 1 2-4 Yes No

Good 94.3 3.4 2.3 5.7 94.3

Average 87.2 8.3 4.6 12.8 87.2

Poor 80.3 11.3 8.5 19.7 80.3
Chi-square = 7.44 Chi-square = 7.16“
Gamma = .360 Gamma = .369

Supervision Sometimes Frequently

by parents

(8-9 yrs) Yes NO Yes No

Good ' 3.4 96.6 1.1 98.9

Average ' 8.7 91.3 3.2 96.8

Poor 12.7 87.3 2.8 97.2
Chi-square = 4.64 Chi-square =1 05
Gamma = .360 Gamma = .225

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

171

Table 4.54 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 14—15 years) by relationship with parents

combined (18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

Serious Property (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Relationship with - Diversity Ever

parents combined

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No

Good 93.7 4.8 1.6 6.3 93.7

Average 88.7 7 .1 4.2 11.3 88.7

Poor 76.7 12.8 10.5 23.3 76.7
Chi-square = 11.61* Chi-square = 10.9""'I
Gamma = .408 Gamma = .415

Relationship with Sometimes Frequently

parents combined

(18-19 yrs) Yes No Yes No

Good 4.8 95.2 0.0 100

Average 7.1 92.9 2.5 97.5

Poor 16.3 83.7 5.8 94.2
Chi-square = 810* Chi-square = 4.68
Gamma = .404 Gamma = .584

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

172

Table 4.55 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14.15 years) by family income (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 405)
Personal (14-15 yrs)
Diversity Ever

Family income
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No
Comfortable 70.4 11.2 9.6 8.8 29.6 70.4
Adequate 69.7 14.9 10.6 4.8 30.3 69.7
Inadequate 62.0 15.2 13 0 9.8 38.0 62.0

Chi-square = 5.01 Chi-square = 2.12

Gamma = .090 Gamma = .108

Sometimes Frequently

Family income
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Comfortable 24.8 75.2 8.0 92.0
Adequate , 20.2 79.8 8.0 92.0
Inadequate 31.5 68.5 16.3 83.7

Chi-square = 4.34 Chi-square = 5.52

Gamma = .084 . Gamma = .246

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

173

Table 4.56 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14—15 years) by family size (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 405)
Personal (14-15 yrs)
Family size Diversity Ever
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2 Yes NO
None 75.0 15.9 4.5 25.0 75.0
One 76.0 10.0 10.0 24.0 76.0
Two 73.0 12.0 9.0 27 .0 73.0
Three 58.7 12.7 12.7 41.3 58.7
Four 68.6 17.1 5.7 31.4 68.6
Five or more 52.4 20.6 20.6 47.6 52.4
Chi-square = 2599* Chi-square = 14.67“
Gamma = .217 Gamma = .243
Family size Sometimes Frequently
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) Yes NO Yes No
None 15.9 84.1 6.8 93.2
One 20.0 80.0 3.0 97.0
Two 18.0 82.0 8.0 92.0
Three 34.9 65.1 14.3 85.7
Four 20.0 80.0 1 1.4 88.6
Five or more 38.1 61.9 20.6 79.4

Chi-square = 15.62"
Gamma = .241

Chi-square = 15.83"

Gamma = .399

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

174

Table 4.57 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years) by broken home before 15 years.

 

 

 

 

 

(N = 405)
Personal (14-15 yrs)
Diversity Ever

Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 2. 3-5 Yes NO
Not broken 70.0 14.2 10.3 5.5 30.0 70.0
Broken by death 66.7 3.7 14.8 14.8 33.3 66.7
Broken otherwise 56.3 16.7 12.5 14.6 43.8 56.3

Chi-square = 11.34 Chi-square = 3.6

Gamma = .232 Gamma = .217

Sometimes Frequently

Broken home
before 15 yrs Yes No Yes No
Not broken 21.8 7 .2 8.5 91.5
Broken by death 33.3 66.7 7.4 92.6
Broken Otherwise 35.4 64.6 20.8 79.2

Chi-square = 5.54 Chi-square =7.38*

Gamma = .296 Gamma = .356

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

175

Table 4.58 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14—15 years) by behavior of parents combined
(10-11 years). (N = 390)

 

Personal (14-15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

Behavior of Diversity Ever

parents combined

(10-11 yrs) 0 1 2 Yes No

Good 71.2 13.6 7.2 8.0 28.8 71.2

Good average 67.1 14.1 15.3 3.5 32.9 67.1

Poor average 73.9 9.1 10.2 6.8 26.1 73.9

Poor 59.8 18.5 12.0 9.8 40.2 59.8
Chi-square = 10.24 Chi-square = 4.88
Gamma = .096 Gamma = .108

Behavior of Sometimes Frequently

parents combined

(10-11 yrs) Yes No Yes No

Good ‘ 21.6 78.4 12.0 88.0

Good average 22.4 77.6 3.5 96.5

Poor average 20.5 79.5 5.7 94.3

Poor 33.7 66.3 17.4 82.6
Chi-square = 5.78 Chi-square =11.92**
Gamma=.151 Gamma=.120

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

176

Table 4.59 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years) by supervision by parents
(8-9 years). (N = 377)

 

 

 

 

 

Personal (14-15 yrs)
Supervision Diversity Ever
by parents -
(8-9 yrs) 0 l 2 3-5 Yes No
Good 75.0 12.5 9.1 3.4 25.0 75.0
Average 71.1 14.7 8.3 6.0 28.9 71.1
Poor 53.5 14.1 19.7 12.7 46.5 53.5
Chi-square = 1560* Chi-square =9.82**
Gamma = .261 Gamma = .266
Supervision Sometimes Frequently
by parents
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good 17.0 83.0 9.1 90.9
Average 22.0 78.0 8.7 91.3 . '
Poor 38.0 62.0 14.1 85.9
Chi-square = 10.50“ Chi-square =1.81
Gamma = .308 Gamma = .142

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

177

Table 4.60 - Self reported personal offenses (at 14-15 years) by relationship with parents
combined (18-19 years). (N = 377)

 

 

 

 

 

Personal (14-15 yrs)
Relationship with Diversity Ever
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No
Good 79.4 12 7 6.3 1 6 20.6 79.4
Average 66.0 13 9 11.8 8 4 34.0 66.0
Poor 66.3 16 3 9.3 8 1 33.7 66.3
Chi-square = 6.60 Chi-square = 4.32
Gamma= .144 Gamma= .152
Family size Sometimes Frequently
(Number Of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) Yes No Yes No
Good 12.7 87.3 . 1.6 98.4
Average 25.2 74.8 10.5 89.5
Poor 27 .9 72.1 12.8 87.2
Chi-square = 5.35 , Chi-square = 5.92
Gamma = .224 Gamma = .358

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

178
The results of the bivariate analysis between family factors and self report delinquency

measured at 14-15 years thus provides some evidence conceming the conditions which existed in
the homes of boys in the survey sample who became involved in various forms Of misbehavior at
a relatively early age. Thus, low family income and poor relationships with parents appeared to
be contributory factors towards the commission of more serious serious property offenses rather '
than minor crimes.

The ﬁnding that the quality Of supervision by parents was associated with all categories Of
self report delinquency implies that poor parental supervision creates an environment conducive
tO the development Of both serious and minor misconduct among juveniles. However, the
analysis also indicated that differences in the attitudes of parents towards their children or the
quality of their own relationships had no systematic signiﬁcant impact upon whether or not the
boys became involved in deviant behavior. Thus, the variable 'behavior of parents combined'
was only signiﬁcantly related to the frequent commission of serious property offenses.
Similarly, broken homes only exhibited an association with the frequent commission of both
serious property and personal offenses. Clearly, broken homes and parental behavior only tend
to contribute towards the development Of delinquency among the more frequent serious
Offenders.

Finally, family size as a structural family variable was associated with a variety Of
offenses, but only consistently with the personal offense category.

Delinquency at 16-17 years - The bivariate analysis between self reported
delinquency at 16-17 years and family factors provides further information concerning the role of
the family in the development of different types Of juvenile delinquency.

The major ﬁnding displayed in the cross-tabulation results is that every family variable
included in the analysis, with the exception of broken homes, exhibits a signiﬁcant association at
the .05 level with both of the serious property measures of delinquency (Tables 4.73 to 4.78).
The broken homes variable is only signiﬁcantly related tO the 'ever' done serious property

variable (Table 4.75). Gamma, which indicates the strength of these relationships, reaches its

179
highest values of the order of .5 in the analysis between serious property offenses at 16-17 years

and both supervision by parents and relationships with parents (Tables 4.77 and 4.78).
Moreover, from the percentage ﬁgures displayed in the Table 4.75 it is again possible to discern
that it the reason for the break up of the marital home must be taken into account when describing
the relationship between broken homes and serious property offenses, taken to represent just one
particular aspect of juvenile delinquency. Thus, while 12.4% of the boys who lived in an intact
home admitted to having been involved in serious property offenses, as compared with 11.1% of
those who had lost a parent through death, proportionately more than twice as many (25.5%) of
the remainder, whose parents were either divorced or separated, admitted to the same type of
deviant activity.

From the above results, it can be concluded that the relationships between family members
and the quality of parental supervision and discipline all played important roles in determining
whether or not the boys in the sample diSplayed deviant behavior in the form of involvement in
serious property offenses up to the age of 17 (Tables 4.76 to 4.78).

Tables 4.67 to 4.72 indicate that very few signiﬁcant relationships exist between minor
offenses and family factors up to the age Of 17. The same can be said for Tables 4.79 to 4.84
with respect tO personal Offenses. In particular, minor property Offenses are not related to any
family variables included in the analysis, and indeed Gamma takes on a negative value when .
describing the association between these types of crimes and parental behavior (Table 4.70).
Indeed, Table 4.70 indicates that 93.4% of those boys whose parents were described as
exhibiting good behavior admitted to having been involved in minor property Offenses, as
compared with only 90.4% whose parents' behavior was described as poor. Although the
difference is only of 3%, it is in the direction contrary to that which could have been anticipated.

Family income, in addition to being related to serious property offenses as mentioned

previously, is also associated at the .05 level of signiﬁcance with personal offenses (Table 4.79).

180

Table 4.61 - Self reported public nuisance Offenses (at 16-17 years) by family income
(at 8—9 years). (N = 397)

 

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)
Diversity

Family income
(8-9 yrs) 04 5-6 7-8 9-13
Comfortable 14.9 29.8 ‘ 33.1 22.3
Adequate 14.7 18.5 32.6 34.2
Inadequate 12.0 15.2 39.1 33.7

Chi-square = 11.42

Gamma = .157
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.62 - Self reported public nuisance Offenses (at 16-17 years) by family size (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 397)
Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)

Family size Diversity

(Number of siblings)

(8-9 yrs) 0—4 5-6 7-8 9-13
None 14.0 20.9 41.9 23.3
One 16.3 24.5 31.6 27.6
Two 7 .3 24.0 37.5 31.3
Three 14.5 17.7 35.5 32.3
Four 8.6 25 .7 25.7 40.0
Five or more 23.8 12.7 31.7 31.7

Chi-square = 16.44
Gamma = .045

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

181

Table 4.63 - Self reported public nuisance Offenses (at 16-17 years) by broken home before 15

 

 

 

years. (N = 397)
Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)
Diversity

Broken home
before 15 yrs 04 5-6 7-8 9-13
Not broken 14.9 22.6 33.7 28.8
Broken by death 11.1 22.2 37 .0 29.6
Broken otherwise 10.6 10.6 36.2 42.6

Chi-square = 6.19

Gamma = .194

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.64 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years) by behavior Of parents
combined (at 10-11 years). (N = 383)

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)

Behavior of Diversity
parents combined
(10—11 yrs) 04 5-6 7-8 9-13
Good 12.4 24.8 33.1 29.8
Good average 17.3 23.5 30.9 28.4
Poor average 14.9 16.1 42.5 26.4
Poor 14.9 17.0 33.0 35.1

Chi-square = 6.92

Gamma = .045

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

182

Table 4.65 - Self reported public nuisance offenses (at 16-17 years) by supervision by parents
(at 8-9 years). (N = 372)

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)

Supervision Diversity
by parents
(8-9 yrs) 0-4 5—6 7-8 9-13
Good 16.3 25.6 38.4 19.8
Average 15.4 22.4 32.7 29.4
Poor 9.7 9.7 37.5 43.1

Chi-square = 14.82"'

Gamma = .230

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.66 - Self reported public nuisance Offenses (at 16-17 years) by relationship with parents
combined (at 18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

 

 

Public Nuisance (16-17 yrs)

Relationship with Diversity
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) 0-4 5-6 7-8 9-13
Good 11.3 27.4 37.1 24.2
Average 15.5 20.9 34.3 29.3
Poor 11.9 17.9 33.3 36.9

Chi-square = 4.75

Gamma = .107

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

183

Table 4.67 - Self reporwd minor property Offenses (at 16-17 years) by family income
(at 8-9 years). (N = 397)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Diversity Ever

Family income
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes NO
Comfortable 11.6 15 .7 48.8 24.0 88.4 11.6
Adequate 7.6 15.2 41.8 35.3 92.4 7.6
Inadequate 6.5 19.6 40.2 33.7 93.5 6 5

Chi-square = 6.97 ‘ Chi-square = 2.10

Gamma = .095 Gamma = .205

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.68 - Self reported minor property Offenses (at 16-17 years) by family size (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 397)
Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

Family size Diversity Ever
(Number Of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
None 14.0 16.3 51.2 18.6 86.0 14.0
One 9.2 16.3 42.9 31.6 90.8 9.2
Two 8.3 15.6 46.9 29.2 91.7 8.3
Three 6.5 11.3 41.9 40.3 93.5 6.5
Four 8.6 14.3 40.0 37.1 91.4 8.6
Five or more 6.3 23.8 38.1 31.7 93.7 6.3

Chi-square = 11.15 Chi-square = 2.40

Gamma = .074 Gamma = .158

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

184

Table 4.69 - Self reported minor property Offenses (at 16-17 years) by broken home before 15
years. (N = 7)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Diversity Ever
Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Not broken 9.0 17.0 44.6 29.4 91.0 9.0
Broken by death 3.7 14.8 55.6 25.9 96.3 3.7
Broken otherwise 8.5 12.8 29.8 48.9 91.5 8 5
Chi-square = 9.58 Chi-square = .890
Gamma=.185 Gamma= .130

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; mp<.001

Table 4. 70- Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years) by behavior of parents
combined (10-11 years). (N: 383)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Behavior Of Diversity Ever
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) 0 1 2—4 5-11 Yes No
Good 6.6 16.5 43.0 33.9 93.4 6.6
Good average 9.9 19.8 42.0 28.4 90.1 9.9
Poor average 10.3 12.6 47.1 29.9 89. 7 10.3
Poor 9.6 14.9 43. 6 31.9 90. 4 9.6
Chi-square = 3.32 Chi-square = 1.16
Gamma = -.020 Gamma = -.112

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

185

Table 4.71 - Self reported minor property offenses (at 16-17 years) by supervision by parents

(8-9 years). (N = 372)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Supervision Diversity Ever
by parents
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Good 12.8 18.6 40.7 ' 27.9 87.2 12.8
Average 8.9 16.4 44.4 30.4 91.1 8.9
Poor 4.2 13.9 43.1 38.9 95.8 4.2
Chi-square = 5.70 Chi-square = 3.61
Gamma = .153 Gamma = .307

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.72 - Self reported minor property Offenses (at 16-17 years) by relationship with parents

combined (18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

Minor Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Drinking in pubs Diversity Ever
under 18 yrs
(14-15 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-11 Yes No
Good 9.7 27 .4 37.1 25.8 90.3 9.7
Average 8.8 14.6 44.8 31.8 91.2 8.8
Poor 8.3 11.9 44.0 35.7 91.7 8.3
Chi-square = 8.03 Chi-square = 080
Gamma = .140 Gamma = .045

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

186

Table 4.73 - Self reported serious property Offenses (at 16-17 years) by family income
(at 8-9 years). (N = 397)

 

Serious Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Diversity Ever
Family income .
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No
Comfortable 91.7 5.8 2.5 8.3 91.7
Adequate 88.0 6.0 6.0 12.0 88.0
Inadequate 75.0 5.4 19.6 25.0 75.0
Chi-square = 2265*" Chi-square = 13.3"
Gamma = .398 Gamma = .390

 

*p<.05; '**p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.74 - Self reported serious property Offenses (at 16-17 years) by family size
(at 8-9 years). (N = 397)

 

Serious Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Family size Diversity Ever
(Number Of siblings) .
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes NO
None 93.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 93.0
One 93.9 2.0 4.1 6.1 93.9
Two 89.6 6.3 4.2 10.4 89.6
Three 77.4 9.7 12.9 22.6 77.4
Four 71.4 17.1 11.4 28.6 71.4
Five or more 81.0 3.2 15.9 19.0 81.0
Chi-square = 27.54" Chi-square = 19.30"
Gamma = .360 Gamma = .367

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001'

187

Table 4.75 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 16-17 years) by broken home before 15

 

 

 

years. (N = 397)
Serious Property (16-17 yrs)
Diversity . Ever

Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 2-4 Yes No
Not broken 87.6 5.6 6.8 12.4 87.6
Broken by death 88.9 0.0 11.1 11.1 88.9
Broken Otherwise 74.5 10.6 14.9 25.5 74.5

Chi-square = 8.00 Chi-square = 6.13"'

Gamma = .291 Gamma = .230

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.76 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 16—17 years) by behavior of parents
combined (10-11 years). (N = 383)

 

Serious Property (16—17 yrs)

 

 

Behavior of Diversity Ever '
parents combined

(10—11 yrs) 0 1 2-4 ' Yes NO
Good 91.7 5.8 2.5 8.3 91.7
Good average 87.7 8.6 3.7 12.3 87.7
Poor average 92.0 2.3 5.7 8.0 92.0
Poor 74.5 6.4 19.1 25.5 74.5

Chi-square = 2808*"

Garmna = .356

Chi-square = 1699*“

Gamma = .347

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

188

Table 4.77 - Self reported serious property Offenses (at 16—17 years) by supervision by parents

(8-9 years). (N = 372)

 

Serious Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Supervision Diversity Ever

by parents

(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2—4 Yes No

Good 93.0 2.3 4.7 7.0 93.0

Average 89.7 5.1 5.1 10.3 89.7

Poor 69.4 11.1 19.4 30.6 69.4
Chi-square = 2424*“ Chi-square = 23.05““
Gamma = .491

Gamma = .504

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.78 - Self reported serious property offenses (at 16—17 years) by relationship with parents

combined (18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

Serious Property (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with Diversity Ever

parents combined

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-4 Yes No

Good 95.2 3.2 1.6 4.8 95.2

Average 88.7 5 .9 5 .4 11.3 88.7

Poor 73.8 8 3 17.9 26.2 73.8
Chi-square = 1997*“ Chi-square = 16.55"

Gamma = .500

Gamma = .503

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

189

Table 4.79 - Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years) by family income (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 397)
Personal (16-17 yrs)
Diversity Ever

Family income

(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2 Yes No
Comfortable 66.1 16.5 11.6 5.8 33.9 66.1
Adequate 55.4 19.6 9.2 15.8 44.6 55.4
Inadequate 48.9 20.7 17.4 13.0 51.1 48.9

Chi-mare = 1299* Chi-square = 6.74"I

Gamma = .193

Gamma = .217

 

*p<.05; I""'p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.80 - Self reported personal Offenses (at 16-17 years) by family size (at 8-9 years).

 

Personal (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Family size Diversity Ever
(Number of siblings)

(8-9 yrs) 1 2 Yes NO
None 69.8 11.6 11.6 7.0 30.2 69.8
One 58.2 19.4 13.3 9.2 41.8 58.2
Two 60.4 17.7 11.5 10.4 39.6 60.4
Three 51.6 17 .7 11.3 19.4 48.4 51.6
Four 60.0 14.3 8.6 17.1 40.0 60.0
Five or more 46.0 28.6 12.7 12.7 54.0 46.0

Chi-square = 13.84 Chi-square = 7.33

Gamma= .126

Gamma= .152

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

190

Table 4.81 - Self reporwd personal Offenses (at 16-17 years) by broken home before 15 years.

 

 

 

(N = 397)
Personal (16-17 yrs)
Diversity Ever

Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 2 Yes NO
Not broken 59.1 19.2 10.2 ' 40.9 59.1
Broken by death 51.9 22.2 11.1 48.1 51.9
Broken Otherwise 46.8 14.9 23.4 53.2 46.8

Chi-square = 8.43 Chi-square = 2.88

Gamma=.191 Gamma=.203

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.82 - Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years) by behavior of parents combined

(10-11 years). (N = 383)

 

Personal (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Behavior of . Diversity Ever
parents combined .

(10-11 yrs) 0 1 2 Yes No
Good 56.2 18.2 16.5 9.1 43.8 56.2
Good average 69.1 17.3 4.9 8.6 30.9 69.1
Poor average 56.3 19.5 11.5 12.6 43.7 56.3
Poor 51.1 18.1 12.8 18.1 48.9 51.1

Chi-square = 12.79 Chi-square = 6.22

Gamma = .083

Gamma = .075

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

191

Table 4.83 - Self reported personal Offenses (at 16-17 years) by supervision by parents
(8-9 years). (N = 372)

 

Personal (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Supervision Diversity Ever

by parents

(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No

Good 60.5 18.6 11.6 9.3 39.5 60.5

Average 61.2 17.3 13.1 8.4 38.8 61.2

Poor 47.2 20.8 9.7 22.2 . 52.8 47.2
Chi-square = 12.29 Chi-square = 4.55
Gamma= .145 Gamma= .144

 

*p<.05; “p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.84 - Self reported personal offenses (at 16-17 years) by relationship with parents
combined (18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

Personal (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with Diversity Ever

parents combined .

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2 3-5 Yes No

Good 61.3 24.2 8.1 6.5 38.7 61.3

Average 59.8 16.7 13.4 10.0 40.2 59.8

Poor 48.8 21.4 10.7 19.0 51.2 48.8
Chi-square = 10.59 Chi-square = 3.49
Gamma= .166 Gamma=.156

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

192
Official Delinquency and Family Factors

The bivariate analysis between Ofﬁcial delinquency and family factors undertaken in this
study produced results which indicated that all Of the family variables were signiﬁcantly related to
both the adult and juvenile convictions of the boys in the sample. Gamma values indicating the
strengths of the various relationships were generally around .3 signifying moderately strong
associations. 1

Thus, for example boys who came from 'negative' backgrounds, in the sense of low
income families or poor parental supervision at 8-9 years. or who did not enjoy very good
relationships with their parents at 18-19 years, were found to be more likely to have both juvenile
and adult convictions than boys who came from the equivalent 'positive' backgrounds (Tables
4.85, 4.89, 4.90, 4.97, 4.101 and 4.102).

Moreover, those boys who came from the worst family situations, whether brought about
through broken homes or poor parental behavior, tended to have been convicted more Often than
those who came from better home environments, who frequently had received either none or, at

most, only a few convictions (Tables 4.87, 4.88, 4.105 and 4.106).

Table 4.85 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by family income (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 411)
Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10—16 yrs)
Number Ever

Family income
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21
Comfortable 86.4 8.0 5.6 86.4 13.6
Adequate 81.3 13.5 5.2 81.3 18.7
Inadequate 66.7 11.8 21.5 66.7 33.3

Chi-square = 2564*" Chi-square = 13.48“

Gamma = .343 Gamma = .340

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

193

Table 4.86 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by family size (at 8-9 years). (N = 411)

 

Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10—16 yrs)

 

 

Family size Number Ever
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21
None 87 .0 6.5 6.5 87.0 13.0
One 87.1 7.9 5.0 87.1 12.9
Two 84.2 9.9 5.9 84.2 15.8
Three 73.4 17.2 9.4 73.4 26.6
Four 74.3 14.3 11.4 74.3 25.7
Five or more 64.1 15 .6 20.3 64.1 35.9
Chi-square = 21.56* Chi-square = 17.95"
Gamma = .318 Gamma = .328

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; **"'p<.001

Table 4.87 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by broken home before 15 years.
(N = 411)

 

Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 yrs)

 

 

Number Ever

Broken home

before 15 yrs 0 1 2-14 0 21
Not broken 82.1 9.6 8.4 82.1 17.9
Broken by death 78.6 21.4 0.0 78.6 21.4
Broken otherwise 62.5 18.8 18.8 62.5 37.5

’ Chi-square = 15.50 Chi-square = 9.93"
Gamma = .327 Gamma = .360

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

194

Table 4. 88 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by behavior of parents combined
(10—11 years). (N = 396)

 

Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10—16 yrs)

 

 

Behavior of Number Ever
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21
Good 87.3 8.7 4.0 87 .3 12.7
Good average 85.9 11.8 2.4 85.9 14.1
Poor average 79.8 13.5 6.7 79.8 20.2
Poor . 67.7 12.5 19.8 67 .7 32.3
Chi-square = 2681*" Chi-square = 15.35“
Gamma = .347 Gamma = .340

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.89 - Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (IO-16 years) by supervision by parents (8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 383)
Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10—16 yrs)
Supervision Number 1 Ever
by parents
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21
Good 86.5 9.0 4.5 86.5 13.5
Average 82.3 10.9 6.8 82.3 17.7
Poor 68.9 16 2 14.9 68.9 31.1
Chi—square = 9.93“ Chi-square = 8.87 *
Gamma = .297 Gamma = .304

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

195

Table 4. 90- Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years) by relationship with parents combined
(18-19 years). (N= 389)

 

Ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10—16 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with Number Ever

parents combined

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-14 0 21

Good 84.1 9. 5 6.3 84.1 15.9

Average 83.3 9. 6 7.1 83.3 16.7

Poor 62.8 19. 8 17 .4 62.8 37.2
Chi-square = 17.56“ Chi-square = 1729*"
Gamma = .352 Gamma = .370

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.91 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by family income (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 411)

Juvenile delinquency scale (16-17 yrs)
Family income . No police Police Convicwd
(8-9 yrs) record . contact once only Recidivist
Comfortable 78.4 8.0 8.0 5.6
Adequate 66.8 . 14.5 13.5 5.2
Inadequate 47.3 19.4 11.8 21.5

Chi-square = 36.00“"

Gamma = .360

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

196

Table 4.92 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by family size (at 8-9 years). (N = 411)

 

Juvenile delinquency scale (16-17 yrs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family size
(N o. of siblings) No police Police Convicted
(8-9 yrs) record contact . once only Recidivist
None 78.3 8.7 6.5 6.5
One 76.2 10.9 7.9 5.0
Two 66.3 17.8 9.9 5.9
Three 65.6 7.8 17.2 9.4
Four 51.4 22.9 14.3 11.4
Five or more 48.4 15.6 15.6 20.3
Chi-square = 31.32"
Gamma = .285
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Table 4.93 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by broken home before 15 years.
(N = 411)
Juvenile delinquency scale (16-17 yrs)
Broken home No police Police Convicted
before 15 yrs . record contact once only Recidivist
Not broken 69.3 12.8 9.6 8.4
Broken by death 53.6 25.0 21.4 0.0
Broken otherwise 50.0 12.5 18.8 18.8
Chi-square = 19.38“
Gamma = .305

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; **"'p<.001

197

Table 4.94 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by behavior of parents combined
(at 10-11 years). (N = 396)

 

Juvenile delinquency scale (16—17 yrs)

 

 

Behavior of '
parents combined No police Police Convicted
(10-11 yrs) record contact once only Recidivist
Good 74.6 12.7 8.7 4.0
Good average 72.9 12.9 11.8 2.4
Poor average 61.8 18.0 13.5 6.7
Poor 57.3 10.4 12.5 19.8
Chi-square = 2915*"
Gamma = .252

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.95 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 383)

Juvenile delinquency scale (16-17 yrs)
Supervision
by parents N 0 police Police Convicted
(8-9 yrs) record contact once only Recidivist
Good 78.7 7.9 9.0 4.5
Average 70.0 12.3 10.9 6.8
Poor 54.9 23.0 16.2 14.9

Chi-square = 2251*"

Gamma = .346

 

*p<.05; l""'p<.01; ***p<.001

198

Table 4.96 - Juvenile delinquency scale (at 16-17 years) by relationship with parents combined
(at 18-19 years). (N = 389)

 

Juvenile delinquency scale (16—17 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with
parents combined No police Police Convicted
(18-19 yrs) record contact once only Recidivist
Good 74.6 9.5 9.5 6.3
Average 67.9 15.4 9.6 7.1
Poor 52.3 10.5 19.8 17.4
Chi-square = 1920*“
Gamma = .281

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.97 - Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by family income (at 8-9 years). (N = 395)

 

 

 

Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)
Number Ever

Family income
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4—10 0 21
Comfortable 80.0 11.7 5.0 3.3 80.0 20.0
Adequate 75.1 11.9 8.1 4.9 75.1 24.9
Inadequate 58.9 11.1 12.2 17 .8 58.9 41.1

Chi-square = 2425*“ Chi-square = 12.48"

Gamma=.400

Gamma = .301

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

199

Table 4.98 - Oﬁicial adult convictions (17-24 years) by family size (at 8-9 years). (N = 395)

 

Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)

 

 

Family size Number Ever
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4—10 0 21
None 86.7 0.0 6.7 6.7 86.7 13.3
One 81.6 8.2 7.1 3.1 81.6 18.4
Two 73.7 18.9 5.3 2.1 73.7 26.3
Three 74.2 11.3 8.1 6.5 74.2 25.8
Four 63.6 18.2 9.1 9.1 63.6 36.4
Five or more 51.6 , 11.3 14.5 22.6 51.6 48.4
Chi-square = 4849*" Chi-square = 23.84""
Gamma = .337 Gamma = .352

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.99 - Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by broken home before 15 years. (N = 395)

 

Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)

 

 

Number Ever .
Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 2-3 4-10 0 21
Not broken 75.6 11.6 6.9 5.9 75.6 24.4
Broken by deaﬂr 70.4 11.1 7 .4 11.1 70.4 29.6
Broken otherwise 56.3 12.5 16.7 14.6 56.3 43.8
Chi-square = 11.98 Chi-square = 8.03“
Gamma = .313 Gamma = .322

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

200

Table 4.100 - Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by behavior of parents combined
(10-11 years). (N = 380)

 

Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17—24 yrs)

 

 

Behavior of Number Ever
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4—10 0 21
Good 78.9 10.6 6.5 4.1 78.9 21.1
Good average 76.8 11.0 7 .3 4.9 76.8 23.2
Poor average 75.6 9.3 5.8 9.3 75.6 24.4
Poor 61.8 14.6 11.2 12.4 61.8 38.2
Chi-square = 11.60 Chi-square = 8.76“
Gamma = .215 Gamma = .220

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.101 - Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by supervision by parents (8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 368)
Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)

Supervision Number 1 Ever
by parents
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4-10 0 21
Good 84.1 6.8 4.5 4 5 84.1 15 9
Average 75.5 12.3 7.1 5 2 75.5 24 5
Poor 54.4 16.2 13.2 16 2 54.4 45 6

Chi-square = 21.67" Chi-square = 1827*"

Gamma = .380 Gamma = .407

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

201

Table 4.102 - Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 years) by relationship with parents combined
(18-19 years). (N = 379)

 

Ofﬁcial adult convictions (17-24 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with Number Ever

parents combined

(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-3 4-10 0 21

Good 83.6 9.8 3.3 3.3 83.6 16.4

Average 73.7 13.4 7.3 5.6 73.7 26.3

Poor 62.8 8.1 14.0 15 .1 62.8 37.2
Chi-square = 18.71“ Chi-square = 8.05““
Gamma = .309 Gamma = .300

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.103 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years) by family income (at 8—9 years). (N = 395)

 

 

 

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)
Number Ever

Family income
(8-9 yrs) - 0 1 2-4 5-14 Yes No
Comfortable 75.0 13.3 8.3 3.3 75.0 25.0
Adequate 69.2 13.0 13.0 4.9 69.2 30.8
Inadequate 52.2 10.0 17.8 20.0 52.2 47.8

Chi-square = 3056*“ Chi-square = 12.78"

Gamma= .311 Gamma= .293

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

202

Table 4.104 - Ofﬁcial total convictiOns (10—24 years) by family size (at 8-9 years). (N = 395)

 

 

 

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)
Family size Number Ever
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) 1 2-4 5-14 Yes NO
None 80.0 4.4 11.1 4.4 80.0 20.0
One 76.5 9.2 10.2 4.1 76.5 23.5
Two 68.4 17.9 10.5 3.2 68.4 31.6
Three 67 .7 14.5 11.3 6.5 67.7 32.3
Four 54.5 15.2 18.2 12.1 54.5 45.5
Five or more 46.8 11.3 19.4 22.6 46.8 53.2

Chi-square = 4009*“
Gamma = .307

Chi-square = 2138*“

Gamma = .320

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; **"p<.001

Table 4.105 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years) by broken home before 15 years.

 

 

 

(N = 395)
Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)
Number Ever

Broken home
before 15 yrs 0 1 2-4 5-14 Yes No
Not broken 70.6 12.2 10.0 7.2 70.6 29.4
Broken by death 63.0 14.8 14.8 7 .4 63.0 37.0
Broken Otherwise 45.8 12.5 29.2 12.5 45.8 54.2

Chi-square = 17.76* Chi-square = 11.84”

Gamma = .339

Gamma = .376

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

203

Table 4.106 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (IO-24 years) by behavior of parents combined
(10-11 years). (N = 380)

 

 

 

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)
Behavior Of Number Ever
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-14 Yes No
Good 74.8 12.2 8.9 - 4.1 74.8 25.2
Good average 72.0 14.6 8.5 4.9 72.0 28.0
Poor average 69.8 10.5 10.5 9.3 69.8 30.2
Poor 53.9 11.2 22.5 12.4 53.9 46.1
Chi-square = 2002* Chi-square = 11.44"
Gamma = .246 Gamma = .245

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.107 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years) by supervision by parents (8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 368)
. Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)

Supervision Number 1 Ever
by parents
(8-9 yrs) 0 1 2-4 5-14 Yes No
Good 78.4 11.4 5.7 5.4 78.4 21.6
Average 69.8 12.7 12.7 4.7 69.8 30.2
Poor 48.5 13.2 20.6 17.6 48.5 51.5

Chi-square = 2549*" Chi-square = 1653*“

Gamma = .358 Gamma = .368

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

204

Table 4.108 - Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 years) by relationship with parents combined
(18-19 years). (N = 379)

 

 

 

Ofﬁcial total convictions (10-24 yrs)
Relationship with Number Ever
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) 0 1 2-4 ' 5-14 Yes NO
Good 80.3 6.6 8.2 4.9 80.3 19.7
Average . 68.5 14.7 11.2 5.6 68.5 31.5
Poor 53.5 9.3 19.8 17.4 33.5 46.5
Chi—square = 2386*" Chi-square = 12.25"
Gamma = .339 Gamma = .343

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

The bivariate analysis using Ofﬁcial delinquency variables thus implied that family structure
in the form of broken homes and family size, inter-parental relationships, parent-child
relationships and parental control were all related to juvenile delinquency. In contrast, the
analysis involving self report delinquency data suggested that the association between family
factors and juvenile misconduct varied according to the type of offenses under consideration.
This ﬁnding prOved to be particularly true for offenses committed before the boys' ﬁfteenth
birthdays. However, when self report delinquency was measured and analyzed at 16—17 years
virtually all of the signiﬁcant relationships discovered through the bivariate treatment of the data

with family factors were found to occur in the serious property Offense category.

205
Drinking and Family Factors

Chi-square proved to be signiﬁcant at the .05 level in the bivariate analysis between the
three drinking variables and the six family variables only for family income and drinking in pubs
under 18 measured at both 14-15 and 16—17 years (Fables 4.109 and 4.115), and family size and
drinking in pubs under 18 measured at 16-17 years (Table 4.116). No other signiﬁcant
relationships were found. Moreover, for the association between family size and drinking in
pubs under 18 measured at 16—17 years Gamma took on a value of -.046, indicating not only that
the relationship was very weak but also that, as family size increased the percentage of boys
drinking illegally tended to decrease. For example, the results displayed in Table 4.116 indicate
that 72.1% of boys who had no brothers or sisters at when they were 8-9 years old drank in pubs
at 16-17 years, compared with 65.1% of boys who had 5 or more siblings at the younger age.
Similarly, as family income decreased, the proportion of boys who tended to drink illegally irl
pubs tended to decrease (Fables 4.109 and 1.115). The low income level of the families may
have resulted in the boys from large families having no spare money available to spend upon
alcohol in pubs.

Although no signiﬁcant association was discovered between the behavior of parents and
drinking in pubs at 16-17 years, the crosstabulations diplayed in Table 4.118 show that 82.6% of
the boys who came from families with recorded 'good' parental behavior drank in pubs at that
age, compared with the lesser ﬁgure of 78.7% of those whose parents were assessed as
exhibiting 'poor' behavior. Similarly, the percentage of boys who have a poor relationship with
their parents and are heavy drinkers at 18-19 years is lower than that of boys who have a good
relationship with their parents. These latter two ﬁndings are contrary to expectations since it
would be expected that poor parental behavior or poor relationships with parents would both be
contributory factors towards the development of illegal drinking, rather than tend to inhibit such
behavior.

In general, the results of the analysis indicated that, within the sample of boys. family
structure, family relationships and parental supervision were not related to drinking. In contrast,

different family variables had exhibited relationships with the various categories of self report

206
delinquency, and zero-order relationships were discovered between ofﬁcial delinquency and all

of the family factors. In addition, the association which was discovered between delinquency
and income was such that as income decreased, delinquency increased, while the statistically
signiﬁcant relationship between drinking and income indicated that as income decreased, drinking
also decreased. Given the general positive relationship between drinking and delinquency, the
differences which were found in the results of the two analyses between, on the one hand
drinking and family factors, and on the other hand delinquency and family factors, were

somewhat unexpected.

Table 4.109 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14—15 years) by family income (at 8-9 years).
m=we

 

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (14-15 yrs)

 

 

Family income

(8-9 yrs) Never Once or twice Sometimes Frequently
Comfortable 62.4 5 .6 18.4 13.6
Adequate 76.1 3.7 11.7 8.5
Inadequate 83.7 4.3 3.3 8.7

Chi-square = 16.57*
Gamma = -.302

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

207

Table 4.110 - W in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 yeai's) by family size (at 8-9 years).
= 5)

 

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (14-15 yrs)

 

 

Family size

(No. of siblings)

(8-9 yrs) Never Once or twice Sometimes Frequently
None 77.3 4.5 15.9 2.3
One 73.0 4.0 11.0 12.0
Two 74.0 4.0 15.0 7.0
Three 63.5 3.2 19.2 14.3
Four 71.4 8.6 5.7 14.3
Five or more 82.5 4.8 1.6 11.1

Chi-square = 20.05
Gamma = .001

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.111 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years) by broken home before 15 years.
(N = 5)

 

* I
¢

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (14—15 yrs)

 

 

Broken home
before 15 yrs Never Once or twice Sometimes Frequently
Not broken 74.5 4.8 11.5 9 1
Broken by death 74.1 3.7 11.1 11 1
Broken otherwise 66.7 2.1 14.6 16 7
Chi-square = 3.86
Gamma = .145

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

208

Table 4.112 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years) by behavior of parents combined
(at 10-11 years). (N = 390)

 

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (14—15 yrs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Behavior of
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) Never Once or twice Sometimes Frequently
Good 76.0 3.2 11.2 9.6
Good average 77.6 3.5 12.9 5.9
Poor average 70.5 6.8 11.4 11.4
Poor 69.6 5.4 12.0 13.0

Chi-square = 5.05

Gamma = .099
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Table 4.113 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years) by supervision by parents

(at 8-9 years). (N = 377)
Drinking in pubs under 18 years (14-15 yrs)

Supervision
by parents
(8-9 yrs) Never Once or twice Sometimes Frequently
Good 76.1 8.0 10.2 5.7
Average 72.9 3.7 11.0 12.4
Poor 73.2 4.2 14.1 8.5

Chi—square = 6.17

Gamma = .059

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

209

Table 4.114 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 14-15 years) by relationship with parents
combined (at 18-19 years). (N = 387)

 

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (14—15 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with
parents combined
(18—19 yrs) Never Once or twice Sometimes Frequently
Good 69.8 4.8 14.3 11.1
Average 73.5 3.8 13.0 9.7
Poor 79.1 3.5 7.0 10.5
Chi-square = 3.05
Gamma = -.117

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.115 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) by family income (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 397)
Drinking in pubs under 18 years (16-17 yrs)
Family income .
(8-9 yrs) Yes No
Comfortable 18.2 81.8
Adequate 16.2 83.3
Inadequate 32.6 67.4

Chi-square = 10.0"
Gamma = -.230

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

210

Table 4.116 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) by family size (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 397)
Drinking in pubs under 18 years (16-17 yrs)

Family size
(Number Of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) Yes No
None 27.9 72.1
One 20.4 79.6
Two 15.6 84.4
Three 14.5 85.5
Four 14.3 85.7
Five or more 34.9 65.1

Chi-square = 1285*
Gamma = -.046

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.117 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) by broken home before 15 years.

 

 

 

(N = 397)
Drinking in pubs under 18 years (16-17 yrs)

Broken home
before 15 yrs Yes No
Not broken 20.7 79.3
Broken by death 22.2 77.8
Broken otherwise 21.3 78.7

Chi-square = .040

Gamma = -.024

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

211

Table 4.118 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) by behavior of parents combined
(at 10-11 years). (N = 383)

 

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Behavior of
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) Yes NO
Good 17.4 82.6
Good average 24.7 75.3
Poor average 19.5 80.5
Poor 21.3 78.7
Chi-square = 1.70
Gamma = -.051

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.119 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) by supervision by parents
(at 8-9 years). (N = 372)

 

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Supervision
by parents
(8-9 yrs) Yes No
Good 23.3 7 6.7
Average 18.7 81.3
Poor 22.2 77 .8
Chi—square = 0.96
Gamma = .027

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

212

Table 4.120 - Drinking in pubs under 18 years (at 16-17 years) by relationship with parents
combined (at 18-19 years). (N = 385)

 

Drinking in pubs under 18 years (16-17 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) Yes No
Good 24.2 75.8
Average 20.5 79.5
Poor 19.0 81.0
Chi-square = 0.60
Gamma = .083

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.121 - Drinking combined (at 18-19 years) by family income (at 8-9 years). (N = 389)

 

Drinking combined (18-19 yrs)

 

 

Family income
(8-9 yrs) Low Average Heavy
Comfortable 23.7 55.9 20.3
Awquate 31.9 49.5 18.7
Inadequate 29.2 48.3 22.5
Chi-square = 2.86
Gamma = -.040

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

213

Table 4.122 - Drinking combined (at 18-19 years) by family size (at 8-9 years). (N = 389)

 

Drinking combined (18-19 yrs)

 

 

Family size
(Number of siblings)
(8-9 yrs) Low Average Heavy
None 27 .9 48.8 23.3
One 28.1 55.2 16.7
Two 24.7 54.6 20.6
Three 35.0 48.3 16.7
Four 33.3 45.5 21.2
Five or more 28.3 46.7 25.0
Chi-square = 4.63
Gamma = -.006

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.123 - Drinking combined (at 18-19 years) by broken home before 15 years. (N = 389)

 

Drinking combined (18-19 yrs)

 

 

Broken home
before 15 yrs Low Average Heavy
Not broken 28.5 52.5 19.0
Broken by death 26.9 50.0 23.1
Broken otherwise 31.9 42.6 25.5
Chi-square = 2.01
Gamma = .040

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

214

Table 4.124 - Drinln'ng combined (at 18-19 years) by behavior of parents combined
(at 10-11 years). (N = 375)

 

Drinking combined (18-19 yrs)

 

 

Behavior of
parents combined
(10-11 yrs) Low Average Heavy
Good 25 .0 54.2 20.8
Good average 35.8 48.1 16.0
Poor average 33.0 53.4 13.6
Poor 26.7 46.5 26.7
Chi-square = 7.77
Gamma = .001

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.125 - Drinking combined (at 18-19 years) by supervision by parents (at 8-9 years).

 

 

 

(N = 366)
Drinking combined (18-19 yrs)

Supervision
by parents
(8-9 yrs) Low Average Heavy
Good 31.8 54.1 14.1
Average 27.4 53.3 19.3
Poor 33.3 44.9 21.7

Chi-square = 2.98

Gamma = .047

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 ‘

215

Table 4.126 - Drinking combined (at 18-19 years) by relationship with parents combined
at 18-19 years). (N = 389)

 

Drinking combined (18-19 yrs)

 

 

Relationship with
parents combined
(18-19 yrs) Low Average Heavy
Good 28.6 55.6 15.9
Average 28.3 49.2 22.5
Poor 30.2 53.5 16.3
Chi-square = 2.47
Gamma = -.021

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Summary

The bivariate analysis between ofﬁcial delinquency and the three drinking variables
considered in this study showed that a relationship existed between the drinking behavior of . the
boys in the sample and juvenile delinquency at all ages. The implication of these ﬁndings is thus
that those boys who are heavy drinkers are more likely to have criminal records than those who
abstain from alcohol or are only moderate drinkers.

The employment of self report delinquency data suggested that the strongest relationship
between juvenile delinquency and drinking occurred between minor offenses and drinln'ng rather
than involving the more serious types of property Offense. In addition to the Gamma values
tending to be higher for public nuisance offenses than for other categories of misbehavior, a
relationship existed between a boy's drinking behavior and his ever having committed, or
frequently having committed, minor offenses. However, with the exception of drinking in pubs

under 18 years (measured at 14-15 years), no relationships were discovered between drinking

216
and frequently committing either serious property or personal Offenses. Thus, the more frequent

serious offenders were generally less likely to be heavy drinkers than were those who had only
committed serious offenses occasionally or once or twice.

At ﬁrst sight, these results concerning official and self report delinquency data appear to be
contradictory, since those boys with criminal records tend to be the more serious or frequent
offenders, whilst the minor property and public nuisance offense categories include certain types
of misbehavior which in comparison might be regarded as trivial, such as letting off ﬁreworks in
the street or riding a bicycle without lights.

However, in reality these differing ﬁndings reﬂect the some of the problems involved in
the use of the two types of delinquency measures. Ofﬁcial delinquents are often those
individuals who have initially attracted the attention of the police through either their family
backgrounds or involvement in minor forms of misconduct In other words, those boys who
drank in pubs under age or in heavy amounts later in life may well have ﬁrst come to the notice of
the authorities through their deviant drinking behavior rather than as a result of the commission of
serious Offenses. Such a situation could result in an over-representation of individuals with
drinking problems in the Ofﬁcially delinquent group.

The role of family factors in the development of juvenile delinquency also appears to vary
according to whether ofﬁcial or self report data is used in the analysis. Relationships were
discovered between every family variable considered and ofﬁcial delinquency, while different
family factors tended to be associated with speciﬁc types of self report data Thus, low family
income, poor family relationships, broken homes and behavior of parents were all associated
with self reported serious property offenses at 14-15 years. At the same age, family size was
associated with personal offenses, whilst quality of supervision by parents was related to all four
categories of self report delinquency.

Within each particular category of offense, the associations which occurred between family
factors and delinquency tended to vary depending upon the form of the dependent variable under
consideration. For example, broken homes and the behavior of parents were only related to

'frequently' committing serious property offenses, whilst family size and supervision by parents

217
were related to 'ever’ having committed a serious property offense. and to the number

(‘diversity') of different types of prOperty offenses committed. Within the minor property
category, the 'ever' done variable was not related to any of the family factors, while family size
was related to the 'sometimes' and 'diversity' variables, and supervision by parents to

'diversity', 'sometimes' and 'frequently' variables. In the personal offense category, once more
there were differences in discovered relationships depending upon the form of the dependent
variable. These results therefore suggest that whether an individual ever commits an offense,
whether he commits it sometimes or frequently, and the number of different types of offense
within a category which he commits are all factors which must be considered when examining the
relationship between juvenile delinquency and family factors.

Virtually the only self report delinquency variable measured at 16-17 years which exhibited
a relationship with any of the family factors included in the study was found to be serious
property offenses.

In part, the numerous relationships discovered concerning ofﬁcial data may be due to an
inbuiltbiasinthecliminaljustice system. Itmaybearguedthatthe authoritiestendtoidentify a
greater need for their ofﬁcial involvement when dealing with individuals from poor family
backgrounds than they do when they are concerned with the deviant activities of boys whose
home environments are viewed as being supportive of the legal system. Nevertheless, family
factors did in general tend to be associated with serious property offenses, rather than with minor
or personal offenses, when the self report delinquency data was examined. Consequently, the
large number of zero-order relationships which were discovered between family factors and
ofﬁcial delinquency may reﬂect a strong association between both family relationships and
structure and serious crime rather than any system bias.

In contrast to these results, no systematic association was discovered between any of the
drinking and family variables. The discovery of a relationship between drinking and minor rather
than serious crime assists in understanding the reasons for this lack of association. As discussed
above, the more minor forms of misbehavior up the the age of 16-17 years tended not to exhibit

relationships with family variables. Thus, in a similar way drinking, which has been found to be

218
related to minor crime, tends not to be related to family variables. Poor parental behavior or poor

relationships with parents, for example, seem not to inﬂuence the boys' drinking behavior or

their involvement in minor misconduct.

Multivariate Analysis

In the preceding section of this chapter, the bivariate analysis examined zero order
relationships in three stages: ﬁrst, between drinking and delinquency, second between family
factors and delinquency, and third between family factors and drinking. In this section,
multivariate relationships are examined.

Using multivariate analysis, the combined effects of the three drinking and the six family
factors on both self report and ofﬁcial delinquency are explored. Multiple regression analysis is
the statistical technique which is primarily to be used, but due to its requirement of a continuous
measure for the dependent variable its application is limited to the 'diversity' descriptions of self
report and the number of convictions for ofﬁcial delinquency. In addition therefore, loglinear
regression is used as a second multivariate technique with which the relationships between the
independent variables and the dichotomous 'ever' done variables for both types of delinquency
can be investigated.

Prior to undertaking the multivariate analysis, an attempt was made to determine whether
any inter-correlations existed between the independent variables to be employed. The resulting
correlation matrix is presented below as Table 4.127.

The correlation matrix gives an indication than no large correlations exist between any of
the multivariate independent variables. The absence of any strong correlation between the three
drinking measures at ﬁrst sight appears surprising. It would have been expected that drinking
frequently in pubs under the age of 18 years would have been related to heavy drinking at that
age. However, the two variables were really measuring different forms of drinking behavior,
since the variables measured at 14—15 years and 16-17 years measured the frequency with which
the boys drank in pubs under age, whils the variable measured at 18-19 years measured the actual

amount drunk in one evening or in a week These differing deﬁnitions could partially account for

219

Table 4.127 - Correlation Matrix between the Independent Variables employed in the Multiple

 

 

Regression Analysis.
(2) Behavior of
parents combined -.01
(10-11 yrs)
(3) Supervision
by parents -.04 - 01
(8-9 yIS)
(4) Dnnkm‘ ' 8 in
pubs under 18 yrs -.08 -.06 -.06
(14-15 yrs)
(5) Broken home - 04 - 11 .09 - 10
before 15 yrs
(6) Relationship with
parents combined .07 -.18 -.16 .07 -.16
(18-19 yrs»
(7) Family size - 04 - 12 -.20 - 05 10 -.13
(8-9 yo)
(8) Drinking in
pubs under 18 yrs -.27 .05 -.01 -.17 .02 -.09 .06
(16-17 yrs)
(9) Family income -.01 .02 .17 -.18 .21 .09 .24 -.04
(8-9 yrS)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Drinking combined (18-19 yrs) = (1)

 

220
the absence of strong correlations. In addition, the fact that only 83 boys had never dmnk in

pubs at 16-17 years, compared with 289 at 14—15 years, could in part explain the absence of a
strong correlation between the two drinking variables measured when the boys were younger.
Clearly, a large number of boys only began drinking in pubs between these two ages.

The strongest correlation observed did in fact occur between drinking combined and
drinking in pubs under 18 years (measured at 16-17 years), but its value of -.27 is small enough
so as not to confound the results of the multivariate analysis. The negative relationship between
the two variables suggests that light drinking at 18—19 years is correlated with drinking in pubs at
16-17 years, while heavy drinking at 18-19 years is correlated with not drinking in pubs at 16-17
years, a result which is the opposite of what would have been expected. In part, this unexpected
result could again reﬂect the fact that the two variables measure different forms of drinking

behavior.

Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting Self Report Delinquency

Since the dependent variables used in the regression analysis were all measures of offense
diversity, the results of the multivariate analysis will generally be compared to and contrasted
with the results of the bivariate analysis of the 'diversity' self report variables unless Otherwise
stated.

Self Report Delinquency at 14-15 years - The four multiple regression analyses
which use the three drinking and the six family factors as independent variables, and the
'diversity' measures of the four categories of self report delinquency at 14—15 years as dependent
variables are presented in Table 4.128.

The overall relationships between the sets of drinking and family variables and the
dependent variables are statistically significant at the .001 level. The independent variables
account for a moderate proportion of the variance in the minor property, serious property and
personal offense categories (18%, 12% and 15% respectively), and for a larger proportion (32%)

of the variance in public nuisance offenses.

221
For all types of misbehavior, the explanatory power Of the independent variables is largely

due to the contribution of 'drinkinglin pubs under 18 years (measured at 14-15 years)‘, with the
standardized beta of this variable being nearly twice as large as that of the variable which makes
the second greatest contribution.

The standardized regression coefﬁcients for the two other drinking variables, 'drinking in
pubs under 18 years (measured at 16-17 years)’ and 'drinldng combined (measured at 18-19
years)’ were both statistically signiﬁcant with public nuisance and minor property offenses as the
dependent variables. Conversely, their coefﬁcients with serious property and personal offenses
were all less than .1 and were not signiﬁcant at the .05 level.

Thus, with other factors controlled for, more frequent drinldng under 15 years tends to be
associated with the commission of a larger number of all types Of offense, whilst more frequent
drinking under 17 years and heavy drinking at 18 years are only significantly associated with the
commission of a larger number of minor property and public nuisance offenses.

In the bivariate analysis reported in the previous section of this chapter, drinking in pubs
under 18 (16-17 years) was found to be signiﬁcantly associated with self report personal
offenses measured at 14-15 years (Table 4.11), and a signiﬁcant relationship was also discovered
between drinldng combined (18-19 years) and both serious property and personal offenses
measured at 14-15 years (Tables 4.9 and 4.12). In the multivariate analysis however, the
regression coefﬁcients for the equivalent three relationships were found to be only .09, .08, and
.06 respectively, none of the coefﬁcients being Statistically signiﬁcant at the .05 level. Therefore,
although frequent drinking prior to 17 years and heavy drinking at 18 years may be associated
with more serious types of crime, certain other factors are found to account for more of the
variance in the commission of this category of offense when all relevant factors are considered
simultaneously. In addition, since these two independent variables are both later measures of
drinking behavior, they would be expected to play a more minor role than than other factors in
explaining the differences in the number of offenses admitted to by the boys at the age of only
14-15 years.

222

Table 4.128 - Multiple Regression Analysis of factors affecting the diversity of self report
delinquency offenses measured at 14-15 years. (N = 360).

 

Standardized Regression Coefﬁcients

 

 

 

Public Minor Serious
Factors nuisance property property Personal
Farme income -.02 -.01 -.11* .04
(8-9 YIS)
Family size .12* .11* .12* .14*
(8-9 YIS)
Broken home .04 .09 .03 .14“
before 15 yrs
Behavior of
parents combined -.02 -.00 .03 -.01
(10-11 yrs)
Supervision
by parents .13“ .13“ .07 .12*
(8-9 yr8)
Relationship with
parents combined .03 .09 .08 .06
(18-19 yrs)
Drinking in pubs
under 18 yrs 37*“ 24*“ .21*** .22***
(14-15 yrs)
Drinking in pubs
under 18 yrs .20*** .12" -.00 .09
(16-17 yrs)
D . l . g
combined .16*** .10* .08 .06
(19-19 yrs)
Multiple R .57 .42 .34 .38
R squared .32 .18 .12 .15
F 18.44 8.26 5.18 6.61
Signiﬁcance .00 .00 .00 .00

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

223
The highest Gamma values discovered in the bivariate analysis between drinking and self

report delinquency at 14-15 years were obtained in the public nuisance offense category: .648 for
drinking in pubs under 18 (measured at 14-15 years) and .519 for the later measure of the same
variable (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Similarly, it would appear from the regression analysis that more
frequent drinking is most closely associated with the commission of an increasing number of
public nuisance offenses, since the largest regression coefﬁcients within this category of offense
were obtained for the three drinking variables.

The regression coefﬁcients for family size were signiﬁcant for all four offenses categories,
accounting for 12% of the variation in the commission of public nuisance offenses. 14% of that
for minor property offenses, 12% for serious property offenses, and 14% for personal offenses.
These ﬁndings indicate that, all things being equal, as family size increases so does the number
of all types of offenses committed by the boys in the sample. In the bivariate stage of the
analysis, family size was found to be signiﬁcantly associated with all forms of deviancy at age
14-15 years, but consistently so with personal offenses when the 'ever’ done, 'sometimes' and
'frequently' forms of the dependent variables were taken into consideration (Table 4.56). From
the results of the regression analysis, there is no clear indication that family size is especially
closely associated with any one particular form of delinquency. Whilst, along with broken
homes, it provides the second largest regression coefﬁcient for personal offenses, it also does so
for serious property offenses.

The only non-statistically signiﬁcant regression coefﬁcient for the independent variable
'supervision by parents (8-9 yrs)’ occurred with diversity of serious property offenses as the
dependent variable. Consequently, with everything else held constant, the poorer the quality of
parental supervision at 8-9 years, the more public nuisance, minor property and personal
offenses tend to be committed prior to age 15. In addition, taking into account the altemative
form of the dependent variable of 'ever' done, the previous analysis established a bivariate
relationship between serious property offenses and parental supervision (Table 4.53).

The regression coefﬁcients for the variable 'behavior of parents' were -.02 for public

nuisance and -.00 for minor property offenses respectively. Whilst these are different in sign

224
from what had been expected from their zero-order relationships, no signiﬁcant relationships

were found between the variables in either stage of the analysis. A very similar result was
obtained using personal Offenses as the dependent variable, the regression coefﬁcient on this
occasion being -.01. Indeed, the only positive regression coefﬁcient for behavior of parents
occurred with serious property offenses, but even in this case it was only .03 and was not
signiﬁcant at the .05 level. Thus, while a signiﬁcant bivariate relationship was found to exist
between parental behavior and one form of the 'serious property' offense variable Other than
'diversity' (Table 4.5 2), it is possible to conclude from the multivariate results that no deﬁnite
association is exhibited between poor parental behavior and the commission of an increasing
number and variety of minor or serious property offenses prior to the age of 15 .

The remaining three independent variables, 'family income', 'relationship with parents',
and 'broken home before 15 years' all produced regression coefﬁcients of less than .1, when
public nuisance and minor property offenses were considered the dependent variables. These
ﬁndings are very similar to the results of the bivariate analysis between the same variables. The
exception, the relationship between 'relationship with parents' and minor property offenses, was
signiﬁcant in the bivariate analysis (Table 4.48), but non-signiﬁcant when other factors were
controlled.

With serious property offenses as the dependent variable, the regression coefﬁcient for
family income was signiﬁcant, explaining 11% of the variance of this type of deviancy,
indicating that, even with other factors controlled for, as family income decreases, the number of
serious property offenses committed by boys in the sample increases. With the same dependent
variable, the regression coefﬁcient for relationship with parents was non-signiﬁcant, despite a
zero-order relationship between the two variables having been discovered in the bivariate stage of
the analysis (Table 4.54). Finally, with broken homes as the independent variable, its regression
coefﬁcient was only .03, despite it exhibiting signiﬁcant zero—order relationships with the
'serious property' offenses variable in its forms other than 'diversity'.

The major difference between the results of the regression analysis and the bivariate
analysis with personal Offenses considered as the dependent variable occuned with broken

225
homes as the independent variable. Thus, the regression coefﬁcient of .14 is signiﬁcant while no

zero-order relationship was found with the 'diversity' measure (Table 4.57). At ﬁrst sight, this
result implies that, when other factors are considered simultaneously, broken homes are
signiﬁcantly associated with the commission of personal offenses as the .05 error level.
However, for the purposes Of the regression analysis, the variable 'broken home' had been
dichotomized into the two categories 'intact home' and 'broken home due to death or separation',
while ion thr bivariate analysis broken home due to death and broken home due to parental
separation had been two separate categories. Thus, the differing results for the regression and
bivariate analysis could well reﬂect the different measures of broken home which were used. In
addition, a signiﬁcant zero-order relationship was found to exist between frequently committing
personal offenses and broken homes. All of the above ﬁndings therefore suggest that the
relationship between broken homes and personal offenses is complex and largely depends not

only upon the measure of broken homes, but also upon the measure of personal offenses used.

Self Report Delinquency at 16-17 years - The four multiple regression analyses
employing the same six family and three drinking factors as independent variables and self report
delinquency measured at 16-17 years are presented in Table 4.129.

Again, the overall relationships between the independent and dependent variables are '
statistically signiﬁcant at the .001 level, with the independent variables accounting for a moderate
proportion of the variance in the minor prOperty, serious property, and personal offense
categories, but a larger proportion (24%) of the variance in the public nuisance category.

For minor property and public nuisance offenses, the explanatory power of the
independent variables is largely a consequence of the contribution of 'drinldng in pubs under 18
years (measured at 16-17 years)’, while for serious property and personal offenses 'drinking
combined' provides the largest contribution. Nevertheless, the standardized beta values of all
three drinking variables for each offense category suggest that more frequent or heavy drinking

is associated with the commission of an increasing number of all forms of juvenile misconduct.

226

Table 4.129 - Multiple Regression Analysis of factors affecting the diversity of self report
delinquency offenses measured at 16-17 years. (N = 360).

 

Standardized Regression Coefﬁcients

 

 

 

Public Minor Serious
Factors nuisance property property Personal
Family income -.14** -.09 -.09 -.11
(8-9 yrS)
Family size -.03 .03 .10 .07
(8-9 yrS)
Broken home .08 .08 .05 .10
before 15 yrs
Behavior of
parents combined -.00 -.07 .12* .01
(10-11 yrs)
Supervision
by parents .10* .06 .10 .02
(8-9 yrS)
Relationship with
parents combined .03 .09 .10 .09
(18-19 yrs)
Drinldng in pubs
under 18 yrs .14“ .10 .11* .12"
(14-15 yrs)
Drinking in pubs
under 18 yrs .35*** .21*** .07 .11*
(16-17 yrs)
Drinking
combined .12* .11* .14“ .17"
(19-19 yrs)
Multiple R .49 .35 .37 .37
R squared .24 .12 .14 .14
F 12.47 5.52 6.11 6.16
Signiﬁcance .00 .00 .00 .00

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

227
The regression coefﬁcients of the three drinking variables were all signiﬁcant for bOth

public nuisance and personal offenses, whilst non-signiﬁcant coefﬁcients were those for
'drinking in pubs under 18 years (16-17 years)‘ with minor property offenses, and 'drinking
combined' with serious property offenses. The bivariate analysis between drinking and these
later measures of delinquency had produced almost identical results (Tables 4.13 to 4.24).

Considering both minor property and personal offenses as dependent variables, none of
the regression coefﬁcients for the six family factors were indicated to be statistically signiﬁcant at
the .05 level. By way of comparison, in the bivariate analysis at this age the only signiﬁcant
relationship discovered between these two forms of deviancy and the set of family variables
occurred between personal offenses and family income (Table 4.79). In the multivariate Stage of
the analysis, the regression coefﬁcient expressing this association is -.11, with a p-value of <06,
indicating that, when other factors are controlled, family income does make a moderate
contribution to the variance in the number of personal offenses committed up to the age of 17
years, such that as family income decreases, personal offenses committed by the boys tend to
increase in number.

With public nuisance Offenses as the dependent variable, the regression analysis produced
very similar results to those discovered at the bivariate stage (Tables 4.61 to 4.66). The
regression coefﬁcients for both supervision by parents and family income were signiﬁcant, with
the remaining family factors having coefﬁcients of less than .10.

The major differences between the results of the bivariate and the multivariate stages of the
analysis at this age were identiﬁed when the serious offense category was considered as the
dependent variable. Whilst in the bivariate analysis all of the family factors had exhibited
signiﬁcant relationships with serious property offenses (Tables 4.73 to 4.78), the regression
analysis indicated the only signiﬁcant relationship to be that between behavior of parents and this
category of misbehavior. Nevertheless, the regression coefﬁcients for family size, supervision
by parents, and relationship with parents were all .10, indicating that, although not statistically
signiﬁcant at the .05 error level, each of these three factors account for some of the variance in

the commission of serious property offenses. The coefﬁcient for broken homes was only .05,

228
suggesting that, all things being equal, considerably more of the variance in the diversity of

involvement in serious property offenses is accounted for by family factors other than broken
homes.

From the regression analysis of the self report delinquency data it thus appears that
. drinking behavior accounts for the largest proportion of variance in the commission of all types
of juvenile offenses. The regression coefﬁcients for the various drinking measures varied in size
depending upon the particular type of offense under consideration.

Clearly, with other factors controlled, public nuisance offenses are most closely associated
with heavy drinking at all ages. Moderate regression coefﬁcients are also produced with minor
property offenses up to 15 years of age and with personal Offenses up to 17 years. Moreover, at
14-15 years of age 'drinking in pubs under 18 years' has the largest regression coefﬁcients for all
four categories of offense measured at the same age, whereas at 16—17 years the same
independent variable only provides the largest regression coefﬁcient for public nuisance and
minor property offenses measured at that later age. These ﬁndings thus imply that frequent
illegal drinking at a young age tends to be associated with the commission of an increasing
number of all types of offenses at that age, whilst drinking in pubs by older juveniles tends only
to be associated with their commission of public nuisance and minor offenses.

The regression coefﬁcients discovered for the independent family variables suggest that
family factors play a mOre important role in explaining delinquent behavior at 14—15 years than
they do when juveniles are two years older. Family size and supervision by parents provide the
only signiﬁcant regression coefﬁcients for public nuisance and minor property offenses at 14-15
years. Family size conuibutes a reasonable proportion of the variance in all types of deviancy in
younger self report delinquents, but becomes a non-signiﬁcant factor when older juveniles are
included in the analysis. Moreover, although the regression coefﬁcient for supervision by
parents was signiﬁcant for public nuisance, minor property, and personal Offenses at age 14—15
years, its only signiﬁcant value at 16-17 years occuned when it described the commission of

public nuisance offenses.

229
Broken homes and parental behavior were found to be related with involvement in personal

offenses up to the ages of 15 and 17 respectively, and family income with serious property
offenses in younger delinquents and with public nuisance offenses in older juveniles. Finally,
relationship with parents failed to exhibit a clear relationship with any type of delinquency when

all factors were considered together.

Regression Analysis of the Factors Affecting Official Juvenile Delinquency

The results of the multiple regression analyses using the three drinking and the six family
factors as independent variables and ofﬁcial juvenile convictions (10-16 years), Juvenile
Delinquency Scale (16-17 years), ofﬁcial adult convictions (17 ~24 years), and ofﬁcial tOtal
convictions (10—24 years) as the four dependent variables are presented in Table 4.130.

The overall relationships between the sets of drinking and family variables and the
dependent variables are statistically signiﬁcant at the .001 level, with approximately the same
strength of association being exhibited with respect to each of the four ofﬁcial delinquency
measures. The coefﬁcients of determination are not very large, .12, .17, .13 and .16
respectively, indicating that the indepdndent variables account for only a moderate proportion of
the variance in both juvenile and adult ofﬁcial convictions.

The only regression coefﬁcient which was signiﬁcant for all measures of ofﬁcial
delinquency was that for family size, suggesting that when other factors are controlled, family
size is the only independent variable which contributes a moderate proportion towards the
variance in adult and juvenile convictions.

The regression analysis indicates that, with everything else held constant, drinking
behavior explains very little of the variance in the number of juvenile convictions, a result which
may be contrasted with the ﬁndings of the bivariate analysis which identiﬁed the existence of
signiﬁcant relationships between ofﬁcial juvenile convictions and bOth drinking in pubs under 18
years (measured at 14-15 years) and drinking combined (measured at 18-19 years) (Tables 4.25
and 4.27). i

230

Table 4.130 - Multiple Regression Analysis of faCtors affecting the diversity of ofﬁcial
delinquency measures. (N varies between values of 351 and 411 depending upon
the measure).

 

Standardized Regression Coefﬁcients

 

 

 

Juvenile Delinquency Adult Total

convictions Scale convictions convictions
Factors (10-16 yrs) (16-17 yrs) (17-24 yrs) (10-24 yrs)
Family income -.08 -.12* -.11* -.11*
(8-9 yrS)
Family size .18" .16“ .18" .20***
(8-9 yrS)
Broken home .05 .11* .08 .07
before 15 yrs
Behavior of
parents combined .11* .12* .05 .10
(10-11 yrs)
Supervision
by parents .07 .10 .07 .08
(8-9 yrS)
Relationship with
parents combined .05 .04 .07 .06
(18-19 yrs)
Drinking in pubs
under 18 yrs .08 .14“ .11 .11*_
(14—15 yrs)
Drinking in pubs
under 18 yrs .01 .03 -.03 -.01
(16-17 yrs)
combined .10 .10* .14“ .14“
(19-19 yrs)
Multiple R .34 .36 .40 .41
R squared .12 .13 .16 .17
F 5.17 5.77 7.26 7.92
Signiﬁcance .00 .00 .00 .00

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

23 1
In the case of adult convictions the regression coefﬁcient for drinking combined is .14 and

statistically signiﬁcant, implying that heavy drinking by young adults is associated with the
acquisition of greater numbers of adult convictions prior to age 24. With the same ofﬁcial
measure representing the dependent variable, the regression coefﬁcient for drinking in pubs
under 18 years (measured at 16-17 years) is negative, although in the bivariate analysis, no
relationship was indicated yet Gamma took on a positive value (Table 4.32). The indication is
thus that no clear relationship exists between drinking in pubs at 16—17 years and adult
convictions prior to the age of 24 years. Similarly, a negative regression coefﬁcient was obtained
for drinking in pubs at the age of 16-17 years and total convictions between 10—24 years,
although the existence of a signiﬁcant relationship was indicated in the bivariate analysis (Table
4.35). Conversely, drinking in pubs under 18 years (measured at 14.15 years) had a statistically
signiﬁcant regression coefﬁcient with total convictions as the dependent variable. Thus, although
the analysis suggests no association between later (16-17 years of age) drinking and total
convictions prior to age 24, the indication is that, all other things being equal, a relationship does
exist between that ofﬁcial conviction variable and earlier (14-15 years of age) drinking habits.

The regression analysis with the drinking variables and the Juvenile Delinquency Scale
provided signiﬁcant regression coefﬁcients for drinking in pubs under 18 years (14-15 years)
and drinking combined (18-19 years), suggesting that when individuals who have experienced
police contact are included together with those who have criminal records in the analysis of
ofﬁcial juvenile delinquency, frequent illegal drinking at 14—15 years and heavy drinln'ng at 18-19
years are both associated with increasing juvenile misbehavior.

In the bivariate analysis, all of the family variables exhibited signiﬁcant relationships with
ofﬁcial juvenile convictions, the Juvenile Delinquency Scale, and ofﬁcial total convictions
(Tables 4.85 to 4.96 and 4.103 to 4.108). In addition, the only two family factors which were
not signiﬁcantly associated with ofﬁcial adult convictions were broken home before 15 years and
parental behavior (Tables 4.99 and 4.100 respectively). However, in the regression analysis,
apart from the family size variable, the only signiﬁcant coefﬁcients discovered were for the

associations of parental behavior with ofﬁcial juvenile convictions, and family income with

232
ofﬁcial adult convictions. Furthermore, none of the alternative fomrs of family factor variables

exhibited signiﬁcant relationships With ofﬁcial total convictions.

The above ﬁndings imply that clearly there is no deﬁnite relationship between either broken
homes or behavior of parents and ofﬁcial adult convictions. Moreover, while zero-order
associations may exist between various family factors and ofﬁcial criminal records, when all
factors are considered simultaneously most of these relationships disappear. Parental behavior
does however, together with family size, make a major contribution towards the variance in
official juvenile convictions, and family income, family size, and drinking combined contribute
towards the variance in the number of adult convictions. When the juvenile delinquency scale is
considered as the dependent variable, the only family factors without signiﬁcant regression
coefﬁcients are supervision by parents, and relationship with parents combined (Table 4.130).
Clearly, the inclusion of the police contact group within the deﬁnition of this dependent variable
makes a considerable difference in the results of the regression analysis.

The official delinquency measures do not take irtto account the type of crime which leads to

a conviction and consequently the regression analysis involving self report and ofﬁcial
1 delinquency statistics are difﬁcult to compare. Clearly, heavy drinking at the later age of 18 was
associated with the acquisition of adult convictions, while juvenile convictions did not appear to
be related to drinking when other factors were controlled. Of the ofﬁcial delinquency measures,
since it included those boys who had remained unconvicted yet had experienced ofﬁcial contact
with the police, the Juvenile Delinquency Scale bore the closest resemblance to the self report
variables. The regression analysis of this particular factor indicated that early drinking is
associated with an increasing amount of juvenile misconduct. The most deﬁnite relationship
between drinking and self report delinquency occurred in the public nuisance category of offense,
a category which would not necessarily involve criminal convictions but would in all probability
result in ofﬁcial police contact.

Those family factors which produced signiﬁcant coefﬁcients with the different categories
of self report data as the dependent variables tended to vary according to the type of delinquency

under consideration, although the values of their coefﬁcients were all consistently lower than

233
those for the drinking variables. Conversely, with the four types of ofﬁcial data as the dependent

variables, no real distinction could be made between whether family factors or drinking behavior
provided the largest contribution towards explaining delinquent activities.

Loglinear Regression

Loglinear regression analysis involving the 'ever' done delinquency variables provides
additional information concerning the relationship between the same set of independent variables
that was used in the regression analysis and delinquency. The delinquency variables employed in
the loglinear analysis were in the dichotomous form of either never having committed an offense
or having committed any number of offenses, while the diversity variables used in the regression
analysis were a continuous measure of delinquency. The two different types of analysis thus
involved slightly different measures of misbehavior. Additionally, all of the independent factors
were transformed into dichotomous 'positive' or 'negative' variables for the loglinear treatment
of the data in accordance with the scheme outlined in Table 4.131.

Public nuisance offenses were excluded from the loglinear analysis because, due to the
overwhelming number of boys who had admitted to this form of delinquency, no 'ever’ done
variable was created for this category.

Self Report Delinquency - Tables 4.132 to 4.137 indicate that loglinear regression
analysis with self report delinquency as the dependent variable produced the result that the
drinking rather than the family independent variables tended to have signiﬁcant coefﬁcients. This
ﬁnding is very similar to that of the regression analysis. In both the loglinear and the regression
analysis, the coefﬁcients for drinln'ng in pubs under 18 years (measured at 14-15 years) were
found to be statistically signiﬁcant for involvement in minor property, serious property and
personal offenses at the same age. The same independent variable measured two years later had
signiﬁcant coefﬁcients with minor and serious property offenses but not with personal offenses
under loglinear analysis, whereas under regression analysis it was indicated to be signiﬁcantly
related to minor property and personal, but not to serious property offenses. Thus, whilst the

234
overall loglinear ﬁnding that heavy or frequent drinking by adolescents increases the probability

of their being delinquent corroborates the regression result that drinking habits tended to account
for a large proportion of the variance in the boys' commission of all types of crime, the three
drinldng variables were not always related to the same categories of crime under the two forms of
analysis.

The few family factors which were signiﬁcantly related to the self report delinquency
variables in the regression analysis did not necessarily exhibit signiﬁcant associations in the
loglinear analysis. The coefﬁcient for family income, which was only signiﬁcantly related to
serious property offenses at 14-15 years under regression analysis, at the same age was also
signiﬁcant for minor property offenses under loglinear analysis. In addition, whilst the family
size variable was signiﬁcantly related to all types of property and personal Offenses at 14—15
years using multiple regression, under loglinear analysis a negative relationship was indicated
between it and minor property offenses. although the coefﬁcient was non-signiﬁcant. The only
other signiﬁcant loglinear coefﬁcients at 14-15 years for the set of family factors were those for
supervision by parents with personal offenses and for relationship with parents with serious
property offenses.

The discrepancies between the results of the two types of analysis are largely due to the
employment of different measures of the dependent variable. It therefore appears that slightly
different factors are associated with, on the one hand the boys' initial involvement in delinquent
behavior, and on the other hand their commission of an increasing number of offenses.

The onlyfamily factor coefﬁcients which were signiﬁcant under regression analysis when
self report delinquency was measured at 16—17 years occurred within the serious property and
public nuisance offenses categories. Loglinear analysis of the data collected at this age conﬁrmed
the minor property and personal offenses to have no statistically signiﬁcant associations with any

of the independent family factors.

235

Table 4.131 - Deﬁnition of Dichotomous Independent Variables utilized in the-Loglinear

Analysis.

 

 

Variable Positive (1) Negative (0)
Family income Comfortable Inadequate
+ Adequate
Family size Below Average Above Average
(s 2 children) (23 children)
Broken home Intact home Broken due to
death or separation
Behavior of parents Good + Good Average Poor 4» Poor Average
Supervision by parents Good + Average Poor
Relationship with parents Good + Average Poor
Drinking in pubs under N0 Once or twice,
18 years ( 14-15 yrs) Sometimes, or
frequently
Drinking in pubs under N 0 Yes
18 years (16-17 yrs)
Drinking combined Heavy

Low + Average

 

236

Table 4.132 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever' done self report minor
property offense variable (at 14-15 years). (N = 359).

 

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value
Mean effect -1.42 .058 -6.59***
Family income (8-9 yrs) .268 1.70 2.16*
Family size (8-9 yrs) -.044 .915 -.515
Broken home .162 1.38 1.34
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents -.129 .773 -1.57
combined (10-11 yrs)

Supervision by .137 1.31 1.1
parents (8-9 yrs)

Relationship with parents .052 1.10 .506
combined (18-19 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .401 2.22 2.91“
18 yrs (14—15 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .264 1.70 3.03“
18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

Drinking combined .029 1.06 .26
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

237

Table 4.133 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever' done self report
serious property offense variable (at 14-15 years). (N = 359).

 

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value
Mean effect .674 3.84 435*"
Family income (8-9 yrs) .206 1.50 197*
Family size (8-9 yrs) ' .176 1.42 1.96*
Broken home .069 1.14 .703
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents -.101 .817 -1.11
combined (10-11 yrs)

Supervision by .079 1.17 .769
parents (8-9 yrs)

Relationship with parents .186 1.45 1.97*
combined (18-19 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .186 1.45 2.01*
18 yrs (14-15 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .146 1.33 1.17
18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

Drinking combined .124 1.28 1.27
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; **‘"p<.001

238

Table 4.134 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the ’ever' done self report
personal offense variable (at 14-15 years). (N = 359).

 

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value
Mean effect .120 1.27 .952
Family income (8-9 yrs) .064 1.13 .755
Family size (8-9 yrs) .190 1.46 2.85“
Broken home .097 1.21 1.25
before 15 yrs
Behavior of parents -.081 1.17 -1.22
combined (10-11 yrs)
Supervision by .171 1.40 212*
parents (8-9 yrs)
Relationship with parents .003 1.00 .038
combined (18-19 yrs)
Drinking in pubs under .240 1.62 3.48***
18 yrs (14-15 yrs) '
Drinking in pubs under .224 1.56 2.41"
18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

. Drinking combined .183 1.44 2.46"
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.135- Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever’ done self report minor

239

property offense variable (at 16-17 years). (N = 359).

 

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value
Mean effect -1.62 .039 -5.96***
Family income (8-9 yrs) .156 1.37 1.07
Family size (8-9 yrs) .060 1.13 .544
Broken home .060 1.13 .441
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents -.154 .735 -l.53
combined (10-11 yrs)

Supervision by .194 1.47 1.17
parents (8-9 yrs)

Relationship with parents -.011 .978 -.09
combined (18-19 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .190 1.46 1.32
18 yrs (14-15 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .311 1.86 3.05"
18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

Drinking combined .238 1.61 1.25
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.136 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever’ done self report
serious property offense variable (at 16-17 years). (N = 359).

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value

 

Mean effect .673 3.84 3.97 ***
Family income (8-9 yrs) .042 _ 1.08 .381
Family size (8-9 yrs) .306 1.84 324*"
Brokenhome .111 1.25 1.11
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents -.036 .930 -.381
combined (10-11 yrs)

Supervision by .260 1.68 2.60“
parents (89 yrs)

Relationship with parents .230 1.58 2.37“
combined (18-19 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .207 1.51 2.22*
18 yrs (14—15 yrs) ' '
Drinking in pubs under .264 1.69 1.79*
18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

Drinking combined .228 1.58 2.36“
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

241

Table 4.137 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever' done self report
personal offense variable (at 16-17 years). (N = 359).

 

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value
Mean effect -.164 .720 -1.38
Family income (8-9 yrs) .080 1.17 1.02
Family size (8-9 yrs) .078 1.69 . 1.25
Broken home .047 1.10 .638
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents .001 1.00 .060
combined (10—11 yrs)

Supervision by .059 1.13 .767
parents (8-9 yrs)

Relationship with parents .089 1.20 1.25
combined (18-19 yrs)

Drinkinginpubs under .206 1.51 3.11***
18 yrs (14—15 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .120 1.27 1.56

18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

Drinldng combined .236 1.60 3.22***
(18-19 yrs)

A

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

242
Ofﬁcial Delinquency - Loglinear regression analysis produced a mixture of

independent variables with signiﬁcant coefﬁcients for ofﬁcial juvenile, adult and total
convictions. 'Broken home' and 'family size' were the only factors with signiﬁcant coefﬁcients
for all three dependent variables. Under regression analysis, family size was the independent
variable which tended to provide systematic results with the ofﬁcial delinquency data. However,
in the bivariate analysis all of the family variables exhibited signiﬁcant relationships with criminal
records. Clearly, when all factors are considered simultaneously certain variables are more
closely related to ofﬁcial delinquency records than others, these factors varying according to
which ofﬁcial measure of convictions is under consideration. That is, differences occur in the
results according to whether continuous measrnes of the number of juvenile or adult convictions,
or dichotomous variables describing whether or not an individual has a criminal record, are used
as dependent variables in the analysis.

A larger number of the drinking variables displayed signiﬁcant coefﬁcients with ofﬁcial
delinquency data under loglinear analysis than under multiple regression, in particular the
coefﬁcient of the early drinking measure, drinking in pubs under 18 years (measured at 14-15
years) was signiﬁcant with juvenile convictions, and the later drinking measure, drinking
combined (measured at 18-19 years) with adult convictions. These ﬁndings suggest that those
boys who drink early in life tend to acquire convictions early, and those who drink later tend to
be convicted later.

Signiﬁcant loglinear coefﬁcients were found to exist between supervision by parents for
both adult and total convictions, and relationship with parents for juvenile convictions. Under
regression analysis these associations were not suggested, but rather behavior of parents was
indicated to be signiﬁcantly associated with juvenile convictions, and family income with adult

convictions.

243

Table 4.138 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever' done Ofﬁcial juvenile
convictions variable (at 10-16 years). (N = 359).

 

 

Factors Coefficient , Antilog Z—Value
Mean effect .450 2.45 3.29***
Family income (8-9 yrs) .035 1.07 .370
Family size (8-9 yrs) .245 1.63 3.19***
Broken home .174 1.42 211*
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents .096 1.21 1.25
combined (10-11 yrs)

Supervision by .070 1.15 .783
parents (8-9 yrs)

Relationship with parents .164 1.38 2.01"“
combined (18-19 yrs) - '

Drinking in pubs under .141 ' 1.33 1.77*
18 yrs (14—15 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .148 1.34 1.40

18 yrs (16—17 yrs)

Drinking combined .131 1.30 1.56
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Table 4.139 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever' done Ofﬁcial adult
convictions variable (at 17-24 years). (N = 350).

 

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value
Mean effect .237 1.60 189*
Family income (8-9 yrs) .047 1.10 .542
Family size (8-9 yrs) .202 1.49 2.91”
Broken home .148 1.34 191*
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents .012 1.02 .167
combined (10-11 yrs)

Supervision by .180 1.43 220*
parents (8-9 yrs)

Relationship with parents .046 1.10 .586
combined (18-19 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .070 1.15 .941
18 yrs (14-15 yrs) ,
Drinking in pubs under .148 1.34 1.6

18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

Drinldngcombined .163 1.38 2.11*
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

245

Table 4.140 - Loglinear Regression Analysis of factors affecting the 'ever' done ofﬁcial total
convictions variable (at 10-24 years). (N = 350).

 

 

Factors Coefﬁcient Antilog Z-Value
Mean effect .169 1.40 1.36
Family income (8-9 yrs) .044 1.09 .524
Family size (8-9 yrs) .218 1.55 329*"
Broken home .194 1.47 2.57“
before 15 yrs

Behavior of parents .029 1.06 .446
combined (10-11 yrs)

Supervision by .147 1.34 180*
parents (8-9 yrs)

Relationship with parents .066 1.14 .884
combined (18-19 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under ‘ .022 1.05 .304
18 yrs (14-15 yrs)

Drinking in pubs under .255 . 1.57 2.77“
18 yrs (16-17 yrs)

Drinking combined .148 1.34 1.97 *
(18-19 yrs)

 

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

246
In order to evaluate the loglinear result in terms of odds rather than log odds, antilogs were

used. Antilogs therefore described the odds of becoming delinquent given particular family or
drinking characteristics, with all other factors held constant. For example, in Table 4.132 the
antilog for family income is 1.70, indicating that, other things being equal, the odds of boys with
adequate family income committing minor property offenses are 1.7 to 1, while, using a
reciprocal calculation, indications are that the odds of boys with inadequate family income
committing the same type of offenses are (1/1.7) to 1.

By a simple calculation, these odds can be converted into probabilities of being delinquent
given certain background characteristics, with the result that, using the same example as above, a
boy from a family with an adequate income has a 37% chance of committing minor property
crimes, while a boy from a poor family has a 63% chance of involvement in the same type of
offenses (See Appendix IV Part A).

Rather than describing the probability of being delinquent given positive or negative
situations for each of the independent dichotomous factors, three hypothetical personal proﬁles
were created and applied to both the self report and official data. The ﬁrst proﬁle involved using
the results of the loglinear analysis to describe the family situation as though all factors within it
were positive: adequate income, small family size, intact home, good parental behavior,
supervision and relationship with parents, no drinking in pubs at either 14-15 or 16-17 years,
and acceptable drinking at 18-19 years. The second proﬁle used the independent variables in
their reverse form, in other words with each factor taking upon its 'negative' value. Finally, the
third proﬁle utilized a mixture of positive and negative characteristics such that the hypothetical
boys with this particular personal proﬁle would tend to drink frequently in pubs at both 1415
years and 16—17 years, be poorly supervised by their parents, and come from large families with
inadequate income, all other family and drinking factors being positive. This particular proﬁle
was selected by discerning those independent variables which had tended to exhibit systematic
relationships with delinquency in both the bivariate and nnrltivariate stages of the analysis.

Tables 4.141 to 4.143 present the results of the calculations concenring the probability of
boys exhibiting various forms of delinquent behavior according to each of the three hypothetical

247
proﬁles (See Appendix VI Part B for details of calculations). Clearly, the 'all negative' situation
results in a high probability of committing all types of offense and acquiring a criminal record.
Taking the results of the self report data ﬁrst the calculations indicate that, all Other things being
equal, boys who come from negative home backgrounds and drink both heavily and consistently
have a 99% chance of committing minor property offenses and an 90% chance of committing
personal offenses before their ﬁfteenth birthdays. These probabilities were found to be higher
than that of committing serious property offenses at 14—15 years, which was 68%.

One explanation of the higher probability of committing personal offenses than serious
property crime in the 'all negative' situation could be that, even though both categories of crime
represent serious forms of misbehavior, personal Offenses represent acts of violence whereas
serious property crimes generally represent events from which the boys have the potential to gain
ﬁnancially. Thus, the two measures are indicative of different forms of misconduct. It seems
reasonable that negative family and drinking factors should contribute towards the development
of violence in juveniles since, not only is personal violence often directly associated with
drinking, but negative home environments may also provide boys with inappropriate role
models.

When older delinquents were included in the analysis, the probability of committing
serious property offenses in the 'all negative' situation rose by nearly 20%. All of these
probabilities were very much higher than the equivalent probabilities for the 'all positive‘
situation, particularly for serious property and personal Offenses. The calculated 64% and 76%
likelihoods of involvement in minor property offenses at 14-15 and 16-17 years respectively
were at ﬁrst sight surprisingly high for the 'all positive' situation, but reﬂected the fact that a very
large proportion (84.7%) of the boys in the cohort admitted to this form of delinquency. The
very high probabilities of committing minor property offenses in the equivalent 'all negative'
situations also reﬂect the over-representation of boys who admitted to this type of deviancy.

With ofﬁcial delinquency as the dependent variable a marked difference between the
probability of obtaining a conviction at any age in the 'all positive' and 'all negative' situations

was found.

248
It is thus possible to conclude that the nine independent variables represent important

characteristics of family and drinking behavior which, taken together, exhibit a strong
relationship with deviant behavior and suggest possible causal factors ill the development of
juvenile delinquency.

The third proﬁle did not produce such systematic results as those exhibited by the 'all
positive' and 'all negative' proﬁles. The greatest effects of poor family income, size, supervision
and frequent drinking at both ages occurred in the minor property and personal offense of self
reported delinquency data. Moreover, the probability of receiving any type of criminal record
given the above conditions was not very high This third proﬁle appears to be most strongly
related to minor and personal offenses rather than the more serious crime represented by serious
property and personal offenses. Given the third proﬁle, the probability of acquiring an adult
conviction is higher than that of being convicted whilst still a juvenile, suggesting that the
particular situation which the proﬁle describes is more likely to be associated with criminal
records in yormg adults than in adolescents.

Table 4.141 - The probability of involvement in self report delinquent offenses (calculated from
loglinear regression results) at 14—15 years given particular environmental and

 

 

personal proﬁles.
Minor , Serious

property property Personal
'All good' proﬁle 64% 2% 7%
'All bad’ proﬁle 99% 68% 90%
Large family, income and
parental supervision poor, 99% 42% 69%
drinking in pubs at both

14-15 yrs and 16-17 yrs

 

249

Table 4.142 - The probability of involvement in self report delinquent Offenses (calculated from
loglinear regression results) at 16-17 years given particular environmental and

 

 

personal proﬁles.
Minor Serious
property property Personal
'All good' proﬁle 76% 1% 13%
'All bad' proﬁle 99% 87% 93% ,
Large family, income and
parental supervision poor, 99% 43% 73%

drinking in pubs at both
14-15 yrs and 16-17 yrs

 

Table 4.143 - The probability of being convicted of any category of offense (calculated from
loglinear regression results) given particular environmental and personal proﬁles.

 

 

Juvenile Adult Either
conviction conviction conviction
(10-16 yrs) (17-24 yrs) (10-24 yrs)
'All good' proﬁle 4% 8% 7%
'All bad' proﬁle 82% 83% 87%
large family, income and
parental supervision poor, 32% 52% 53%

drinking in pubs at both
14-15 yrs and 16-17 yrs

 

250
Overall, therefore, the results of the multivariate analysis provide supporting evidence for

the existence of a relationship between drinldng and self report juvenile delinquency. In addition.
drinking frequently orheavily appears to account for a greater proportion of the variation in the
self reported commission of all types of offense than do family factors. In general, ofﬁcial
criminal records failed to exhibit this differential association with the two types of independent
variable.

While summary statements can be made conceming the association of drinking with
delinquency, it is difﬁcult to determine those family factors which are consistently related to
juvenile'offending. The family variables which exhibited statistically signiﬁcant relationships
with ofﬁcial delinquency data were not only different from those which were signiﬁcantly
associated with self report data, but variations were also found to occur in their relationships with
each category of delinquency. Moreover, the results of the multiple regression analysis, which
employed 'diversity' delinquency variables, were not identical with those of the loglinear
analysis, which was based upon 'ever' done variables.

Chapter Summary and Conclusion

The statistical analysis employed in this study utilized three different techniques: bivariate
crosstabulation, multiple regression, and loglinear regression. The results of the bivariate ‘
analysis indicated that heavy or frequent drinkers are more likely to commit all types of offenses
and have criminal records than those individuals who either abstain from alcohol or drink only
moderately. In addition, minor offenses appeared to be the type of misbehavior most closely
associated with drinking.

Family factors. considered as possible contributors to the development of delinquency
tended to vary in importance according to the type of deviancy under consideration. In
examining the self report data ﬁrst, a statistically signiﬁcant relationship was found to exist
between all four categories of offense measured at 14—15 years and parental supervision, whilst at
the same age family size was only systematically associated with personal offenses, and low
family income, poor family relationships and broken homes with serious property offenses. At

25 1
16-17 years, serious property offenses were virtually the only category of delinquency to exhibit
signiﬁcant relationships with any of the family variables analyzed. Conversely, a signiﬁcant
relationship was discovered between every family factor and ofﬁcial juvenile and adult
convictions.

Despite the fact that parental supervision appeared to be related to the development of both
serious and minor misconduct at an early age, the conclusion can be drawn that family factors
tend to be more closely associated with the commission of serious crimes than with involvement
in minor forms of deviancy.

No systematic associations were discovered between any of the drinking and the family
variables. These results indicated that poor family backgrounds, deﬁned in terms of the six
family factors utilized in the analysis, were not signiﬁcantly related to deviant drinking behavior.

The multivariate analysis of the self report data conﬁrmed the overall result of the bivariate
analysis that drinking heavily or frequently, particularly at a young age (14-15 years), is
associated with the commission of all types of crime. In addition however, the regression
analysis indicated that deviant drinking accounts for a greater amount of variation in involvement
in public nuisance offenses than in property or personal crimes. Although the variables included
in the multivariate analysis did not permit an examination of the effects of early drinking upon
later delinquency, bOth the loglinear analysis using 'ever' done and the regression using
'diversity' variables suggested that drinking at 14-15 years was related to delinquency measured
up to 17 years. There is thus some evidence that early drinking plays a role in the establishment
of delinquent behavior.

The 'diversity' regression analysis indicated that, with all other factors controlled, drinking
contributed very little towards the variance in the number of juvenile convictions, but that
drinking as an adult appeared to be closely associated with the acquisition of adult convictions.
In addition, the loglinear results implied that those boys in the sample who drank early in life
tended to be convicted early, and those who drank later were convicted later. The fact that the
two levels of multivariate analysis utilized slightly different measures of ofﬁcial convictions could

partially account for the discrepant results. Perhaps one answer to the apparent conﬂict might be

252
that drinking behavior is associated more closely with an individual's initial acquisition of a
criminal record than with the number of convictions he subsequently receives.

The multiple regression analysis employing 'diversity' self report delinquent variables
indicated that family factors play a more important role in the development of delinquency in
young adolescents than in older boys. Family size was found to be the only variable to
contribute towards a reasonable proportion of the variance in all types of offenses committed by
young boys, but it did not exhibit the same associations when the boys were two years older. In
general, different family factors tended to be related with different types of delinquency, with the
exception of 'relationship with parents', which did not show a clear relationship with any
category of delinquency when all factors were considered together.

Using loglinear analysis with 'ever’ done self report offense variables, different family
factors were indicated to be associated with the various forms of misbehavior, but these
relationships were not always consistent with those found under regression using 'diversity'
variables. Nevertheless, both levels of multivariate analysis showed that no family factors were
related to either minor property or personal offenses measured at 17 years. The multivariate
treatment of the self report data thus provided evidence that the drinln'ng behavior of juveniles
accounts for more of the variation in their delinquent behavior than do family factors.

When ofﬁcial delinquency statistics were used as dependent variables in the multivariate
stage of the analysis, the results suggested that certain family factors are more closely related to
ofﬁcial delinquency than others, differences occurring according to whether juvenile or adult
convictions were being used as a measure of deviancy. Those factors which were generally
found to be signiﬁcantly related to delinquency under regression analysis, 'behavior of parents'
and 'family income', tended to be different from those indicated by loglinear analysis,
'supervision by parents' and 'relationship with parents'.

Overall, therefore, the results of the multivariate analysis, whilst providing ﬁrm grounds
that drinking is related to delinquency, varied a great deal not only between self report and ofﬁcial
data, but also between the two levels of analysis using 'diversity' and 'ever' done measures of

deviancy.

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction
Inthischaptertlemainfeatmes ofthestudyarereviewed,itsﬁndingsaresmnmarized
and, in the context of the research questions, conclusions are presented and discussed. The ﬁrst
sectionis asurnmaryofthepurposeandscopeofthe study. Inthenextsectiontheﬁndings and
the results ofthe various data analyses are reviewed. This review is followed by a general
discussion of the results and then by consideration of effects of the methodological limitations of
the study upon its ﬁndings. The chapter concludes with several recommendations for futme

research

Purpose and Scope of the Study

The major intentions of the present study were to examine the relationship between juvenile
delinquency and heavy drinln'ng by adolescents, and to determine whether the two forms of
deviance shared any common causal factors. The consideration of all possible predictors of
juvenile delinquency and alcohol misuse was beyond the scope of the Study, and therefore
emphasis was placed upon the role of the family, since previous writers had stressed family
factors to be important in the development of delinquent behavior.

The literatme review provided considerable evidence that a relationship exists between
juvenile delinquency and heavy drinking, although there was some controversy conceming
whether heavy drinking was more closely associated with minor or with serious types of offense.
One of the further aims of this study was therefore to detemrine whether any differences exist in

253

254
the strengths of the relationships between drinking and different types of crime.

Relatively few studies have attempted to assess the possible common underlying causes of
both heavy drinking and juvenile delinquency, and those which have tend to provide inconsistent
ﬁndings. Jessor et al. (1968) discovered that mother-child affectional relationships, mother's
alienation, limited sanctions and exposure to deviant models all inﬂuenced the probability of a
school student exhibiting all types of deviant behavior, while Barnes was unable to ﬁnd statistical
signiﬁcance between different types of parental nurturance and support and problem drinking.

Similarly, the literature concemed solely with the causes of alcohol abuse tended to
disagree over the role of structural family variables in the development of adolescent alcohol
misuse. While previous research provided general support for the argument that family
relationships play an important role in the development of adolescent drinking habits, many
differences existed in the variables studied and problems were experienced in obtaining reliable
data through interviewing techniques. A

The studies dealing with delinquency and the family, while helping to deﬁne those family
variables worthy of consideration in the present study, presented conflicting evidence concerning
the effects of broken homes upon delinquent behavior. One particular objective of this study was
therefore to clarify those family factors which are associated with either problem drinking in
adolescents or with juvenile delinquency, and to discem any factors common to both forms of
deviancy. ‘

Together with their inconsistent results, various methodological problems were identiﬁed
in many of the previous studies in this area, suggesting the need for further research. In
particular, one of the main problems encountered in previous research involved the choice of
samples and controls. A number of studies selected samples of delinquents who had already
been conviced and incarcerated, which not only precluded any study of delinquent youth who
had not been institutionalized but also created problems in ﬁnding suitable control groups. Those
control groups which were used were often drawn from high school students and could therefore
have unintentionally included delinquents, either because youths were on probation or simply
because they had managed to avoid apprehension.

255

Longitudinal data were employed in the present study in an attempt to avoid the problems
involved with sampling by allowing the delinquent and control groups to deveIOp manually over
time. In addition it was hoped that, by utilizing variables measured at speciﬁc stages over a
number of years in the analysis, infomnation would be gained concerning the direction of any
relationships found to exist. The issue of whether drinking leads to delinquency or vice versa is
an extremely difﬁcult problem to solve, especially when examining cross-sectional data collected
at only one particular point in time. Also, in the context of family factors, it is possible to argue
that, rather than contributing towards the development of delinquency, poor family relationships
or broken homes are the result of tensions and stresses caused by the deviant behavior of
children.

ThedatausedinthestudywereobtainedfromanEnglishlongiuldinalstudy,entitledthe
Cambridge Study on Delinquency Development, which took nearly twenty years to complete.
The survey was conducted in a typically working class residential area of London, the total
sample consisting of 411 boys selected from six state primary schools in the area. The boys
were 8 or 9 years old when ﬁrst contacted, and were subsequently interviewed approximately
every two years until they were 21, after which only particular sub-groups were seen The
parents of the boys were also interviewed on a number of occasions. .

The data collected allowed both self report and ofﬁcial delinquency variables to be utilized
in the present study. Four categories of offenses, public nuisance, minor property, serious
property and personal were deﬁned and created from the selfreport data and were used to
provide measures not only of different types but also of different levels of delinquency through
the use of diversity 'ever', 'sometimes' and 'frequently' done variables.

The original researchers who canied out the longitudinal survey generally chose to rely
upon the ofﬁcial statistics in their analysis. Moreover, no attempt had previously been made
either to use the Cambridge data to determine if different categories of delinquency were
differentially associated with adolescent drinking habits, or if any common causal factors existed
for bOth heavy drinking and juvenile delinquency.

256
The present study examined seven research questions, each of which had been developed

and derived from examining the ﬁndings of previous research whilst undertaking the extensive
literature review. Bivariate and multivariate techniques were utilized in analyzing the survey data.

Findings and Conclusions
In this section the ﬁndings and conclusions of the study are reviewed in the context of the
research questions. The analysis involved both self report and ofﬁcial delinquency data so that
the maximum amount of information possible concerning the delinquent behavior of the boys
could be obtained.
The analysis commenced by considering the following two research questions:

Research Question 1 - Is heavy drinking among adolescent males positively related to
delinquency?

Research Question 2 - Is heavy drinln'ng among adolescent males more closely associated
with certain types of delinquency than with others?

The bivariate analysis indicated that heavy drinking is positively associated with self report
delinquency. However, the strength of the association varied when different types of delinquent
behavior were treated as the dependent variable. It was discovered that minor offenses were
more closely related to drinking than were serious property crimes, with the strongest
relationship indicated in the public nuisance offense category. At this stage of the analysis, not
only was it determined that an association existed between drinking and ever having committed
an offense, but also that signiﬁcant relationships tended to be found between drinking and
frequently committing different types of offenses.

Signiﬁcant zero-order relationships were also discovered between drinking and whether or
not boys received juvenile or adult convictions, conﬁrming the result of the self report data
analysis that heavy drinking is associated with delinquency. However, the association between
heavy drinking and receiving increasing numbers of convictions was not so conclusive,
suggesting that the relationship might not be so strong when ofﬁcial data is being used as a

measure of delinquency.

257
In order to expand upon the bivariate results and to determine whether relationships

remained when other factors were included and controlled, multivariate analysis was undertaken.
This phase included both regression analysis using the 'diversity' delinquency measures as the
dependent variables, and loglinear regression which employed the dichotomous 'ever' done
delinquency measmes as the dependent variables.

The factors controlled in the multivariate analysis in addition to drinking were family size,
family income, broken home before 15 years, behavior of parents, supervision by parents and
relationship with parents. Considering the results of the regression analysis ﬁrst, the existence of
a relationship between drinln’ng and self report delinquency was supported, with drinking
behavior accounting for the largest proportion of the variance in the commission of all types of
offenses. In particular, frequent drinking at the young age of 14-15 years was found to be
associated with the commission of increasing numbers of serious and minor offenses at the same
age. Nevertheless, the regression coefﬁcients for the drinking variables indicated that heavy
drinking was most closely associated with public nuisance offenses, which gave support to the
ﬁndings of the bivariate analysis that drinking has a stronger association with minor rather than
serious crimes.

The regression analysis also suggested however that, with everything else held constant,
drinking contributes very little towards the variance in the number of juvenile convictions
received, although heavy drinking by yormg adults was found to be associated with the
acquisition of a greater number of adult convictions. On the assumption that the boys who
receive ofﬁcial convictions are the most frequent or serious offenders, it is possible to conclude
from the results of the regression analysis of ofﬁcial delinquency that, when all other factors are
taken into account, drinking does not exhibit a strong relationship with the commission of serious
offenses by juveniles. Whilst lending support to the ﬁnding from the bivariate analysis of the
selfreport data that drinking is most closely associated with minor delinquent acts, this
conclusion is not completely consistent with all of the results of the self report regression analysis
since, under the latter analysis a relationship was discovered between all types of self reported
offenses and drinking when both forms of misbehavior were measured at a young age.

258
The loglinear analysis again indicated that, even when other factors are controlled, a

relationship exists between heavy drinking and self report delinquency. In addition, the results
supported the regression ﬁnding that drinking at an early age is associated with the commission
ofallcategories ofcrimeatthesameage.

A larger number of the drinking variables had signiﬁcant coefﬁcients for ofﬁcial
delinquency under loglinear analysis than in the regression analysis, and early drinking was
found to be signiﬁcantly related to the acquisition of a juvenile conviction. Thus, inconsistencies
were found in the analysis of the ofﬁcial delinquency data depending upon whether convictions
were measrned in terms of ever having received a conviction or, as in the regression analysis, by
employing a continuous variable which indicated the increasing number of convictions acquired.
Clearly, while drinking is related to whether or not a juvenile receives a conviction, all things
being equal it does not appear to be associated with the acquisition of increasing numbers of
convictions. This is not the case for self report data, where heavy drinking is found to be
associated both with committing a single offense and with involvement in an increasing number
of offenses.

Although the analysis undertaken was able to provide a substantial amount of supporting
evidence for the existence of a positive relationship between juvenile delinquency and adolescent
drinking, it proved extremely difﬁcult to detemrine causality, in other words whether heavy
drinking leads to delinquency or vice versa. The drinking variables and self report delinquency
data were both measured at at least two different ages (14-15 years and 16-17 years), but because
of their nature, the variables did not in themselves disdnguish for example between those
individuals who were originally heavy drinkers but who subsequently reduced their alcohol
intake and those who only later became problem drinkers, nor between those boys who
commimdanoffense atavery early agebutnotlaterandthose who only comrnenoed offending
when they were older.

Using the ofﬁcial data, an attempt was therefore made to create a variable which described
the percentages of boys who were convicted at a young age (before the age of 13) and those who
were convicted later (between the ages of 14 and 20). In addition, through manipulating the

259
drinking variables, it was possible to create a variable which decribed the onset of drinking.

Bivariate analyses of these two new variables was undertaken, but no statistically signiﬁcant
relationships were discovered. The results simply showed a slight tendency for early drinking to
be associated with early delinquency and for later drinking to be associated with later
delinquency.

The remaining ﬁve research questions were concerned with the relationship between family
factors and drinking and with the relationship between family factors and delinquency:

Research Question 3 - Is family structure in the form of family size and broken homes related
to heavy drinking and delinquency amongst adolescent males?

Research Question 4- Do inter-parental relationships exhibit an association with heavy
drinking and with delinquency in adolescent males?

Research Question 5- Do parent—child relationships exhibit an association with heavy
drinking and with delinquency in adolescent males?

Research Question 6 - Does parental control and authoritarianism imposed upon male
adolescents show a relationship with their drinking habits and their
delinquency? Speciﬁcally, are both low and high levels of discipline
associated with higher levels of drinking and delinquency than are
average levels of discipline or supervision?

Research Question 7- Are family structure, inter-parental relationships, parent-child

relationships and parental supervision more closely associated with
certain types of delinquency than others?

To ease the understanding of the results and the conclusions drawn from the analysis
undertaken, each of the farme factors will be considered individually, and in the order in which
they appear in the research questions.

Family Size - At the bivariate level of analysis, family size was found to exhibit a
signiﬁcant relationship with all types of self report delinquency commimd at a young age, and in
particular a close association was discovered between family size and personal offenses.
However, when older youths were incorporated into the delinquency measure, personal and
serious property offenses were the only two forms of misconduct associated with increasing

family size.

260

The ofﬁcial delinquency data indicated that as family size increases, not only are
individuals more likely be convicwd on one occasion, but they are also more likely to acquire an
increasing number of convictions. Thus, overall the bivariate analysis showed that family size is
related to delinquency.

The multivariate analysis in general supported the conclusions of the bivariate analysis.
Family size accounted for the largest proportion of the variance in both adult and juvenile
convictions, and was one of the few variables which had a signiﬁcant coefﬁcient in the loglinear
analysis using ofﬁcial delinquency data.

The results of the multivariate analysis employing the self report delinquency data were not
so consistent as those outlined above. The regression analysis indicated that family size
accormted for a reasonable proportion of the variance in the commission of all categories of
offenses measured at 14-15 years, although when older boys were included in the analysis no
such associations were found. The loglinear results showed the only category of offenses
associated with family size to be serious property offenses.

It therefore appears that family size is related to ofﬁcial delinquency and all categories of
self report delinquency in younger adolescent boys. The association found between family size
and serious property offenses in the loglinear analysis, together with the associations that '
occuned using ofﬁcial deliquency data suggest that family size exhibits the closest relationship
with the more frequent or serious offenders.

The only signiﬁcant bivariate relationship discovered between drinking and family size
occurred with drinking irt pubs under 18 years (measured at 14-15 years) as the dependent
variable. Moreover, this relationship was negative suggesting that, as family size increases
drinking in pubs under age decreases. This result is the Opposite of that which would have been
anticipamd given the ﬁndings of the analysis using the delinquency data and the theory that the
larger the family size, the less time parents have to develop satisfactory relationships with their
children, so reducing their ability to motivate their children to avoid deviancy. In part, the
suggested association could simply result from the fact that, the larger the family the less will be
the available money to spend on drinking.

261
Broken Homes - Signiﬁcant zero-order relationships were discovered to exist between

three of the self report delinquency variables and broken homes: frequent commission of serious
property offenses (measured at 14-15 years), frequent commission of personal offenses
(measured at 14-15 years), and 'ever' done serious prOperty offenses (neasmed at 16-17 years).
These results suggest that broken homes are only associated with the commission of crimes by
the more serious offenders.

The bivariate analysis of ofﬁcial delinquency data found signiﬁcant zero-order
relationships between broken homes and both adult and juvenile convictions, again indicating that
broken homes have the closest association with serious or frequent offending.

The multivariate analyses indicated that, with other factors controlled, a slightly more
complex picture of the relationship between broken homes and juvenile delinquency emerges.

When the ofﬁcial delinquency data were treated as the dependent variable, none of the
regression coefﬁcients for 'broken homes' were signiﬁcant at the .05 level, suggesting that other
factors account for more of the variation in the number of adult or juvenile convictions received
Nevertheless, the loglinear coefﬁcients for ’broken homes' with ofﬁcial delinquency as the
dependent varaible were signiﬁcant at the sane error level. Thus, the combined results suggest
that broken homes are relaed to whether or nor an individual receives a conviction but not to the
number of convictions acquired.

The only category of offense which was significantly associated with broken bones using
the self report data in the multivariate analysis was personal offenses (measured at 14-15 years),
which had a large enough regression coefﬁcient to indicate that broken homes account for a
moderate proportion of tie variance in the commission of this type of offense.

Heavy or frequent drinking was found not to be related to broken bones, suggesting that
boys' drinking behavior is nor affected by whether or not parents separate.

Inter-Parental and Parent-Child Relationships - Information concerning
inter-parental relationships and parents relationships with their children was obtained through
interviews carried out by psychiatric social workers (PSWs) with the boys' parents when the

262
boys were 8-9 years old Attempts were made by the PSWs to assess marital harmony, parental

inconsistencies, parental dominance, mother's attitude, father's attitude and parental discipline as
independent treasures of the various relationships which existed between family nembers.
However, the family characteristics concerned involved very sensitive issues which, even when
parents were motivated to give truthful answers, tended to be prone to problems of faulty
recollections and confused emotions, and consequently the accuracy of the measrnes was
threatened

All of the above variables were found to be closely inter-correlated and reﬂective of the
PSWs general opinions regarding the parents' managenent styles. Consequently, every item
was combined into a single score to produce a global rating of parental behavior which
represented a neasure of inter-parental together with parent-child relationships.

An assessment of the boys' relationships with their parents was also made through
interviews with the boys themselves when they were 18-19 years old A combined variable was
created which described their relationship with their parents as falling into one of three categories,
good, average or poor, and included such factors as how well the boys felt they related to their
parents, whether they lived away from hone and, if they did, their reasons for doing so. Once
more the variable involved emotions which are difﬁcult to accurately deﬁne, and therefore it was
appropriatethattheboys wereaskedtomaketherequiredjudgements abouttheseissuesatthe
later age of 18-19 years rather than when they were younger, when their responses would have
been less reliable.

Given the above two descriptions of the variables, it is thus appropriate that the results of
the analysis concerning the variable 'behavior of parents' should be examined ﬁrst. The bivariate
analysis ofthe selfreportdataindicatedthatthe only level andcategory ofoffenserelatedto
behavior of parents was frequently committing serious property crines. In addition, a signiﬁcant
association was found to exist between ofﬁcial juvenile delinquency and behavior of parents.
Thus, poor parental behavior represents a possible predictor of the more serious forms of

juvenile delinquency.

263

The multivariate analysis provided further information concerning the degree of association
between juvenile delinquency and relationships within the family, although the signiﬁcant
relationships which were discovered were only indicated by the regression analysis. Serious
property offenses were again the type of misconduct which exhibited relationships with behavior
of parents. Similarly, the regression coefﬁcients for juvenile convictions suggested that poor
parental behavior accounts for a moderate proportion of the variation in the number of juvenile
convictions received The lack of signiﬁcant relationships under loglinear analysis suggests that
poor parental behavior is not so much associated with whether or not a boy commits a single
serious offense, but rather with his commission of an increasing number of such offenses. No
relationship was found between drinking and poor parental behavior.

At the bivariate level of analysis, the variable describing the boys' relationships with their
parents produced almost identical results as the parental behavior variable, with 'ever' and
'sonetines' done serious property offenses and ofﬁcial convictions being the forms of
delinquency to exhibit signiﬁcant relationships. In addition, a relationship was discovered
between minor property offenses and relationship with parents. However, the results of the
multivariate analysis were such that the only signiﬁcant relationships between delinquency and
poor relationships with parents were found to occur under loglinear rather than regression
analysis. Again, these relationshipsconcemed both serious property offenses and juvenile
convictions.

Overall, the results make it possible to conclude that inter-parental and parent-child
relationships are associated with ofﬁcial juvenile delinquency and serious offenses rather than
with minor forms of misbehavior. Nevertheless, there appears to be some inconsistency
concerning whether the relationship between juvenile delinquency and poor parent-child
relationships is based upon the commission of a single offense or involvenent in an increasing
number of offenses.

Drinking was found not to be related to relationships with parents, conﬁnning the results
of the analysis of the parental behavior variable.

264
Supervision by Parents - When the boys were 8-9 years old the PSWs endeavored to

determine the level of parental supervision they were exposed to. The parents were rated both
according to their vigilance, which described their watchfulness, concern and closeness of
supervision, and according to their rules, which described whether they were rigid or lax in their
application of rules of behavior and penalties for non-conformity. The two resultant variables
were found to overlap considerably and so were incorporated into one single measure of parental
supervision, in such a way that values were coded as either good, average or poor, with poor
supervision tending to describe lax or undervigilant supervision.

Zero-order relationships were discovered beteen supervision by parents and all categories
of offenses at 14-15 years. When older individuals were included in the analysis, the two forms
of misbehavior found to be associated with poor parental supervision were serious property and
public nuisance offenses. Thus, although the strength of tie relationship was greater for serious
property offenses (Gamma =.5) than for public nuisance oﬁ‘enses (Gamma =.2), at the bivariate
level of analysis no deﬁnite distinction can be made concerning whether minor or serious
offenses are more closely related to parental supervision. A zero-order relationship was also
found between ofﬁcial delinquency and parental supervision.

The multivariate analysis revealed that, when other factors are controlled, parental
supervision does not exhibit a relationship with ofﬁcial juvenile convictions. However, with self
report delinquency data as the dependent variables, the multivariate results becane much more
complex. The regression coefﬁcients for parental supervision with public nuisance, minor
property and personal offenses (all treasured at 14-15 years) indicated that poor parental
supervision accounts for a moderate proportion of the variance in boys‘ involvenent in these
types of delinquency. However, public nuisance was the only category of offense to exhibit a
signiﬁcant regression coefﬁcient with supervision by parents when self report delinquency was
treasured at 16-17 years. Taking the results of the regression analysis together, when other
factors are controlled, poor parental supervision is related to the commission of an increasing

number of minor offenses.

265
Although 'adult convictions' was the only ofﬁcial delinquency variable related to parental

supervision under loglinear analysis, the self report data suggested that poor supervision by
parents is related to whether or not an individual commits serious offenses, with serious property
and personal offenses both having signiﬁcant loglinear coefﬁcients. Thus, it appears that
supervision by parents is related to the commission of an increasing number of minor offenses,
and also to whether or not an individual becones involved in committing a single serious
offense. Once more, no relationship was found between drinking and supervision by parents,

suggesting that heavy or frequent drinking is not associated with poor parental supervision,

Family Income - Even though family income was not speciﬁcally included in the
research questions as a factor potentially inﬂuencing juvenile delinquency and drinking, the
variable was included in the analysis of the study. The major reason for this was that family
incone provided a realistic measure of variations in lifestyle and supplied some relevant
information concerning the background of the boys.

The bivariate and multivariate analyses did not produce very systematic results regarding
the level or category of delinquency most closely associated with family incone. The bivariate
results suggested that serious property and personal offenses were related to family income,
whilst the regression results indicated that family incone accounts for a reasonable proportion of
the variance in serious property (measured at 14.15 years) and public nuisance offenses '
(measured at 16-17 years). The loglinear analysis showed that, when other factors are
controlled, low family income is associated with the commission of minor property, serious
property and personal offenses.

A zero-order relationship existed between ofﬁcial juvenile delinquency and family income,
but the multivariate analysis indicated that other factors, such as family size and broken homes,
are more important contributors to the variance in the number of juvenile convictions received,

although family incone appears to be a signiﬁcant factor in the number of adult convictions
acquired.

266
Drinking frequently in pubs was found to be related to family incone. However, the

direction of the relationship was such that frequent drinking was associated with high family
incone. This was the Opposite direction to that which had been anticipated, but possibly reﬂects
the fact that those households with low family incone did not provide the boys with sufﬁcient
funds to spend on drink

Discussion of Results

The present study, whilst supporting the general ﬁndings of previous research that a
relationship exists between juvenile delinquency and heavy drinking by adolescents, has
highlighted important differences which occur in the degree of the association when self report
rather than ofﬁcial delinquents are incorporated into the analysis.

The majority of the literature reviewed earlier in the study concentrated upon ofﬁcial
delinquents in examining the relationship between juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse. One
interesting ﬁnding of the present study is that family factors such as family size and parental
behavior account for more of the variation in the number of juvenile convictions acquired than
does frequent drinking. However, when self report data is employed in the analysis, the reverse
is true, with drinking patterns explaining the largest proportion of the variation in all categories of
offense. In particular, drinking at an early age was found to be associated with both minor and
serious offenses, suggesting that drinking is only one form of general deviant behavior among
young juveniles. Nevertheless, the results of the bivariate and multivariate analyses taken
together showed that the strongest relationship occurred between frequent or heavy drinking and
very minor offenses, indicating that the type delinquency exhibited by juveniles who drink is a
factor in the relationship worthy of consideration.

One problem often regarded as afﬂicting ofﬁcial delinquency data is that the drinking
behavior of youths may attract the attention of the police and thereby contribute towards their
being convicted in the courts, thus introducing bias into the data and reducing their reliability.
Furthermore, when examining exclusively the behavior of youths who have been convicted, no

account is taken of those delinquent individuals who have managed to avoid approhension.

267
However, the further discovery of a relationship between drinking and juvenile delinquency

using the self report data, which overcame these particular problems, provided important
evidence for the existence of a genuine association between the two.

Having determined that a relationship exists between juvenile delinquency and heavy or
, frequent drinking by adolescent boys, it was then a further purpose of this study to discover
whether the two shared any common causal factors.

Existing research conceming the relationship between drinking behavior and delinquency
provided very little conclusive evidence regarding possible causal factors of the two forms of
deviancy. Those studies which attempted to assess potential underlying causes emphasized the
important role which the family plays in the developnent of a child's behavior. The literatme
concerned with identifying causal factors of alcohol abuse gave added weight to the importance
of the role of the family in determining the drinking habits of a teenager. Furthermore,
delinquency research suggested structural family variables such as broken homes and family size,
together with parent-child relationships and parental supervision to be predictive of juvenile
delinquency. In consequence, while there exists potential sources and causes of deviant behavior
beyond those problems which occur within the family, the present study was restriCted to
examining the effect of family factors upon the development of juvenile delinquency and alcohol
abuse by adolescents.

Social control theory emphasizes the importance of the ties which an individual maintains
with his or her family. According to this theory, when family structure breaks down or
parent-child relationships disintegrate, these ties are broken and the family loses its ability to
modvate its children to avoid deviancy. In addition, supervision and discipline can affect the
quality of ties between family members. High levels of discipline can create rebellious behavior,
while low levels weaken the inﬂuence which parents have over their children. Social control
theory therefore suggests that average levels of supervision are the most effective in preventing
the developnent of deviant behavior.

The analysis undertaken in me present study indicated that very few family factors are
related to frequent or heavy drinking. Family incone and family size were the only two variables

268
found to exhibit an association with heavy drinking, and the directions of these relationships

were opposite to that which had been anticipated, since it was indicated that as family size
increases, and also as family income decreases, drinking by adolescents decreases. A possible
explanation of these two results is that those boys who cone from large or low incone families
ﬁnd themselves with insifﬁcuent funds to indulge in drinking.

The general ﬁnding that family relationships are not related to adolescent drinking patterns
was contrary to the suggestions of previous research. A number of studies on pattems of
adolescent alcohol abuse have emphasized the importance ofthe quality of internal family
relationships in the developnent of heavy drinking (Globetti, 1972; Babst et al., 1978; Gantrnan,
1978; Bloom and Greenwald, 1984; Reeves, 1984). While differing in their emphasis upon the
exact form of family interaction associated with drinking, the studies provided general support
for the argurrent that family relationships play an important role in the development of adolescent
alcohol abuse. Reeves, for example emphasized parental control, Babst et al. family afﬁnity, and
Bloom and Greenwald parental relationships as possible predictors of heavy drinking in
juveniles. In the light of the conclusions of the above studies, the ﬁndings of the present study
of no association between supervision by parents, relationship with parents or behavior of
parents were therefore particularly surprising. _

Less striking however was the result that drinking is not associated with broken homes.
Those previous studies which have emphasized structural rather than interpersonal family
variables in the developnent of alcohol abuse among juveniles have tended to differ in their
conclusions. Thus, Weschler and Thum (1973) found that a relationship existed between the
number of parents in the hone and the drinking behavior of adolescents. However, both Kane
and Patterson (1972) and Amoetang and Barr (1986) discovered no signiﬁcant difference
betweenthedrinkinghabitsofadolescents withavariety offamilystructuresandparental
occupations.

The same family variables were used in the analysis as possible predictors of delinquency
as were used as factors in the developnent of drinking habits. At the bivariate level of analysis,
family income, family size, broken homes, behavior of parents and relationships with parents all

269
exhibited signiﬁcant relationships with both ofﬁcial juvenile and adult convictions. However,

when self report data was examined, only the commission of serious property offenses was
found to be related to every family factor employed in the analysis. On the assumption that
ofﬁcial delinquency treasures tend to include the more frequent and serious offenders, then these
results suggest that family factors are more important in the developnent of more serious, rather
than minor, forms of misbehavior among juveniles.

As discussed above, the family variables accounted for a greater proportion of the variance
in ofﬁcial than in self report delinquency. No real distinction could be made following the
regression analysis conceming whether the family factors explained a greater proportion of the
variance in minor or serious crines. Nevertheless, ﬁom the results of the loglinear analysis it
was clear that the family played a more important role in boys' involvenent in serious rather than
minor offenses.

Given that drinking was more closely associated with self report delinquency and, within
that deﬁnition of delinquency, with minor property crine, the low explanatory power of family
factors in accounting for the variation in self report delinquency, and in particular the variation in
whether or not a boy is involved in the commission of public nuisance offenses, can assist in
understanding the reasons for the lack of associations between family facrors and heavy drinking.
Since heavy drinking and minor self report delinquency are closely related to one another, and
neither exhibit many relationships with family factors, it is possible that the two forms of
deviancy share comon causal factors other than those which were included for consideration in
the present study.

The close association between ofﬁcial delinquency and the various family factors could
partially be the result of those individuals with 'negative' family backgrounds disproportionately
coming to the attention of the police, so increasing their likelihood of anest and conviction for
any exhibition of delinquent behavior. The relationships which exist between the family
variables and serious property crines are particularly interesting Even when other factors are
controlled, a number of family factors are signiﬁcantly relaed to self report serious property
offenses measured at both 14-15 years and 16-17 years old. Thus, family size, family income,

270

broken hones, behavior of parents, supervision by parents and relationship with parents all have
signiﬁcant coefﬁcients under both regression and loglinear analysis when this particular category
of delinquency is the dependent variable.

One further interesting result which results from the analysis of the self report data is that
different family variables tend to be signiﬁcantly related to the various categories of delinquency
when the two ages at which the data were collected are compared. When older youths (16-17
year olds) are included in the bivariate and multivariate analyses, there is a tendency for fewer
family factors to be signiﬁcantly related to minor and personal crimes than at the younger age of
14—15 years. For serious property offenses however, a relationship is exhibited with all of the
family variables at the bivariate level of analysis for both age groups, and at the multivariate level,
although approximately the sane number of statistically signiﬁcant relationships occur within
both age groups, the associations tend to involve different family factors. The inability to
separate the later age group into those individuals who started committing crimes at a later age
and those who becane delinquent earlier in life prohibits deﬁnite conclusions to be drawn from
these results. N evertheless, the indication is that for predicting involvenent in minor and
personal crimes family factors are more important for younger boys, while for serious crines the
same factors are important for adolescents of all ages.

Not only were different results obtained when the two age groups were considered '
separately in the analysis, but the loglinear and regression analyses tended to produce disparate
ﬁndings conceming the importance of family factors in, delinquency development. These
differences occurred both when self report and ofﬁcial delinquency were employed in the
analysis, suggesting that family relationships and family structure vary in importance in
explaining whether a youth commits a single delinquent act or is involved in an increasing
number of offenses.

The relationship between family factors and delinquency appears from the above
discussion to be much more complex than was suggested by the previous research outlined in the
literature review. Datesman and Scarpitti (1975) and Chilton and Markle (1972) did indicate that
broken hones might be related to different types of delinquency in varying degrees and according

271
to the age of the subjects. However, it would seem from the present study that, in addition to age

and category of offense, type of delinquency measure used, whether self report or ofﬁcial or in
the form of 'diversity' or 'ever' done variables, is an important factor which must be taken into
account when the associations between both farmly relationships and family structure and
delinquency are under examination.

Thus, for example broken homes, while exhibiting a signiﬁcant bivariate relationship with
ofﬁcial convictions was only signiﬁcantly related to juvenile delinquency under loglinear analysis
and not regression analysis, and while having a zero-order association with self report serious
property offenses, when other factors were controlled accounted for a moderate proportion of the
variation in personal offenses.

From the results of the present study it can not be stated that any one family factor
appeared to be of equal importance in accounting for the variation in both ofﬁcial and self report
delinquency. Similarly, no single family factor exhibited a signiﬁcant association with all
categories of self report offenses in both the multivariate and bivariate analyses. Whilst
supervision by parents appeared to be signiﬁcantly related to all categories of offenses at the
bivariate level of analysis, when other factors were controlled it appeared that it only accounted
for a moderate proportion of the variance in public nuisance offenses.

The manipulation of the self report delinquency data made possible the creation of four
different measrues of each category of offense at 14-15 years: 'diversity', 'ever’ done,
'sometimes' done and 'frequently' done. There was a tendency, particularly within the public
nuisance category, for frequent drinking to be associated with all four measures. However, this
was not the case for family factors. The zero-order associations which occuned between the
family variables and self report delinquency generally were found to be exhibited by only one or
two delinquency treasures within a category. Thus, the broken hone variable for example was
only related to the 'frequently' done measures of personal and serious property offenses, whilst
supervision by parents was related to the 'ever’ done measure of serious property offenses, the
'diversity', 'ever' and 'sometimes' measures of personal oﬁenses, the 'diversity', 'sonetimes'

and 'frequently' measures of minor offenses, and the 'diversity' and 'frequently' measrues of

272
public nuisance offenses. The results produced by examining the different measures in each

offense category gave no clear indication that the family factors were only associated with one
particular measure.

Overall, therefore the results of the present study have indicated that, while a close
relationship exists between self report delinquency and drinking in adolescents, family
relationships and family structure do not appear to represent common causal factors of both
forms of deviancy. No zero-order relationships were discovered between drinking and family
factors, and those family variables which exhibited signiﬁcant relationships with delinquency

varied extensively according to the type and level of delinquency under consideration.

Methodological Limitations and their Implications

A number of methodological problems were advanced earlier in this study as limitations of
the research design. Having discussed the general results of the analysis, it is now possible to
discern how these weaknesses in design affected the study ﬁndings.

one of the major difﬁculties which tends to afﬂict all research investigations of the
relationship between juvenile delinquency and alcohol abuse is the inability to discover the
direction of the association. It was originally hoped that, through the use of longitudinal data, the
present study would be able to shed some light on this particular problem. Unfortunately, the
data available from the Cambridge Study in Delinqtent Develoth gave no indication of when
the boys ﬁrst started drinking, or their age when they committed their ﬁrst offense. Thus, it
proved impossible to determine directly which form of misbehavior occurred ﬁrst, or indwd
whether they both occuned simultaneously. In addition, the drinking and deliquency data were
collected at different ages in such a way that data provided by the later age group, in addition to
describing their current behavior included information regarding their activities when they were
younger. Thus. for example, no distinction could be made between those boys who did not
drink or commit offenses at a young age but did so later, and those who started drinking and
deliquent conduct early and continued in the sane manner. Therefore, although drinking at

14—15 years was related to the commission of public nuisance offenses at 16-17 years, it could

 

273
not be concluded that early drinking behavior causes, or is even associated with later drinking

habits. Manipulation of the available drinking and delinquency data allowed for the creation of
variables which described the onset of both drinking and delinquency. However, the bivariate
analyses of these variables produced no signiﬁcant relationship, and hence gave rise to
inconclusive results concerning whther the relationship between drinking and delinquency is
causal The findings tended to suggest that early drinking as associated with early delinquency
and later drinking with later delinquency.

The failure to determine the direction of the relationship in no way repuduates me
discovery of an association between heavy drinking and delinquency however, indeed drinking
behavior was found to account for the greatest proportion of the variance in self report
delinquency.

Although family variables tended to be measured at the early age of 8—9 years (with the
exception of the 'broken hones' variable which was measured before 15 years, and the 'behavior
of parents' variable which was treasured at 10-11 years), the possibility still remained that the
juveniles were committing offenses prior to this point in their lives. There is therefore a chance
that the very early delinquent behavior of their children contributed to the breakdown in marriages
and the developnent of poor family relationships. Clearly however, adolescent delinquency will
have very little, if any, effect upon family income and family size, and thus the ﬁnding that
family factors treasured at 8-9 years were related to delinquent behavior at 14-15 years suggests
that poor family environnents at an early age tend to contribute towards the developnent of
deviant conduct in teenage boys.

It was indicated earlier in the study that interpreting associations as constituting chains of
causation is problematic, since other variables not included in the analysis may play an extremely
important role in the development of both delinquency and drinking. For example, it may be that
parental drinking pattems and peer group pressure are two of the main causes of adolescent
alcohol abuse, since family relationships and structure did not exhibit any systematic
relationships with adolescent drinking. In addition, the drinking variables included in the
analysis accormted for less than 20% of the total variance in the ofﬁcial data and in all of the self

274
report offense categories, with the exception of public nuisance offenses in which the total

proportion of variance explained was between 25% and 30%.

Thus, while the relationships discovered between family factors and delinquency and
between drinking and delinquency explain a sizeable amount of the variance in the dependent
variables, large proportions remain unaccounted for. This result suggests that, while drinking
and family factors were inﬂuential and may serve as viable factors in predicting juvenile
delinquency, other factors may be more sn'ongly related and would be represent more appropriate
predictors.

Two clear examples of such factors, neither of which were tested in the present study. are
parental and sibling criminality and peer group pressure, for two major reasons. First, the
inclusion of all of the possible causes of drinking and delinquency was beyond the scope of the
study, and second, the Cambridge data lacked any information regarding both peer and parental
drinking behavior.

The problem of accurately deﬁning heavy drinking was outlined in the literature review as
one difﬁculty which had afflicted much of the previous research concerned with drinking
behavior. The drinking variables included in this study failed to reﬂect drinking patterns of
alcohol use by the boys. Furthermore, the measures developed at 14-15 years and 16-17 years
did not speciﬁc quantities of alcohol consumption, but rather reﬂected the frequency with which
the boys drank alcoholic beverages in pubs under age. Moreover, the boys' drinking behavior
was assessed through self report data which runs the risk of producing inaccurate results due
either to faulty recollections or intentionally false information.

In a sirnliar way, the family factors included in the study were prone to a number of
weaknesses. The collection of data regarding such sensitive issues as parental relationships or
behavior towards their children proved difﬁcult, and was further complicated by the involvement
of psychiatric social workers' subjective judgenents. The result was that global scores tended to
be relied upon to provide a general picture of parental care and supervision. The failure to
discover statistically signiﬁcant associations between drinking and parental supervision or
drinking and parental behavior could thus partially reﬂect the lack of speciﬁcity of these global

275
scores in deﬁning their constituent variables. While relationships were found to exist between

sone of the other family variables and drinking, they tended to be extrenely complex which

once more could be a result of the methods of data collection.

Recommendations for Future Research

Several recomnendations for future reserach follow directly from the preceeding
discussion of the limitations of this study. One of the major concerns in evaluating the
association between juvenile delinquency and drinking is to determine the direction of the
relationship and whether it is causal. Longitudinal data possesses the potential to provide such
information. However, in the present study the data available did not allow any deﬁnite
conclusions to be drawn concerning whether drinking leads to delinquency or vice versa, or
indeed whether they both occur simultaneously. Thus, while recognizing the difﬁculties
involved in embarking upon longitudinal research, more information could be gained through the
collection of data concerning drinking behavior and delinquency beginning at a very young age
and continuing through adolescence to young adulthood In particular, the determination and
comparison of the ages of onset of drinking and delinquency could increase understanding of the
temporal relationship between the two fonns of deviancy. ,

In addition, the developnent of variables describing the drinking patterns of individuals
could assist researchers to make ﬁrm conclusions concerning the major causes of adolescent
alcohol abuse. Many of the problems involved in collecting accurate information regarding such
sensitive issues as drinking amongst teenagers and family relationships are difﬁcult to overcone,
but perhaps obtaining information from a variety of sources, and providing interviewers with
more rigorous guidelines concerning their interview technique, could beneﬁt both the accuracy
and objectivity of the resultant data.

The fact that few relationships were identiﬁed between adolescents' drinking habits and
family factors could, as was discussed earlier, indicate that other factors such as parental drinking
behavior and peer group pressure are more valid predictors of teenage alcohol abuse. Studies

which could collect data regarding these two difﬁcult, yet important areas would pctentially be of

276
value. The involvement of peer group pressure in shaping both the drinking and delinquent

behavior of adolescents was especially suggested by the ﬁndings of this study that drinking tends
to be closely associated with relatively minor forms of deviant conduct. In particular, offenses in
the 'public nuisance' category are frequently the types of activities which juveniles becone
involved in when they are together with one or more their friends. Peer pressure is generally
accepted to inﬂuence adolescents' public behavior in many situations. Studies of drinking habits
and peer inﬂuence could shed more light upon both the onset of adolecent alcohol abuse and its
association with juvenile delinquency.

In summary, future studies in which the measures are strictly deﬁned and objectiﬁed as
much as possible, preferably giving rise to interval level data, should ideally be concemed with
the relevant behaviors of adolescents' peers, parents and siblings. Desigred in this way,
longitudinal studies in particular could offer sone interesting and promising avenues for further
research into the relationship between adolescent alcohol abuse and juvenile delinquency, and
could assist further in understanding whether the two forms of deviancy share certain common

causal factors.

 

APPENDICES

277
APPENDIX 1

Table A.1 - Self Reported Delinquency

 

% of Boys
Admitting at age
Act Description 14-15 16—17
1 Riding a bicycle without lights (or with no rear 77.0 78.8
light) after dark ‘
2 Driving a car, motor bike or motor scooter under 20.3 40.1
the age of 16
3 Belonging to a group (of ten or more people) who 16.8 23.4
go around togethermakingarow andsornetines
getting into ﬁghts or causing a disturbance
4 Playing truant from school 54.3 80.9
5 Deliberately travelling without a ticket or paying 71.6 84.4
the wrong fare on a bus
6 Letting off ﬁreworks in the street 84.2 86.7
7 Taking money from hone with no intention of 9.4 11.3
returning it
8 Taking an unknown person's car or motor bike for 7 .4 15 .6
joyriding (with no intention of keeping it for good)
9 Smashing. slashing or damaging things in public 11.9 18.1
places (streets, cinemas, dance halls, railway
carriages, buses, etc.)
10 Annoying, insulting or ﬁghting other people 23.0 23.4
(strangers) in the street
11 Breaking into a big store, garage, warehouse, 4.0 7 .3
pavilion, etc.
12 Breaking into a small shop (private tradesman) 6.4 8.6
whether or not anything was stolen
13 Stealing things out of cars 8.9 9.6
14 Carrying some ln'nd of a weapon like a knife or 20.7 25.4

coshincaseitisnwdedinaﬁght

 

278

 

Table A.1 (cont'd.).

Act Description 14—15 16-17

15 Attacking an enemy or soneone in a rival gang in 18.8 24.4
a public place (without using any sort of weapon)

16 Breaking the windows of empty houses 68.9 66.8

17 Using any kind Of weapon in a ﬁght (knife, cosh, 12.1 17.1
razor, broken bottle, etc.)

18 Drinking alcoholic drinks in pubs under the age 26.4 79.1
of eighteen

19 Going into bars under the age of sixteen 51.4 74.6

20 Stealing things from big stores, supermarkets, 19.3 28.2
multiple shops (while the shop was open)

21 Stealing things from small shops or private 36.8 39.8
tradesnen (while the shop was Open)

22 Deliberately littering the street or pavenent by 24.2 27.0
smashing bottles, tipping dustbins, etc.

23 Buying cheap or accepting as a present anything 36.3 57.4
known or suspected Of being stolen

24 Planning well in advance to get into a house, ﬂat, 4.7 5 .5
etc. and steal valuables ( and carrying the plan
through)

25 Getting into a house, ﬂat, etc. and stealing things 5.4 7.3
(without planning well in advance) A

26 Taking a pedal cycle belonging to an unknown 8.4 10.6
person and keeping it

27 Struggling or ﬁghting to get away from a 6.9 12.9
policeman

28 Attacking or ﬁghting a policeman who is trying to 1.7 5.0
arrest soneone else

29 Stealing school property worth more than about 5p 29.1 53.2

30 Stealing tools, materials or any other goods worth 2.2 12.6
more than about 50p from employers (all in one go)
during working hours

31 Trespassing anywhere you are not supposed to go, 63.5 66.8

for example railway lines, goods yards, private
gardens, or empty houses

 

279

Table A.1 (cont'd.).

 

Act Description 14-15 16-17

32 Going to 'X‘ ﬁlms under age 64.0 89.7

33 Often spending £1 or more a week on gambling 7.9 19.7
under the age of sixteen

34 Regularly smoking cigarettes under the age of 7.9 19.7
sixteen

35 Stealing goods or money from slot machines, 14.6 17.9
juke boxes, telephones, etc.

36 Stealing from peOple's clothes hanging up 3.5 5.8
anywhere

37 Obtaining money by false pretences 10.4 9.8

38 Taking illegal drugs like purple hearts or 0.5 6.3

smoking reefers

 

280
APPENDIX II

Categorization of Self Report Data
The four offense categories of public nuisance, property minor, property serious, and

personal are comprised of the following self report acts as deﬁned in Appendix II:

Public nuisance 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 19, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, 38.
Property minor 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 29, 30, 35, 36, 37.
Property serious 11, 12, 24, 25.

Personal 14, 15, 17, 27, 28.

Act 10, 'Annoying, insulting, or ﬁghting other people (strangers) in the streets' is
excluded from the four classiﬁcations outlined, since the large difference which exists between
simply annoying, and actively ﬁghting with, a stranger prohibits the type of behavior exhibited
by those boys who admitted to this act being truly understood

In addition, Act 18, 'Drinking alcoholic drinks in pubs under the age of eighteen', is
omitted since this act, measured at both 1415 years and 16-17 years is used to generate two of
the drinldng variables to be studied.

The following Tables A.2 and A.3 indicate the proportion of boys admitting a speciﬁc
number of acts in each of the four categories at the age of 14—15 years and at the age of 16-17

years:

281

Table A.2 - Self Reported Delinquency Variable (14—15 years)

Public Minor Serious
Nuisance Property Property Personal
Value 96 % % %

0 1.2 15.3 87.4 68.1
1 4.0 25.7 7.7 13.8
2 6.2 17.3 3.0 10.9
3 10.6 12.8 1.0 4.9
4 11.1 8.9 1.9 1.2
5 13.6 5.9 100% L0
6 15.1 . 5.9 100%
7 12.6 3.5
8 13.1 1.7
9 5.7 1.2

10 4.0 1.0

1 1 2.5 0.5

12 0.5 11.2

100% 100%
Table A.3 - Self Reported Delinquency Variable (16-17 years)
Public Minor Serious
Nuisance Property Property Personal
Value 96 9b % %

0 0.5 8.6 86.1 57.2
1 1.3 16.4 5.8 18.9
2 1.8 18.4 3.8 11.8
3 4.5 14.4 1.8 7.6
4 6.0 10.8 2.5 3.0
5 7.8 9.6 100% 1.5,
6 13.4 6.5 100%
7 15.9 5.8
8 18.4 2.5
9 14.9 3.3

10 8.6 2.0

11 4.5 1.5

12 2.0 0.3

13 0.5 100%

§
as

282
APPENDIX III

Creation of Combined Variables

The creation of the combined variables followed the manner in which a combined rating of
maternal attitude and discipline was developed. In this case, three points were scored if maternal
attitude was cruel, passive or neglecting, if maternal discipline style was erratic or very strict, or
if the quality of matemal discipline was harsh. Two points were scored if maternal attitude was
loving anxious or overprotective. if maternal discipline style was lax or strict, or if the quality of
maternal discipline was spoiling or disinterested. Finally, one point was scored for each
assessment of normal. The combined score, which was obtained by simple addition, thus could
vary between 3 and 9. If a boy was not rated on one of the scales, his total points on the other
two were multiplied by 1.5; in the exceptional case where a boy was rated on one scale only, his
points were multiplied by 3. Twenty four boys, for example, could not be rated on maternal
attitude because their parents were too uncooperative.

The use of either 2 or 3 points for the different categories of unsatisfactory attitude or
discipline involved a decision as to which categories were the most unfavorable. In most cases,
this was fairly clear. Cruel, passive or neglecting, for example, were presumably worse than
loving anxious or overprotective. Where the distinction was less obvious, for example between
erratic and lax discipline, the points scoring decision was made by seeing which of these
categories were most closely related to other parental characteristics which were undoubtedly
unfavorable.

Patemal attitude, patemal discipline style, and paternal quality of discipline were
condensed in the sane way to produce the combined treasure of patemal attitude and discipline.
In addition, similar rules were adopted for combining the ratings of marital disharmony, parental
inconsistency, and parental dominance to derive the combined neasure of parental conﬂict.

In producing the ﬁnal global rating of parental behavior, three three already combined
ratings of matemal attitude and discipline, paternal attitude and discipline, and parental conﬂict
were amalgamated. Each boy was allocated a score of either 1 (good), 2 (average), or 3 points

283
(poor), on each of the three separate ratings, and the global score measure was obtained by
simple addition.

The two measures 'parental vigilance' and 'parental rules' were combined into one single
measure of parental supervision. If parents were assessed as being overvigilant or rigid
respectively on the two treasures the boy was allocated 1 point, average scored 2 points on both,
and undervigilant or lax repectively scored 3 points. The points were then summed for each boy. '
A total score of 2-3 resulted in a coding of 'good' for parental supervision, a score of 4 was

coded as 'average', and a score of 5-6 as poor.

 

284
APPENDIX IV

Recoding of Self Report Data for Bivariate Analysis
At both ages (14-15 years and 16-17 years) the diversity self report offense categories of
public nuisance, property minor, property serious. and personal were sub-classiﬁed and recoded

as follows:

Public Nuisance: Committing 0 — 4 offenses = 1
Committing 5 - 6 offenses = 2
Committing 7 - 8 offenses = 3
Committing 9-13 Offenses = 4

 

Property Minor: Committing 0 offenses = 0
Committing 1 offense = 1
Committing 2 — 4 Offenses = 3
Committing 5-11 offenses = 4

Property Serious: Committing 0 Offenses = 0
Committing 1 offense = 1
Committing 2-4 offenses = 2

Personal: Committing 0 offenses = 0
Committing l offense = l

Commuting 2 offenses = 2
Committing 3-5 offenses = 3

Thus, with the exception of the public nuisance offense category, the diversity variables
were subdivided into goups containing boys who reported committing either 0, 1, or 2 or more
of the offenses in each category.

As a result of this subclassiﬁcation, the frequencies for the diversity variables used in the

bivariate analysis were as indicated overleaf:

Value

#wNF-‘O

Value

#WNHO

Table A.4 - Diversity (14-15 years)

Public
Nuisance

%

33.1
28.6
25.7

12.§
100%

Public
Nuisance

%

11.1
21.2
34.3

3.0.5.
100%

285

Minor
Property

gee-st, .

Table A5 - (16-17 years)

Minor
Property

%

8.6
16.4
43.6

3.1.5.
100%

Serious
Proverty

Serious
Provertr

§Eap

Personal
%
68.1
13.8
10.9
100%

286
APPENDIX V '

Recoding of Ofﬁcial Data for Bivariate Analysis
The Ofﬁcial conviction statistics were categorized for coding as follows:

Juvenile: No convictions = 0
1 conviction = 1
2-14 convictions = 2

Adult: No convictions = 0
1 conviction = 1
2-3 convictions = 2
4—10 convictions = 3

Overall: No convictions = 0
1 conviction = 1
2-4 convictions = 2
5-14 convictions = 3

As a result of this classiﬁcation system, the frequencies in each particular category were as

shown in Table A.6:
Table A6 - Ofﬁcial Data Frequencies
Juvenile Adult Overall
Value % % %
0 79.6 72.9 67.1
1 11.4 11.6 12.4
2 9.0 8.1 12.7
3 :

1.3 1.3
100% 100% 100%

 

287
APPENDIX VI

Calculations of Probabilities from Loglinear Results
Part A
Tleantilogforfamilyinconewithminorproperty Offenses asthedependentvariableis
1.70 (Table 4.132). All other things being equal, the odds of committing minor property
offenses given adequate family incone are therefore 1.7 to 1. To calculate the corresponding
probability, let x = the percentage which is required. tlen (x + 1.70X) = 1, therefore 2.7x = 1,

 

X = (1/2.7) = 0.37 or 37%.

Similarly, to ﬁnd the probability of committing minor property offenses given inadequate
family incone, everything else being equal, the odds are (1/1.7) to 1, thus (X + (l/l.7)X) =1,
therefore 2.7X = 1.7, X = (1.7/2.7) = 0.63 or 63%.

Taking the results from Table 4.132, the following list of Odds can be drawn up:

Table A.7 - Loglinear odds for the alternative values of the set of independent variables

 

 

Variable Value Odds
Family Income Adequate (1) 1.70
Inadequate (0) (1/ 1.70)
Family size Below average (1) 0.915
Above average (0) (l/0.915) .
Broken home Intact (1) 1.38
Broken (0) (1/1.38)
. Behavior of parents Good (1) 0.773
poor (0) (1/0.773)
Supervision by parents Good (1) 1.31
Poor (0) (1/l.31)
Relationship with parents Good (1) 1.10
Poor (0) (1/l.10)
Drinking in pubs (14-15 years) No (1) 2.22
Yes (0) (1/2.22)
Drinking in pubs (16-17 years) No (1) 1.70
Yes (0) (1/1.70)
Drinking combined Acceptable (1) 1.06
Heavy (0) (-1/1.06)
Mean effect ' .058

 

 

 

To calculate the 'all positive' situation, all of the positive values were taken and multiplied
together (=9.57) and then multiplied by the mean effect (=0.56) to arrive at a value of the Odds of
committing minor property Offenses given the all positive errvironnent. The relevant probability
was therefore (l/l.56) = 0.64, or 64% X

A similar calculation was perforned to discover the probability of committing minor
property offenses in the 'all negative' situation (99%).

289
To calculate tle probabilities concenring the third proﬁle, ﬁrst all of tie negative factor

Odds values were taken and multiplied together (=7.69). Second, all of the positive factor odds
values were similarly multiplied together (=1.24) and this ﬁgure was then multiplied by the mean
effect (=0.07 2). The odds of committing minor property Offenses given the third proﬁle were
then (0.072)/(7.69) = 0.009, and the corresponding probability was (1/1.009) = 0.99, or 99%.

Similar calculations were canied out using the results Obtained from the loglinear analysis
with the serious property and personal offenses, and the ofﬁcial delinquency data as the

dependent variables.

 

,
‘ .I'E.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

V

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amoeteng, A. Y. and Barr, S. 1., "Religion, Family and Adolescent Drug Use," Sociological
Perspectives, Vol. 29 No. 1 (January, 1986), pp. 53-76.

Babst, D. V., Deren, S., Schmeidler, J. and Lipton, D. S., "A Study of Family Afﬁnity and
Substance Use," Journal of Drug Education, Vol. 8 No. 1 (1978), pp. 2940.

Barnes, G. M., "Adolescent Alcohol Abuse and Other Problem Behaviors: Their Relationship
and Common Parental Inﬂuences," Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 13 No.4
(1984), pp. 329-348.

Bell, D. S. and Champion, R. A., "Deviancy, Delinquency and Drug Use," British Journal
of Psychiatry, Vol. 13 No. 4 (1979). Pp. 269-276.

Biddle, B. 1., Bank, B. J. and Marlin, M. M., "Parental and Peer Inﬂuence on Adolescents,"
Social Sciences, Vol. 58 No. 4 (1980), pp. 1057-1079.

Biddle, B. 1., Bank, B. J. and Marlin, M. M., "Social Determinants of Adolescent Drinking:
What They Think, What They Do and What I Think and Do," Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, Vol. 41 No. 3 (1980). PP. 215-241.

Biron, L. and LeBlanc, M., "Family Components and Hone Based Delinquency," British
Journal of Criminolozy. Vol. 17 No. 2 (April 1977). Pp. 157-168.

Black. D., The Manners and Customs of the Police, (New York: Academic Press, 1980).

Black Report, Report of the Children and Young Persons Review Group, Chairman:
Sir Harold Black. (Belfast: HMSO, 1979).

Bloom, M. D. and Greenwald, M. A., "Alcohol And Cigarette Use Among Early Adolescents,"
Journal of Drug Education, Vol. 14 No. 3 (1984), pp. 195-205.

Bynum, T. 8., "Release on Recoglizance," Criminology, Vol. 20 No. 1 (May 1982),
pp. 301-318.

Carter, R. 1., "Family Correlates of Male and Female Delinquency," Criminology, Vol. 20
No. 2 (August 1982). pp. 67—82.

Chilton, R. J. and Markle, G. E., "Family Disruption, Delinquent Conduct and the Effect of
Subclassiﬁcation," American Sociological Review, Vol. 37 (February 1972),
pp. 93-99.

Datesman, S. K. and Scarpitti, F. R., "Female Delinqlency and Broken Homes:
A Re-assessnent," Criminology, Vol. 13 No.1(May 1975), pp. 33-55.

290

291

Dawkins, R. L. and Dawkins, M. P., "Alcohol Use And Delinquency Among Black. White And
Hispanic Adolescent Offenders," Adolescence, Vol 18 No. 72 (Winter 1983),
pp. 799-809.

Donovan, J. E. and Jessor, R., "Adolescent Problem Drinking: Psychosocial Correlates in a
National Sample Study," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, V01. 39 No. 9 (1978),
pp. 1506-1524.

Famworth, M., "Family Structure, Family Attributes and Delinquency in a Sample of Low
Incone, Minority Males and Females," Journal of Youth and Adolescence, V01. 13
No. 4 ( 1984), pp. 349-356.

Fuller, J. R., "Alcohol Abuse and the Treatment of Young Offenders - A Progess Report,"
Directorate of Psychosocial Services Report, Series I No. 13, (London: Prison
Department, 1976).

Gantrnan, C. A., "Family Interaction Patterns Among Families with Normal, Disttn'bed, and
Drug Abusing Adolescents," Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 7 No. 4 (1978),
pp. 429-440.

Globetti. 6., "Problem and Non-Problem Drinking Among High School Students in Abstinence
Communities," International Journal of the Addictions, V01. 7 No. 3 (1972),
pp. 51 1-523.

Glueck, S. and Glueck, E., Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency, (Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1950).

Harford, g‘. (g, "Teenage Alcohol Use," Post-Graduate Medicine, Vol. 60 (1976),
pp. 7 -7 .

Heather, N., Hodge, J., O'Connor, A. N. and Wilkie, G., "Drunkenness and Delinquency in
Scottish Young Offenders," Unpublished Manuscript 1977.

Hennessy, M., Richards, P. and Berk, R., "Broken Hones and Middle Class Delinquency:
A Re-assessnent," Criminology, Vol. 15 No. 4 (1978), pp. 505-527.

Hirschi, T., Causes Of Delinquency, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).

Hollin, C. R., "Young Offenders and Alcohol: A Survey of the Drinking Behaviour of a Borstal
Population," Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 6 (1983), pp.161-174.

Hood, R. and Sparks, R., Key Issues in Criminology, (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicholson, 1970).

Hughs, P. W., Schaps, E. and Sandles, C. R., "A Methodol for Monitoring Adolescent
Abuse Trends," International Journal of the Add ctions, VOL 8 (1973),
pp. 403-419.

Jensen, G. F. and Rojek, D. G., Delinquency: A Sociological View, (Lexington,
Massachusetts: D. C. Heath, 1980).

Jessor, R. T. D., Graves, R. C., Hanson, R. C. and Jessor, S. L., Society, Personality
and Deviant Behavior: A Study of a Tri-Ethnic Community, (New York: Halt,
Rhinehart and Winston, 1968).

 

292

Jessor, R. and Jessor, S., "Adolescent Development and the Onset of Drinln’ng: A Longitudinal
Study," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, V01. 36 No.1 (1975), pp. 27- 51.

Kane, R. L. and Patterson, E., "Drinkin Attitudes and Behavior of High School Students in
Kentucky," Quarterly Journal of tudies on Alcohol, Vol. 33 (1972). pp. 635-646.

Kerlinger, F. N. and Pedhazur, E. 1., Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research,
(New York: Halt, Reinhart and Winston, 1973).

Laudeman, K. A., "Personality, Drinking Patterns and Problem Drinking among Young Adult
Offenders," Journal of Drug Education, Vol. 7 No. 3 (1977-78), pp.259-269.

levine, E. M. and Kozak, C., "Drug and Alcohol Use, Delinquency and Vandalism among
Upper Middle Class Pre- and Post-Adolescents," Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
Vol. 8 NO. 1 (1979), pp.91-101.

McMurran, M., "Assessnent of the Effectiveness of Problem Drinkers' Courses at l-IMYOC ‘
Glen Parva," Directorate of Psychological Services Report, Series II NO 101,
(London: Prison Department, 1981).

Mendenhall, W., Ott, L. and Larson, R. F., Statistics: A Tool for Social Sciences,
(Wadsworth, California: Duxbury Press, 1974).

Naroll, R., The Moral Order, (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1983).

Nye, F. I., Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior, (New York: John Wiley,
1958).

O'Brian, M., "Children- Indian Juvenile in the State and Tribal Courts of Oregon," American
Indian Law Review, Vol. 5 (1977), pp. 343-367.

Palner, J. and Carlson, P., "Problems with the use of Regession Analysis in Prediction
Studies," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 13 (1976),
pp. 64-81.

Pearce, J. and Garrett, H. D., "A Comparison of the Drinking Behaviors of Delinquent Youth
Versus Non Delinquent Youth in the States of Idaho and Utah," The Journal of School
Health, (March 1970). PP. 131-136.

Pierce James, 1., "Drug Abuse in Britain," Medicine, Science and the Law, Vol. 13
(1973). Pp. 246-251.

Radosevich, M., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Akers, R. L. and Krohn, M. D., "The Sociology of
Adolescent Drug and Drinking Behavior: A Review of the State of the Field: Part1,"
Deviant Behavior, Vol. 1 (1979), pp.15-35.

Radosevich, M., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Akers, R. L. and Krohn, M. D., "The Sociology of
Adolescent Dru and Drinking Behavior: A Riview of the State of the Field: Part 11,"
Deviant Beha or, Vol. 1(1980). pp. 145-169.

Rankin, J. H., "The Family Context of Delinquency," Social Problems, Vol 30 No. 4 (April
1983). Pp. 466-479.

Reeves, D., "Parental Power and Adolescents' Drinking," Psychological Reports, Vol. 55
(1984). Pp. 161-162.

293

Rosen, L., "Matriarchy and Lower Class Negro Male Delinquency," Social Problems, Vol 17
(1969). PP. 175-189.

Rosen, L. and Neilson, K., "Broken Homes," in Savitz, L. and Johnston, N. (eds),
Contemporary Criminology, (New York: John Wiley, 1982), pp. 126-135.

Schlesinger, 8., "Prediction of Dangerousness in Juveniles: A Replication," Crime and
Delinquency, Vol. 24 (1978), pp. 40-48.

Shaw, C and McKay, H. D., "Are Broken Homes a Causative Factor in Juvenile Delinquency?"
Social Forces, V01. 10 (1932), pp. 514-524.

Smart, R. 6., Gray, G. and Bennett, C., "Predictors of Drinking and Sigls of Heavy Drinking
among High School Students," International Journal of Addictions, VOL 13 (1978),
pp. 1079-1094. J

Thomas, C. and Severdes, C., "Juvenile Court Intake: An Analysis of Discretionary Decision *.
Making," Criminology, Vol. 12 No. 4 (1975), pp. 413-432.

Thomton, W. E. Jr., Janes, J. and Doemer, W. G., Delinquency and Justice, (Glenview,
Illinois: Scott and Foresman, 1982).

Tinklenberg, J. R., Murphy, P. L., Murphy, P., Darley, C. F., Roth, W. T., Kopell, B. S. and
Calif, P. A., "Drug Involvenent in Criminal Assaults by Adolescents," Archives of
General Psychiatry, Vol. 30 (May 1974), pp. 685-689.

Toby, J., "The Differential Impact of Family Disorganization," American Sociological
Review, Vol. 22 (October 1957). Pp. 505-512.

Vingilis, E., "A Literature Review of the Young Drinking Offender. Is he a Problem Drinker?"
British Journal of Addiction, Vol 76 (1981), pp. 27-46.

Wechsler, H. and Thum, D., "Teenage Drinking, Drug Use and Social Correlates," Quarterly
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 34 (1973), pp. 1220-1227.

Weeks, H. A. and Smith, M G., "Juvenile Delinquency and Broken Hones in Spokane,
Washington," Social Forces, V01. 18 (1939), pp. 48-59.

Wells, L. E. and Rankin, J. H., "The Broken Hones Model of Delinquency: Analytical Issues,"
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, VOL 23 No. 1 (February 1986),
pp. 68-93.

Welte, J. W. and Barnes, G. M., "Alcohol: The Gateway to Other Drug Use among Secondary
School Students," Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 14 No. 6 (1985),
pp. 487-499.

West, D. 1., Delinquency, (London: Heinemann, 1982).

West, D. J. and Farrington, D. P., Who Becomes Delinquent? (London, Heinemann,
1973).

West, D. J. and Fanington, D. P., The Delinquent Way of Life, (London: Heinemann,
1977).

294

Wilkinson, K., "The Broken Family and Juvenile Delinquency: Scientiﬁc Explanation or
Ideology?" Social Problems, Vol. 21 NO. 5 (1975), pp. 726-739.

Wolfgang, M. E., Patterns in Criminal Homicide, (New York: John Wiley, 1966).

Zacure, J. and Hensman, C., Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco in Britain, (London:
Heinemann, 197 1).