MSU LIBRARIES n - RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. MATERNAL AGE AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE DELINQUENT AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF OFFSPRINGS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IMPRISONED MALE RESIDENTS By Robert D. Cooper A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT MATERNAL AGE AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE DELINQUENT AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF OFFSPRINGS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IMPRISONED MALE RESIDENTS By Robert D. Cooper The Purpose The purpose, from data supplied in self reports, is to evaluate an hypothesis that, comparatively, males born to mothers who are under 20 years of age ("Early Borns") commit more delinquent and criminal acts than male children born to mothers who are over 20 years of age ("Later Borns"). A secondary purpose was a comparative study of the two groups in five socio-economic areas, i.e. those that are most fre— quently considered in the research on crime and delinquency, and the effect of each, singly or in combination, on the number of delinquent and criminal acts committed. The Procedure A questionnaire was designed for self reporting of delinquent acts, crimes, and living conditions of the M.T.U. residents prior to incarceration and was supplemented by interviews. A random selection of 120 of approximately 725 residents resulted in 85 usable responses, 31 from "Early Borns" and 54 from ”Later Borns". Robert D. Cooper In addition to obtaining the data on the incidence of delinquent and criminal acts the self reports were studied in regard to (1) adjusted family income, (2) size of the community where rearing occured, (3) family structure, (4) education, and (5) race. The results from descriptive analysis and statistical examination (frequency tables, t—tests, partial correlation, multiple regression, and descriminant function) revealed no significant differences in the two groups in delinquency and crime, and none of the socio-economic factors had any signifi— cant effect on the incidence of delinquency and crime reported. Findings The hypothesis, that among male residents confined to M.T.U., the "Early Borns" would be more delinquent and criminal than the "Later Borns" was rejected. There were no significant differences between the two groups at the .05 level of confidence. To my most energetic and enthusiastic supporter, helper, typist, researcher and companion during many months and years — Hilda Mae Lamoureux Cooper, my wife - with all my love. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With great appreciation I should like to acknowledge the assistance granted to me by Grand Valley State Colleges in the form of sabbatical leave, a research grant, and a one year leave of absence to complete the doctoral work. To GVSC Assistant Vice President John Gracki, Dr. Charles Sorensen, Dean of the College of Arts and Science, GVSC, and Dr. James Walker, Acting Director of the School of Public Service, GVSC, my sincere thanks for your encouragement; and to Dr. Howard Stein, Director of the GVSC Research and Development Center, in providing financial assistance. To Dr. Tyrus Wessel, Director of the School of Education, GVSC, and Bruce Tweedale of the Administrative staff at GVSC who helped in computerization and explanation of the statistical tests. A very special thanks and gratitude to Dr. Allan TenEyck, GVSC School of Education, for his reading, correcting and editing of the entire dissertation. His hours and countless contributions helped greatly in the completion of the work. The help and cooperation provided by Superintendent Richard Handlon at the Michigan Training Unit, Ionia, Mich- igan, along with Peter Vidor, Program Manager, the seven Resident Unit Managers and the five Assistant Resident Unit Managers, as well as Mrs. Marilyn Powell, Executive Secretary iii to Mr. Handlon, are deeply appreciated. Michigan Deputy Director of Correction, William Kime, in charge of research, allowed me access to the Michigan Training Unit and to the 120 residents. Without his consent and without the cooperation of all the 120 residents this research would not have been possible. My thanks to all. Also John J. Makowski, Administrator of the Recep- tion Center, Riverside Correction Facility, Ionia, Michigan for his careful explanation of the classification and incar- ceration guidelines that helped me understand the environ- ment at the Michigan Training Unit. Only your committee chairman and the three committee members can know the frustrations, delays, inconsistencies, and trying circumstances of research work and dissertation preparation. Dr. Walter Johnson, the Chairman, has consis- tently given me the directions and imputus I needed. His dedication in terms of suggestions, corrections, (yes, orders and threats) cannot be overly evaluated. He consistently overcame adversity when, at times, many thousands of miles separated us and work supervision had to be by telephone or by mail. To committee members Dr. Vandel C. Johnson, Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker and Dr. James W. Costar my sincere thanks for your time, patience, concern, imput, and constructive criticism. iv Finally, to Robert Korte, Curriculum Planning and Evaluation Dvision, Grand Rapids Board of Education; my personal congratulation for his careful evaluation of the statistical examination and his help in the selection of the prOper testing procedures to insure that the findings and conclusions were correct. I am deeply indebted to him. LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES FIGURES THE PROBLEM. Introduction Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the study. Significance of the Study. Design of the Study. Design of the Survey Instrument and. Collection Procedures Phase One Phase Two Phase Three Phase Four Limitations and Scope of the Study Overview of the Study. . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Discussion of Previous Research. Related Research Questions to be Probed Some Historical Background . Family Income - Socio— Economic Class Size of the Community Family Structure Race METHODOLOGY. Introduction Research Hypothesis. . Alternate or Null Hypothesis Sample Selection and Procedure Instrumentation. Questionnaire Design Data Analysis. Summary. vi ix xi 10 11 11 12 12 13 15 17 50 53 54 57 57 62 64 67 CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS. Part A of Data Analysis. Part Age and Birth Analysis. Crime Category Analysis Total Crime Analysis. Status Crime Analysis Vice Crime Analysis . Crimes Against Persons Analysis Crimes Against Property Analysis. Other Crimes Analysis Socio- Economic Factors Analysis Family Income Analysis. . Size of the Community Where Rearing Occured Analysis . . Family Structure Analysis Educational Analysis Race Origin Analysis. B of Data Analysis. Population in the Analysis. Descriptive Statistics Crime Variables Status Crimes Vice Crimes Crimes Against Persons. Crimes Against Property Other Crimes Demographic Variables Birth Data Adjusted Family Income. Community Size. . . Family Structure. Educational Attainment. Race. Statistical Analysis Summary vii 7O 7O 72 75 78 82 84 88 89 91 92 95 100 101 104 107 107 107 107 108 108 110 111 113 114 114 115 116 116 117 117 118 124 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS. Summary. Background and Purpose. Population and Sample Statement of the Problem. Methodology Findings. Summary Conclusions Discussion and Implications for Future Research APPENDICES APPENDIX A. CONSENT FORM B. QUESTIONNAIRE. C. DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS. BIBLIOGRAPHY viii 125 125 125 127 128 129 131 135 136 137 150 151 166 170 yb bnbtfihbsb vbtbtbvb (.0 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 LIST OF TABLES Age Groupings of M.T.U. Residents. Family Structure for "Early Borns” and ”Later Borns” Number of Delinquent and Criminal Acts Admitted by M.T.U. Residents. Number of Crimes with 5 Categories for ”Early Borns” and ”Later Borns“ Status Offenses by "Early Borns" and ”Later Borns" . . . . . . . Vice Crimes Crimes Against Person. PrOperty Crimes. Other Offenses Adjusted Family Income Recapitulation for 31 "Early Born” and 54 "Later Born" M.T.U. Residents. . . . . . . Size of City Where Rearing Occured Living Condition Recapitulation. Family Structure Recapitulation for 85 M.T.U. Residents by "Early Borns" and ”Later Borns" School Dropouts by ”Early Borns" and ”Later Borns" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recapitulation of Racial Designation Status Crimes (Frequencies) Vice Crimes (Frequencies) Crimes Against Persons (Frequencies) Crimes Against Property (Frequencies). ix 72 74 78 79 80 82 86 88 90 93 96 98 100 103 105 108 108 110 111 TABLE 4.20 Other Crimes (Frequencies) . . . . . . . . 113 4.21 Summary of Crimes by Category. . . . . . . 114 4.22 "Early Born"/"Later Born” (Frequencies). . 115 4.23 Adjusted Family Income (Frequencies) . . . 115 4.24 Community Size (Frequencies) . . . . . . . 116 4.25 Family Structure (Frequencies) . . . . . . 116 4.26 Educational Attainment (Frequencies) . . . 117 4.27 Race (Frequencies) . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 4.28 Race by Birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 4.29 t-Test: Birth Data With Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . 119 4.30 t-Test: Birth Data With Type of Crime and Total Crimes . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4.31 Partial Correlations: Birth Data With Total Crimes Controlling for Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 122 4.32 Multiple Regressions: Total With Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . 123 4.33 Discriminant Function Analysis: Values for Single Function Based Upon Crimes . . 124 FIGURES 4.1 4.2 LIST OF FIGURES Graph by Age Groups at M.T.U. Status Offenses by ”Early Borns” and "Later Borns" . . . . . 3 Vice Crimes Committed by ”Early Borns" and ”Later Borns” Crimes Against Persons by ”Early Borns” and ”Later Borns” xi 73 81 84 86 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Social science phenomena, such as the delinquency and criminality of the young, is best revealed and understood through carefully recorded observations. Once the results are correctly analyzed, tested for reliability and validated, the relationships with other bio-genetic, psychological, and environmental factors are capable of prediction and controls are possible. The need therefore is to develop a concept or con— cepts which can be verified through empirical study designed to reveal new but related conceptions of what may or may not be faCts. Every effort should be made to resolve that issue beyond a reasonable doubt, in fact beyond all doubt, but in the complex sociological field reaching conclusions beyond all doubt may be a long time in coming. The functions of the mind and motivations for behavior are so individualistic that scientific absolutes of behavior may never be known. In such studies as the present one the instruments of measurement must be valid in that they measure what they were designed to measure and must be so reliable that the results are always consistent. This study is an attempt to enlarge, to a small degree perhaps, on the possible existing environmental and socio- logical conditions that may be contributing to the phenomenon of crime and delinquency. It must be clear that not all environmental and sociological conditions are to be consid- ered, described, or evaluated. Rather, five variables will be considered in the research of the main thrust of this study, i.e. maternal age and its relationship to the behavior of male offsprings. Any findings related to this thesis would not neces- sarily provide a definitive basis for establishing a cause and effect relationship. It would be impossible to investi- gate the multitude of factors including physiological, psycho- logical, economic and sociological that function inter- dependently and contribute to some degree to the delinquent and criminal behavior of offsprings. However, some objective recording of the incidence of crime and delinquency may pro— vide a basis for further research. This is the rationale for the proposed study. Observations and interviews made by this researcher during forty years as a detective and a Professor in Criminal Justice have provided a strong indication that there are disproportionately more convicted and incarcerated males (ages 17 and over) who were born to mothers under 20 years of age than are found among male children born to mothers between the ages of 20 and 40. The accumulated information provided a basis for the desire to pursue the observations in a more complete and objective manner. The dissertation proposal is designed to reach that more complete and objec- tive goal. Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study The problem addressed in this study is to determine from self reported acts of delinquency and crime if the research hypothesis is correct: Among male residents at the Michigan Training Unit, the incidence of delinquent and criminal behavior will be greater among the ”Early Born" than among the ”Later Born" offenders. For this report the term resident defines the incar- cerated males at M.T.U., the term delinquent defines the illegal acts that if committed by an adult (over 17 years of age in Michigan) would not be a crime; the term "Early Born” defines the resident who was born to a mother who had not yet reached the age of 20; and the term ”Later Born" defines the resident who was born to a mother who was over 20 years of age. A glossary of terms can be found in Appendix C. The self reports made by the M.T.U. residents included acts of truancy, incorrigibility, and runaways (Status Crimes) as well as eleven enumerated Vice Crimes. In those 14 categories, 3 in Status Crimes and 11 in Vice Crimes, the residents reported only when they were detected by an authoritarian figure such as a parent, teacher, guardian, or law enforcement officer. In the remaining 39 categories constituting Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property and Other Crimes the residents, from recall, reported each violation committed regardless of detection or non-detection. Essentially the problem involved the ability to divide the sample into "Early Borns" and "Later Borns", and thereafter to tabulate the data obtained from the Question— naire and from the interview into the fifty three identified delinquent and criminal categories. The concluding step in this phase of the process entailed a comparison of the two groups to prove or disprove the hypothetical question signi— ficantly as it pertains to the sample, i.e. "Are the 'Early Borns' more delinquent and criminal than the 'Later Borns'"? Cause and effect studies on delinquency and crime are constantly ongoing to locate and identify the physio- logical, psychological, and environmental influences leading to this type of deviance. Although the task seems insur- mountable the struggle to explain the phenomenon of crime and delinquency must proceed. Each effort may produce a piece of the puzzle which collectively, at some future date, may explain the inter-relationship of all the contributing factors more adequately. It is not the purpose herein to consider all possible causes but neither can this report totally ignore the well researched studies found in the literature. Physiological and psychological studies are beyond the scope of this study but five socio-economic factors appear capable of measurement. Those five are the possible causes of delinquency and crime most often referred to in the literature; (1) adjusted family income, (2) place of residence, (3) family structure, (4) education, and (5) race. Other studies such as peer pressure, labeling, gang membership, etc., have merit but each implies some type of psychological pressure, and/or reinforcement factors which are nearly impossible to measure by the methodology of self reports and semi—structured inter— views. The second purpose of this research is to probe those five demographic areas to measure the influence, singly or in combination, of each on the delinquency and crime total and the individual categories of delinquency and crime that make up that total. The birth order described as "Early Born" or "Later Born" will divide the comparison groups and the demo— graphic data, after statistical analysis, will indicate the influence of the five socio—economic factors on the reported crime and delinquency. A major problem involves the transmission of the culture. Some social scientists argue that the core of any culture is the stressing of traditional values through symbolization and the use of artifacts while others emphasize the value of the early learning process as the force which shapes behavioral patterns. Underlying both is the use of proper communication skills as the means of transmitting cultural values. Envirnomental factors and living conditions may limit opportunities to have available the proper symbols and artifacts and limit the Opportunities for desirable learning conditions. In fact surroundings may well be dysfunctional to favorable social development of children. Therefore descriptive research, such as the proposed project, may serve a useful purpose. The study will focus on the criminal activities of the "Early Borns" and "Later Borns” for indications that their illegal behavior may have been influenced by the inade- quacy of the socialization process to accept society's values, beliefs and attitudes. Behind that inadequacy may be the lack of the mother's socialization, and thus her inability or unwillingness to transmit the cultural values to her offspring. Should this study be able to find significant differences in the amount of delinquency and crime between "Early Borns" and "Later Borns", particularly should the "Early Borns" report a significantly higher number of delinquent and criminal acts, then additional research on maternal maturity and responsibility would be in order. A negative correlation between "Early Born" and high crime and delinquency or a finding that there is no significant differ- ences between the two groups could indicate further research is superfluous. Definition of Terms For the purpose of brevity and clarity a glossary of terms consisting of definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations has been completed and attached to this report as Appendix C. This was done since the list was lengthy and the reader may wish to refer to the Appendix from time to time. The Significance of the Study This study is an effort to add a dimension that has had virtually no previous exploration and nothing was dis- covered in the literature on the effect of the young mother as it pertains to the offspring's development of delinquent and/or criminal behavior. Obviously there are many inter— acting personal and environmental variables which are most difficult to place in a cause and effect matrix. While the significance and impact of this inquiry is unknown it is believed that the descriptive study is worthy of the initial effort to encourage the possibility of further study in depth. Design of the Study Population and Sample Between 700 and 825 residents are confined, at any given time, to the M.T.U. at Ionia, Michigan. Prior to assignment to M.T.U. all residents spend at least a two week quarantine period at the Youth Reception Center at Riverside Correctional Facility at Ionia, Michigan. Youthful offenders who have not reached their 21st birthday are examined and tested by medical doctors and psychologists to determine their physical and mental health, skills and aptitudes, as well as educational achievements in reading and comprehension. A board of three correctional officials, including the psychol- ogist, make the assignment of the youthful offenders to one of the.minimum, medium, or maximum custody facilities. The placement decision is based not only upon the tests conducted at the Youth Reception Center but also upon the nature of the offense committed as well as the past history of the offender outside and inside correctional facilities. Such information is drawn from the pre-sentence report and from custodial reports, and from interviews. To receive assignment to one of the medium security facilities, M.T.U. in Ionia, Dunes Facility near Saugatuck, Michigan, or the Muskegon Correctional Facility, the offender must not have more time to serve than 60 months before his first possible release date; must not have been convicted of or have a history of homosexual activity, sexual mis- conduct, robbery, or kidnapping; must not have in his file a detainer indicating further criminal charges are pending against him; may not ever have had a major misconduct offense while in custody such as assault, escape, or inciting to riot; must not have had an escape history from a medical facility or a more secure facility in the last three years (walk away not counted); and must not be a homosexual predator. As the present study is focused upon M.T.U., it is appropriate to note that proper classification and assignment to M.T.U. would be based upon the listing procedure by the psychologists or might be somewhat influenced by notations made by the court officials who, periodically, recommend specific therapy or counseling. There are no minimums set for achievement, skills or aptitudes educationally or voca- tionally. There are certain individuals who may be housed at M.T.U. particularly if they are in need of physical and/or psychological help since such service is more readily avail- able at Ionia, Michigan than at the Dunes Facility, or at the Muskegon Facility. Another factor influencing assignment is the avail— ability of beds. In times of crowded conditions it.may be necessary to suspend the rules in order to have sufficient housing. The need to protect certain prisoners from other prisoners may cause changes in procedures. Thus guidelines are present but must occasionally be suspended in the face of emergencies and exigencies. The great majority of residents are youthful males from 17 to 25 years of age, with few of the residents being as young as 17 or over 22 years of age. M.T.U. generally houses offenders from 17 to 25 years of age but the very young, 17 years of age, often go the Michigan Corrections Department's camp programs. Since only persons 20 years of age or younger are accepted into M.T.U. they often have completed their sentences or been paroled by the age of 23. Selected older prisoners are sometimes sent to M.T.U. if they have specific skills or knowledge' necessary to maintain the facility and to help it function, e.g. plumbers, elec- tricians, cooks, barbers, teachers. From 200 to 250 residents are subject to transfer or release on virtually any date but incoming residents stabilize the number at 700 to 750 residents. This research involves 120 residents from the M.T.U. 10 population. Since the sample members are still subject to immediate transfer, become ill or are incapacitated in some way they may be eliminated before they can complete the data questionnaire. The final sample size is targeted for 100 to 110 residents. The Michigan Training Unit under the direction of Superintendent Richard S. Handlon, operated by the Michigan Department of Corrections, has six resident dormitories (A through F) each housing approximately 120 residents, most assigned to single rooms. The residents are predominantly between the ages of 17 and 25 years of age, representative of various family incomes and structures, from diverse popu- lation areas, of different educational levels, representing widespread degrees of delinquency and criminality, and are racially.mixed. All residents have been convicted under specific Michigan criminal statutes. Most have previous delinquency or criminal convictions. Some have previous arrests without convictions. Others freely admit, in confidence, numerous violations of the laws covering delinquent behavior, vice activities, and criminal violations. Such admissions, within limitations prescribed, will be part of this research study. Design of the Survey Instrument and Collection Procedures A voluntary Consent Form (Appendix A) was designed by the author and was approved by Michigan State University's Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS). The Questionnaire with seven sub-divisions, A through 11 G, (Appendix B) was designed to elicit general data; (A) Birth Data and Parental age, (B) Family Income, (C) Community Size, (D) Family Structure, (E) Educational Data, (F) Arrests and Convictions, and (G) Racial Origin. The Questionnaire was designed to accomodate analysis by computer or by accounting procedures. The Questionnaire was completed by a sample group of 20 residents from each resident unit at M.T.U. totaling 120 residents. Phase One: On September 14, 1981 eight of the Resident Unit Managers (RUM) and Assistant Resident Unit Managers (ARUM) were assembled for explanation, description, and purpose of the research. At that time copies of the Questionnaire and the Consent Form were made available to them. Suggestions to clarify meaning and to preclude ambiguity were solicited by the author. Several suggestions were made, discussed and accepted. The appropriate changes were made in both the Questionnaire and the Consent Form. Phase Two: On September 22, 1981 a pilot group of 12 residents, 2 from each of the 6 resident units, were nominated to test the pertinent portions of the Consent Form and Questionnaire to insure that the questions were not ambiguous, in intelli- gible English, and capable of eliciting the appropriate data. Revisions were made based on suggestions made by the members of the pilot group. 12 Phase Three: Subsequently groups of 20 other residents from each. of the six resident units (A through F) were asked to execute the Consent Form; were informed of the reasons for the pur- poses of the research; were assured confidentiality; and were given instructions on the revised Questionnaire, which they completed. The resident unit alphabetical designations were used along with a number from 1 to 25 to distinguish each individual who signed the Consent Form and completed the Questionnaire. Phase Four: Questionnaires were completed by volunteers from each resident unit on alternate days, with the researcher present to help as interpretation problems arose. In the intervening days private oral interviews with each resident were conducted with the Questionnaire serving as the basis of the interview. The interviews were somewhat structured to control the content and to conform to the limitations of the matters being investigated. The purpose was to clarify and explain discrepancies discovered in various parts of the Questionnaire between the time completed and the time of the interview. Adjusted responses were made in the presence of the resident and acknowledged by him as accurate and true. Many.mistakes were corrected as a result of.more reflection and recall. 13 Limitations and Scope of the Study Social scientists will question the use of a recall type questionnaire and structured interview technique. Vul- nerability to such criticism could be mitigated somewhat if official identification records, psychological or psychiatric analysis, medical and physical reports, etc., could have been reviewed to verify the self reported information. This researcher is aware of the problems of reliability and valid—' ity inherent in the recall method of obtaining accurate data. At the same time this researcher is aware that social scientists, over a long period of time, have used the question— naire and structured interview technique when other methods of obtaining data are not available. The laws regarding privacy of records as well as guarantees of confidentiality, reflected in the Consent Form, precluded other data collection techniques. In employing the' questionnaire and structured interview approach for the study there is a recognition of the limitations and the degree to which the findings can be generalized. There are innumerable background and environmental factors which affect individual behavior. They include demo- graphic and social conditions, motivational and psychological considerations and even physical characteristics. Their interaction and interdependency provide, to say the least, a very complex matrix for any individual or for groups of individuals. Five of these variables which have been dis- cussed and included most frequently in the literature are 14 used for analysis in this study. The variables are analyt- ically applied to each of two subgroups of residents and are stated as research questions in the chapter on Methodology. Physiological, psychological and other sociological possibilities are beyond the limits of this study. Indi- vidual traits, characteristics of behaviorism, and bio- genetic data often used in causal research are not in the purview of this study. Those are best left to the experts in anthropology or the medical and psychological fields. At the same time this researcher is aware that any one of the above fields may be more significant than the prime question in this study, or the other five ancillary fields that are subject to inquiry in this study. One writer, Michael Philipson, maintains that if it is impossible to describe a situation such as the quantitative or qualitative dimensions of crime then the interpretation of theories relating to crime causation would be invalid; that clearly it is impossible to describe the amount of crime and even more impossible to describe what behavior is criminal; and that attempts to describe or explain would be divorced from reality thus developing distortions of the worst order.1 To.meet some or.most of Philipson's criticisms, quantitatively and qualitatively, each M.T.U. resident was asked to list in sequential order all Status and Vice offenses 1Michael Philipson, Understanding Crime and Delin— quency (Chicago, 111.: The Aldine Publishing Co., 1974), p. 106. 15 in which he was apprehended by some authoritarian figure as well as to list all Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property and all "Others" that he had committed. Overview of the Study This study will be reported in five chapters. Chapter I will include the Introduction, Statement of Problem and Purpose of the Study, Definition of Terms, Significance of the Study, Design of the Study, Design of the Survey Instrument and Collection Procedures, Limitation and Scope of the Study, and the Overview of the Study. Chapter II will include a Review of the Literature noting that there is no identifiable research material on the independent variable that has been located and that there is every indication that this area of inquiry is original. The reported studies on the five related and ancillary research questions are legend but substantial reporting will be done on studies about the elements involving family income, crowdedness, and delinquency and criminality problems according to size of cities where rearing occured; family structures; educational achievement and levels of academic accomplishments; and ethnological problems. Chapter III will describe the study design actually used at M.T.U. as well as the procedures employed to carry out the study. Chapter IV will display the analysis of the data obtained from the Questionnaires and the interviews. 16 Chapter V will synOpsize the findings and conclusions made with recommendations to form the basis or lack of basis, for further study. CHAPTER 11 DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH Previous research points to five environmental areas as likely contributors to the causes of delinquency and crime. Clearly each one makes more than a minor contribution to the delinquency and crime dilemma which is ever increasing, sur— passing the population growth by a large margin. To disregard all other causes and to attribute a disproportionate amount of delinquency and crime to "Early Borns" or "Later Borns" would be unwarranted. As noted earlier the five areas chosen are those which the literature shows researchers to have devoted the larger amount of time writing and researching. With few exceptions most sociolo- gists and criminologists assert that these five elements are among the primary causes to crime. It is obvious that there are many interacting variables, both environmental and personal, that are diffi- cult to place in a cause and effect matrix. No attempts are made to establish a cause and effect relationship, however, this study could provide useful information when due respect is given to other relationships. These references inferentially can lend some credi- bility and credence to often vocalized but seldom written concepts about under or over socialization of parents. The implied assumptions are that the young mother and/or father are often either too permissive and/or vacillating whereas 17 18 the older mother and/or father are too strict or, again, to vacillating in discipline and in passing on cultural values. A second rebuttal assumption is that the delinquent or criminal child described as "Early Born" or "Later Born” is first or last born in the family. This will be covered by the questionnaire process to verify or refute this assumption among the large sample group at the M.T.U. Sibling studies, referring to order of birth, report that delinquency and crime are more commonly found among middle born children. Juvenile offenders and their position in the family are included in Israeli statistics. Giora Rahav, in a 1980 article, reported that the higher the birth order of a juvenile the more likely he/she is to become a delinquent, and further, middle born children are more likely to become delinquent than are first and last born children. One caution is made that the effect is negligible for small families but is more pronounced as the size of families . 1 1ncrease. RELATED RESEARCH QUESTIONS TO BE PROBED The limitations of this study do not permit or intend a complete study of the etiology of crime. Cause and effect are elusive, practically limitless, and have not yet given any indication that a cure or remedy can be found. The research questions selected for comparison purposes among the ~ 0 1Giora Rahav, "Birth Order and Delinquency", British Journal gf Criminology (London, England: 1980, 10(4). pp. 385—390. 19 sample groups are those five areas on which many social structure and social process theorists agree are conducive to delinquency and criminality. Sue Titus Reid, in her book Crime and Criminology, comments that the social-structural and social-process theorists soften the focus on the indivi- dual characteristics and traits, as advocated by the physio- logical and psychological criminologists, and turn to the environment. SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The sociological theory of delinquency and crime involves primarily three elements: Social values, social structures and social norms. The social values are those things and/or situations which society considers worthwhile, desirable and in the best interest of everyone. Presumably there was a high level of mores prior to activity, there were goals, and the goals were to be obtained by an approved ways and means. Structure is the social framework for the individual which directs him towards the legal means to attain the goals. The social norm involves external evaluation, after interaction, of human behavior with sanctions available when the behavior is judged to be unacceptable. In a stable and homogeneous society the values, structures and norms are relatively fixed and accepted. When a society loses its foundations through conquest, large 2Sue Titus Reid, Crime and Criminology. (New York; N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Co., 1979). 20 migration, economic change or disaster, etc., society is then said to be "disorganized" and suffers from normlessness. Robert K. Merton called the condition "anomie".3 Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin in 1960 advanced several premises, backed by substantial research. The premises were; (1) that each male child in American society is taught that status in occupational achievement must exceed that of the father, (2) that possessions, both real and personal, must be expensive, (3) that the child may realize that lack of facilities, wealth, and opportunities make such goals unattainable, (4) that personal inability is not an acceptable answer, (5) that ultimately such a child may deny the norms and resort to illegal activities to achieve the goals, (6) that criminal skills.may be learned from peers, (7) that males have no opportunity to retreat to homemakers and thus feel strong social pressures, (8) that the poor suffer.more because of less opportunity, (9) that in the large cities the gap between the very rich and very poor is more dramatic, (10) that housing segregation of socio-economic groups is most visible in the cities, (11) that mutual rein— forcement is found in the city sub-cultural groups, (12) that in the cities it is most difficult to find work to provide a start, (13) that cities contain large groups of nearly hope- less migrators, (14) that criminal opportunities in the cities are nearly unlimited, (15) that large urban settings have few 3Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure * (Glencoe, Ill: The Free Press, 1957)) 21 cultural restraints, caused in some degree by anonymity, (16) that mobility there is enhanced by transportation net— works, (17) and that the city police practice of selected enforcement leads to unrealistic crime rates.4 Social disorganization involves external conditions of the environment where young people progress towards adult- hood. Some young people may, through interaction, avoid the pitfalls of delinquency and crime. That is not to say they were not involved but rather they were not identified, judged and labeled by society as delinquents or criminals. Others who can not achieve acceptability enter the criminal justice process and suffer the consequences. It is the last group that is labeled delinquent and criminal. Merton (supra) contended in his 1957 analogy that both conformist and non-conformist behavior are expected results in every society that has structures and exerts societal pressure; that when there are cultural defined goals and regulatory norms to define the ways and means to goals there will be those who will disregard the former and violate the latter; that such behavior will be labeled asocial and anti-social; and that society will deal with the asocial and anti-social individuals in a variety of ways including the imposition of sanctions. Emile Durkheim, a sociologist, had published his work prior to Merton, wherein he asserted that crime is an ZRichard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity (Glencoe, Ill: The Free Press, 1960). 22 integral part of all societies and crime is one of the Options open for selection, according to the individual conscience. Further, that segmented societies, characterized by the division of labor, urbanization, etc., lose their altruism which is replaced by the pursuit of hedonistic pleasures, many times by illegal means.5 Michael Philipson in his 1974 book, Understanding Crime and Delinquency, referred to an article of George Herbert Mead, published in 1918, in which Mead asserted that society unites against criminals; that social solidarity is a necessary ingredient of an organized society; that society must fulfill its promise of punishments, and that such solid- arity is vital in view of the many fields of social conflict which tend to disorganize society. Mead, however, convinc- ingly argued that since criminals operate in secrecy there is not a real threat to society; that the criminal seeks only immediate gratification and is unconcerned about changing society or even seeking social support.6 Tannenbaum, like Durkheim, contended that criminals are part of the community like businessmen, scientists, scholars, etc.; that criminals are a kind of a product generated, produced, and perpetuated by the economic system; 5Emile Durheim, The Rules of the Sociolggical Method (New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1964). 6Philipson, gp. cit., pp. 75-78. 23 and that the community sets the goals and ambitions for each segment and provides the means of getting there.7 Winslow, using the 1967 Task Force Report, Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, in his work, included official data on arrests, probation and prison but he also included self reports from questionnaires. In one of the self reports from a random selection of 1,000.males and 600 females, both juveniles and young adults, 99% admitted offenses for which they might have received jail or prison sentences; 64% of the males and 20% of the females admitted felonious activi— ties.8 As opposed to that position, the official data indi- cate that the offenders are in the main those who come from the lowest socio-economic groups, from disorganized families, are single, poorly educated and unemployed. Only five fields of research inquiry are to be con- sidered in this study, i.e. (1) family income, (2) size of the community, (3) family structure, (4) educational achieve— ment leve1,(5) racial membership. FAMILY INCOME - SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASS Since the days of Plato and Aristotle there have been attempts to explain criminality in relation to the economic 7Frank Tannenbaum, Crime and the Community (Boston, Mass: Ginn Co., 1938). 8Robert W. Winslow, Crime 33 2 Free Societ (3rd. Ed. Encino, California: Dickenson Pub. Co. Inc., 1977), p. 120. 24 conditions. Oscar Lewis in his book, PoVerty gg 3 Source 9f Lower Class Culture, reported some 18 million families and over 50 million individuals living below the poverty line. Lewis commented: The new writings advance the same two opposed evaluations of the poor that are to be found through- out recorded history: Just as the poor have been pronounced blessed, virtuous, upright, sincere, independent, honest, kind and happy, so contem- porary students stress their great and neglected capacity for self help, leadership and community organization. Conversely, as the poor have been characterized as shiftless, mean, sordid, violent, evil and criminal, so other students point to the irreversibly destructive effects of poverty on the individual character and emphasize the responding need to keep guidance and control of poverty pro- jects in the hands of constituted authority.9 Lewis further commented: The dominant class asserts a set of values that prizes thrift and the accumulation of wealth and property, stresses the possibility of upward mobility and explains low economic status as the result of individual personal inadequacy and inferiority.10 One prospectus on crime and its causes is expressed by Willem Bonger (1876—1940). Bonger argued that in all capitalistic societies ruling power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie; that the proletariat must conform; that unre- strained competition exists in such a society; that crimes exist in both groups but only acts that threaten the rulers are criminal; that money is the key to pleasures and the whole 9Oscar Lewis, Poverty gg‘g Source of Low Class Subculture (New York, N.Y.: Random House, 1968), p. 212. 10Ibid. p. 216. 25 structure leads individuals to seek money regardless of the morality of the behavior. Bonger, a follower of Karl Marx, advocated common ownership (socialism) of the means of production and the distribution according to need saying this process would eventually eliminate the need for law and state.11 Austin T. Turk editorially countered Bonger by saying behavioral studies refute that people will work collec— tively, are altruistic, will act for the common good, and that coercion will cease to exist. Turk regards deviance as a part of all societies and maintains that controls will always remain a necessity.12 Cyril Burt reporting on identified delinquents in London, England said 56% came from the 30.7% poorest popu- lation; that this is almost double the expectance rate; that the figures may give some basis for allegations that poverty may breed delinquency and criminality; or that the figures .may merely mean more poor children and adults are appre- hended.13 Donald J. Black worked with the production of crime rates. He found that the complainants were most important, especially the complainants‘ personal relations with 11Willem Bonger, Criminality and Economic Conditions (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1969)I 12Austin T. Turk, Criminalit and Legal Order (Skokie, Ill: Rand-McNally, 19695. 13 Cyril Burt, The Young Delinquent (London, England: University of London Press, 1965). 26 offenders, their desires for police intervention, and their demeanor in dealing with the police. Black reported there was ”some evidence" that the socio-economic status of the complainant was related to police action with the police giving preferential treatment to white collar complainants 14 in felony situations but not in the case of misdemeanors. Robert L. Winslow in Crime 13 3 Free Society used information provided in a Stanford Research Institute report to the President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia wherein probation records of 932 felons convicted in 1964 and 1965 in Washington, D.C. were reviewed: Among those offenders for whom income infor- mation was available, 90 percent had incomes less than $5,000. At the time of the 1960 census, 56 percent of the adult population in Washington earned less than $5,000.15 Herbert Jacob in his book Crime and Justice lg Urban America, observed that lower class offenders are driven by a sense of necessity; rarely plan, and seldom develop skills to successfully commit the crime and/or to avoid detection and apprehension; that, when caught, they are fatalistic; have no plans or resources; and very often are imprisoned. Further, that the offenders are hedonistic but their menial jobs do not provide the wherewithall to fullfill their desires so even high risk criminal opportunities are seized upon.16 14Donald J. Black, "Production of Crime Rates", American Sociological Review. (Aug. 1970), pp. 733—748. 15Winslow, 92. cit., p. 108. 16Herbert Jacob, Crime and Justice 12 Urban America, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1980). 27 In 1973 Gazell and Gitchoff commented in their book, Youth, Crime and Society, the following: Poverty cannot cause crime but resentment of poverty can, and, curiously enough, resentment of poverty is more likely to develop among the rela— ‘ tively deprived than among the objectively deprived in a poor society. 17 Sykes referred to the studies of Thorsten Sellin which was reported in Research Memorandum 9g Crime la the Depression: That economic necessity was a direct cause of crime had been discredited, however, by a large number of investigations extending over a period of many years. These studies indicated there was no consistent relationship between crime and income when variations in income were examined (1) historically, in terms of business cycles; and (2) cross-culturally in terms of national differences in average income levels. In times of economic depression financial need would presumably go up and the crime rate should increase; in fact, empirical data failed to reveal such a pattern.18 Walter B. Miller in 1958 wrote about young persons and their problems of coping with life under the middle class value system. Miller emphasized that being unable to attain the necessary success for wealth and status the young acti— vists often turned to subcultural values which were charac- terized (1) by obsessions with masculinity, (2) admiration of cleverness and.manipulation, and (3) accumulation of wealth 17James A. Gazell and G. Thomas Gitchoff, Youth, Crime, and Society. (Boston, Mass: Holbrook Press, 1937), p. 256. 18 Gresham M. Sykes, Criminology, (New York, N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace, Janovich, Inc., 1978), p. 252. 28 without work. Miller described lower class life as deadening and pointed to the fact that the other young people turned to fatalistic evangelism, abandoned the quest for upward mobil- ity, and adopted an attitude of ambivalence or resentment toward external control, other than those of the sub-group to which they might belong. Miller concludes the behavior is not a reactionary response but reflects lower class cultural patterns and those patterns conflict with the expectations of the other socio-economic classes.19 In separate studies on behavioral patterns were the teams consisting of Ivan Nye and James F. Short and Robert A. Dentler and Lawrence J. Monroe who found no significant relationships between the incidents of juvenile delinquency and socio—economic status. Nye and Short reported their 20 findings in ”Scaling Delinquent Behavior", while Dentler and Monroe published ”Early Adolescent Theft".21 Shaw and McKay, researchers and followers of Durkheim, Mertens, Parks and others, wrote that a number of researchers 19Walter B. Miller, "Lower Class Culture as a Gener- ating Milieu of Gang Delinquency", Journal gf'SOCial Issues, 325—19, 1958. 20Ivan F. Nye and James F. Short, "Scaling Delinquent Behavior", American Sociological Review, 22: June 1957, pp. 326-331. 21Robert A. Dentler and Lawrence J. Monroe, "Early Adolescent Theft," American Sociological Review. 26: Oct. 1961, pp. 733-743. ‘fi 29 (usually by use of questionnaires) sought to determine the amount of delinquency among the general population and the association of such persons with a particular socio—economic class. The conclusions were that: (1) Most people have committed acts that could be judged as delinquent, were they detected and prosecuted, and (2) that social class was not a significant factor. A number of questions arose about the second conclu- sion. It was charged that there was sample bias in that those criminologists who supported the theory used large city samples while those who opposed the same theory used samples from smaller cities and rural areas.22 SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY Sociologists, anthropologists, and historians agree that small cities, towns, villages and rural communities over the years, for the most part, have been stable areas with a cohesive and homogeneous society. In such places one can find much kinship and substantial religious, neighborhood, school, and group association pressure for good conduct as judged by the traditions, customs and folkways. Individuals born there are born to a place in society but are expected to improve over the years in terms of wealth, but growth must be gained by approved.means. In contrast to that image is the picture of the large 22Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban'Areas, (Revised Ed., Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1972). 30 city metropolitan area, and suburbia milieu featuring large remote, inaccessible social and political organizations. It is the bureaucracy with utilitarian standards that has become prevalent there. Migration from small communities and rural areas has brought anonymity in all social institutions and activities and an individual isolation. In such an area the individual must competitively strive for acclaim, position, status and wealth by whatever utilitarian means available. Failures in upward mobility and withdrawal direct such persons to the isolation of the slums, toward the broken family and to non—participation in group activities. Robert E. Park and his colleagues conducted an ecological study of Chicago, showing the competitive elements of society grouping together in five concentric circles, ever enlarging in distance from the center of the city, each with its own distinctive physical and social characteristics, each with a natural formation of people that develops from a necessity in facing environmental conditions.23 Shaw and McKay (supra) conducted a 30 year study of five cities and found that delinquency rates lowered as distances from the center increased. The characteristics of the center circle were given as areas of overcrowding, poor housing, high mobility, and containing mostly unskilled labor. It was called a "twilight area” populated by the lower socio— economic class where the normal response to pressures was a 23Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess, Roderick D. McKensie, and Louis Wirth,'The City (Chicago, 111: University of Chicago Press, 1967). 31 high amount of delinquency. The report contained a study of officially designated delinquent boys wherein it was reported that 80% of delinquent acts were committed in the company of other boys.24 Thorsten Sellin, as early as 1938, commented that there is a natural cultural progression and evolution from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous stage; that new and different social groupings arise; and that new value systems arise that have little appreciation of other group values. Thus he concluded social conflicts and crime increases were individual and group responses to different norms.25 In 1952 Ernest Burgess enlarged upon the development of the concentric circle theory in city groups pointing out that there is a physically deteriorating zone around the central city business district which consistently has the highest rates of crime and delinquency. That circle he labeled the "Zone of Transition" where, even with changes in the population.makeup, the rates continue because the popu- lation residing there is economically deprived and lacks both social and cultural opportunities.26 24Shaw and McKay, 92. cit. 25Thorsten Sellin, "Cultural Conflict and Crime", Social Science Research COuncil Bulletin, No. 41, 1948. 26Ernest Burgess, "The Economic Factor in Juvenile Delinquency", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, No. 43 (May—Jfihe) 1952, pp. 29—42. (O to Some later sociologists and criminologists called the ecological phenomenon "social disorganization". The term is disputed by some who say the authors erroneously used personal standards as the basis for proper organization when they should have recognized that even crime and delinquency, to be successful, must be accompanied by some organization; therefore "disorganization" is not a proper descriptive term. Sue Titus Reid used a quote from the Shaw and McKay book: Traditionally, official data have indicated that more crime and delinquency occurs among the lower than among the upper or middle classes. These figures have been mapped ecologically to show that the heavy concentration of crime and delinquency, and many other social problems, occurs in socio-economically deprived areas of the city.27 Reid also wrote: The degree of urbanization is another important variable to consider in the analysis of crime rates. Violent crime in the United States is predominately a phenomenon of the big city according to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence and the Uniform Crime Reports. Property crimes are also higher in the cities than in small towns or rural areas. Therefore, increasing urban- ization should lead to a natural increase in the volume of crime in the cities.2 ' In 1967 the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice produced a Task Force Report, Crime and Its Impact, from which Winslow quoted: The inner city has always been hard on whoever is living in it. The studies by Shaw and McKay show dramatically that it is the inner city that 27Reid, 22- cit., p. 77. 281bid, p. 79. 33 delinquency rates traditionally have been highest, decade after decade and regardless of what popu- lation group is there. And besides delinquency rates, the other familiar signs of trouble - truancy, high unemployment, mental disorder, infant mortality, tuberculosis, families on relief - are also highest in the inner city. Life is grim and uncompromising in the center of the city, better on the outskirts. As the members of each population group gain greater access to the city's legitimate social and economic opportunities and the group moves outward, rents are higher, more families own their own homes, the rates of disease and dependency - and delinquency — drop. But in the inner city, now occupied by a. different group, the rate of delinquency remains roughly the same regardless of race, religion, or nationality.29 ' ' Willem Bonger observed that, except for a few offenses, the crime statistics show higher figures in the cities; a greater number of inhabitants there are of an age when crime is committed most; but, conversely, observes that cities are also the places where more crimes are undetected and not prosecuted.30 In 1980 David Shichor, David L. Decker, and Robert M. O'Brien, scholars from Cal State - San Bernadino, California, studied crime in 26 cities with perspectives influenced by two assumptions: (1) The greater number of police per capita can potentially provide a greater control of criminal activity, and (2) the greater density of population in a given area can potentially provide greater control over criminal activity. Both assumptions had support and rejection by noted criminologists and sociologists. The researchers decided to 29Winslow, ., p. 112. 22. cit 30 . Bonger, gp. cit., pp. 85—86. 34 use figures on police per capita and population and criminal rates in 1977 as published by the U.S. Department of Justice, and by the U.S. Bureau of Census in 1976. The authors reported on victimization in three categories: (1) PrOperty Crimes With Contact (robbery with and without injury, and personal larceny with contact), (2) Property Crimes Without Contact (Household Burglary and Larceny, personal larceny and motor vehicle theft), and (3) Non-Property Assaultive Crimes (aggravated and simple assault, and rape). Their findings were that in an area that had a greater number of police and heavier density of population, the victimization was lower in categories 2 and 3 but not in the first category.31 A 1980 report on homicide rates in 50 U.S. cities affirmed a prediction that one of every 70 urban born children, born between 1970 and 1980, will ultimately be murdered even if overall birth rates drop. The study found risks for non-blacks, females, and Westerners rising while . . 32 rlsks for blacks, males, and non-Westerners were decrea31ng. FAMILY STRUCTURE Since early times it has been recognized and accepted that the family is the most basic of our institutions. The family is charged with the duty of develOping the full 31David Shichor, et al, "The Relationship of Criminal Victimization, Police Per Capita, and Population Density in Twenty Six Cities." Journal 9: Criminal Justice, Vol. 8:5 1980, pp. 309-316. 32Arnold Barnett, et a1, "Urban Homicide: Some Recent Developments," Journal 9: Criminal Justice, Vol. 8, No. 6, 1980, pp. 379-385. 35 potential of children physically, psychologically, morally, intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally. It is in the home where children must learn, very early, that wants and desires must be curbed in accordance with rules of the group wherein he is a member. The education and training instilled there determines the behavior exhibited in later years when confrontation with rules and authorities occurs. Gresham Sykes reported on several studies including one study in 1933 and 1934 by Nathanial Cantor and F. Early Sullenger who compared the intact family to the broken family in terms of the relationships and in terms of crime and delin- quency. It was found that intact families produced fewer criminals and delinquents, In that study the intact family was described as being in harmony when the father is employed. and the_mother is at home. In any other situation the family was considered borken. The second, a Shaw and McKay study of crime and delin- quency found, among boys coming from broken families, that there were approximately 18% more instances of delinquency and criminality than among boys coming from intact families. They noted that the 18% was not as substantial a difference as had been expected. The third study by Sheldon and Eleanor<31uech, using the same statistical method and the same type of study groups, concluded that juveniles coming from broken homes are more likely to be sent to correctional institutions, therefore represent a higher proportion there, yet found little reason 36 to believe that the broken home was a cause of delinquency. Sykes used Herman Mannheim as a source who has described the term "broken home" as the most over-worked, misused, and discredited term in the history of criminology.33 Walter D. Miller theorized that the cultural structure of the home in the lowest economic class is female based, with sequential and repetitive cycle of males in cohabitation; followed by desertion or divorce; that several of the children may have different fathers; that the woman is both the pro- vider and socializer, a source of care and concern; that male children aspire early to become strong adults with ideas of toughness, smartneSS, and autonomy mixed with a desire for- excitement, a fatalistic sense, and a fear of trouble.34 Winslow quotes from the Task Force Report: Crime and Its Impact, Ag Assessment: What the inner city child calls home is often a set of rooms shared by a shifting group of rela- tives and acquaintances-furniture shabby and sparce, many children in one bed, plumbing failing, plaster falling, roaches in the corners and sometimes rats, hallways dark or dimly lighted, stairways littered, air dank and foul. Inadequate, unsanitary facilities complicate keeping clean. Disrepair discourages neatness. Insufficient heating, multiple use of ‘ bathrooms and kitchens, crowded sleeping arrange- ments spread and multiply respiratory infections and communicable diseases. Rickety, shadowy staircases and bad electrical connections take their accidental toll. Rat bites are not infrequent and sometimes, for infants, fatal. Care of ones own and respect for other's possessions can hardly be inculcated in such surroundings. More important, home has little 33Sykes, gp. cit., p. 253 34Miller,‘ 9p. cit., pp. 5-19. 37 holding power for the child - it is not physically pleasant or attractive; it is not a place to bring his friends; it is not even very much of the reassuring gathering place of his own family. The loss of parental control and diminishing adult supervision that occur so early in the slum child's life must thgg be laid at least partly at the door of his home. Schmid, admittedly using limited information, concluded that: The delinquent is a child of the slums; from a neighborhood that is low on the socio-economic scale of a community that is harsh on those that live there; is 15 or 16 years of age; and one of numerous children - perhaps products of several different fathers — who live in a home that is female-centered. The home may be broken, may never have had a resident father, and if so, the male figure is often drunk, in jail, or intermittently at the house because he.must avoid welfare cutoff. The delinquent may never have known a man well enough to identify with him or emulate him. Further: The delinquent may have known leniency, sternness, indifference and affection in erratic and unpredictable succession. By the time the typical delinquent becomes so labeled by society the following conditions exist: His mother probably has little control; he has dropped out of school; he has few if any skills to offer employers; he and his friends are mainly involved in theft crimes; he is a member of a gang with sub-cultural values; he is feared by adults 35Winslow, 9p, cit. 38 who know him and his group; and he is under the watchful eye of the police.36 Chilton and Marble found among delinquents that family income is more important than age, sex, or urban-rural residence, but perhaps not more important than race. They also found that delinquent children are more often from disrupted families than are other children in the general population and further that those children charged with more serious crimes are more likely to come from broken families than those charged with minor crimes.37 Jackson Toby concluded that families in industrial societies are characteristically small; move from community to community as employment opportunities arise; and lack the bulwark of kinship and community support. All affect the affluence of the family and help to explain why delinquents come from less stable or broken or inadequate homes with inadequate parental control. Toby laments that the parents may use the first mechanism of reducing control and thereby orienting the child to his age mates whereby competition begins between family members and peers. In the latter situation if the peer group is delinquent, the desire for peer acceptance tempts the child to participate in delinquent 36Calvin F. Schmid, "Urban Crime-Part II”. American Sociological Review. Oct. 1960, #25, pp. 655-678. 37Richard J. Chilton and Gerald E. Marble, ”Family . Disruption, Delinquent Conduct and the Effect of Subclassifi— cation", AmeriCan SociolOgical Review, V37, N1 (Fed. 1972), pp. 93-99. 39 activities.38 Another study investigated violence among a group of both male and female delinquents wherein it was concluded that there is greater violence among males than among females; that delinquents from broken homes were more delinquent than those from intact homes; and that delinquents coming from large families are more violent than those from small 39 families. The Task Force Report, Crime and Its Impact, g2 Assessment, 1967, contained the following quote: If one parent (especially the father of a son) is absent, if there are many children, if a child is in the middle in age among several siblings—such family arrangements lead to reduced parental control and authority over children and consequently increase vulnerability to influences towards delinquent behavior. Abrahamsen in his works stressed emotional deprivation i.e. family tensions, rather than the broken home status or economics as causes of crime. His study included both delinquents and nonédelinquents. A problem with the Abrahamsen study is that the term "family tension" is so elusive it defies identification and is immeasurable.41 38Gazell and Gitchoff, 9p. cit., pp. 246-247. 39June M. Andrews, "Violence Among Delinquents by Family Intactment and Size", Social Biology, Vol. 25 (Fall, 1978) pp. 243-250. 40 Winslow, 92. cit., p. 118. 41David Abrahamsen, Who Are the Guilty? A Study 2: Education and Crime. (New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952). 40 Lawrence Rosen reviewed studies on male delinquents and concluded that the evidence failed to support the theory that the broken home was a substantial factor in male delin- quency. The evidence indicated great difficulty in defining a broken home as well as the fact there may be as much or more tension and strain in the intact home.42 The single factor theory for the cause of delin- quency and crime has long since been discredited, however, the broken home theory continues to be cited. It is rarely left out when there are investigations of the causes of crime. It has elements of over simplification and overuse even to the point where some researchers refuse to use the term at all. EDUCATION AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Education is an essential part of the socialization process. Conflicts exist in all persons and creative urges and ambition can lead to success and upward mobility if legitimate means are chosen. The accumulation of knowledge and-the development of skills, found through informal and formal educational experiences, are believed to be the basis for beliefs, attitudes, and values. Once established they are followed in behavior. Society's cultural standards and norms are, hopefully transmitted and the young can lead a "better life", thus if all were socialized to a ”better life", a better world would exist. All of this presumes a full 42Marvin E. Wolfgang, et at, (ed.),‘The'SOCi010gy‘gf Crime and Delinquency, 2nd Edition (New York, N.Y.: Wiley and Co., 1970). 41 opportunity to learn, the motivation to succeed, and the capability to learn. Socialization has to do with the modification of the basic urges, the overcoming of instinctive drives and reactions and deferment of immediate gratification of wants and desires. Educators often use the term ”modification”. If such educational modification is not successful and hedon- istic activity continues in society, one or more of its institutions will penalize the individual. Schools, educa- tional institutions of all types, see their role as first to develop the individual to his full potential, pass on know- ledge and skills, preserve the culture, and use whatever means necessary to modify the individuals so that acceptance into and succeSSWWithin'society is assured. Education can be beneficial and detrimental at the same time. If the educational standards are such that they promote the above objectives and goals they are, in the broad sense, successful; however, to an individual the modification process may inhibit his creativity and innovative activity. In the event the individual does not conform to at least minimal norms he is labeled asocial or anti-social and society will impose sanctions. An act enforcing societal norms, such as mandatory school attendance until 16, might be functionally valuable to the family and community while being dysfunctional to the young person as he/she resents the infringement on freedom and the right of choice. 42 Arguments on how the educational systems and institu- tions do their job of modification, socialization, develop- ment, and how they affect delinquent and criminal behavior are extremely voluminous and some are enlightening while many seem only to add to the confusion. Early in the 20th Century Henry H. Goddard published a study in which he alleged that inherited intelligence, temperament, and environment determined if feeble-minded persons would become delinquent. It was his View that every feeble-minded person was potentially a criminal. Goddard based his conclusions on a study made of descendants of one man who was married twice, once to a feeble—minded barmaid and, secondly, to a woman of "Good Blood". There were some 1146 individuals traced in the study. The line of descend- ants from the barmaid marriage were found to be ”far more" inclined towards feeble-mindedness and degeneration than the other line of descendants.43 Skinner discussed the link of learning disability (L.D.) and juvenile delinquency (J.D.). He contended that the usual response of social agency workers is to blame the individuals who, among other things, are school dropouts and easily led into delinquency. Skinner believed that instead it was the socially defective environment of the home, schools, industry, etc., which caused the dropouts' refusal 43Henry H. Goddard, "Heredity of.Feeble-mindedness and Eugenics,” Records Office Bulletin, No. 1 (Cold Springs Harbor, N.Y.: 1911) pp. 165-178. 43 to work, and sub—cultural affiliations. Further, environ- ment conditions and the agency systems alienated the indi- vidual and they are the real link between L.D. and J.D.44 Zimmerman and his associates reported on a grant program carried on at Creighton University over a two year period with 1692 boys between the ages of 12 and 15, 687 of whom were adjudicated as delinquent. In this study learning disability (L.D.) was defined as an area between expected achievement (based on intelligence test scores) and actual achievement and not attributable to mental retardation, physical handicap, emotional disturbance, or environmental disadvantage. The presumption was there had to be some type of interference in the process between encoding and decoding information in a cognitive or communicative manner. Computer- ization processes were used to insure an objective way of reaching a conclusion in determining the existence of a learning disability. Sixteen percent of thepublic school boys and thirty two percent of the delinquent boys were determined to have learning disabilities._ The study strongly suggested that proportionately more adjudicated delinquent . boys suffer from learning disability than do the public school boys. Further that the allegation that learning disability causes juvenile delinquency was not conclusively proved yet the evidence indicated at least some relationship which should be further investigated. 44Burrhus F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity,. (New York, N.Y.: D. Appleton-Century, 1938). 44 It was also revealed by the self reporting technique that the L.D.‘s and those not so designated engaged in delinquent activities with about the same frequency; were picked up by police at about the same rate; and were con- victed proportionately as often. The conclusion was that proportionately more adjudicated delinquents are L.D. and that such children are treated differently in the criminal justice system. It was not proved that L.D.‘s committed more delinquent acts.45 Wolfgang observed that the privileges and experien— ces formerly associated with college years are now available to the high school set, i.e. money, cars, girls, liquor, etc., but society is still greatly concerned with dropouts who come mainly from the blue collar and lower income white collar groups. It is said that society wants more young people to go on to college thus extending the years of socialization with greater privileges but keeping them dependent for more years. Wolfgang's statistics came from Lucium Cervantes' studies including the national dropout rate at thirty percent and forty percent, higher among boys, higher in the slums than in the suburbs, and with the majority of withdrawals before the sixteenth year. Also delinquency was higher and there was less ability to gain employment among dropouts than 45Joel Zimmerman, et a1, "Some Observations on the Link Between Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency", Journal 93 Criminal Justice, Vol. 9, No. l, 1981, pp. 1-18. 45 H ' H 46 among stay—ins . From Jackson Toby's Affluence and Education, Countervailing Forces 93 Delinquency comes the following: It is known that boys from working class families are more likely to be arrested for delin— quent behavior than boys from more elite occupational backgrounds. For academically successful adolescents school is a bridge between the world of childhood and the world of adulthood. For children unwilling or unable to learn, school is a place where the battle against society is likely to begin. .there is fragmentary but consistent evidence from various industrial countries that the longer a youngster stays in school the smaller the chances are that he will commit crimes.49 Cloward and Ohlin (supra) developed the theory of "Differential Opportunity" as an adjunct to Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey's theory of”Differential Association". Subsequently Elliott and Voss, in a similar vein, made a study of both males and females in all social classes. The latter study found that both dropout and deviant behavior were alternative responses to failure, alienation and selec- tive exposure. Among the influences of (1) the community, (2) the home, (3) and the school, the latter was the most important; it was critical. Academic failure, norm failure, social isolation, and exposure at home were predictors of 46Marvin E. Wolfgang, "The Culture of Youth", §;§- Dgpartment 9f Health, Education and Welfare, Welfare Admini- stration, Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Develop- ment, 1967, pp. 43-51. 47 Gazell and Gitchoff, gp. cit. p. 252. 481bid, p. 253. 491hid, p. 256. 46 dropout and delinquent activity. They asserted that the study found a definite relationship between failure, normlessness (anomie), associa- tion with delinquent peers and deviant behavior, causally and consequently. The study found a relationship between dropouts and socio-economic class but found it was not true when delin— quency was involved, neither was ethnic origin related to delinquency.50 RACE Guy B. Johnson described the history of black people in the United States beginning with the status of slaves in the caste system. Even subsequent to liberation they were and are hampered in progression to a stable economic state, community life, and family life. Consequently habits and attitudes reflect a lack of self confidence, Self respect, a distaste for hard work, a habit of dependence, disregard for property rights of others, a belief in a right to a living, little or no planning for the future and a disregard for law. Johnson, in his analysis of racial crime rates, concluded it is not race, per se, that causes crime but the differential impact of the social structures on particular 50James F. Short, Jr. (Ed), Gang Delinquency and DeViant Subcultures (New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1955). 47 races that can be best associated with high or low crime rates.51 For those blacks living in what Burgess called "Areas of Transition" of large urban centers they find social disorganization, a low economic base, prejudice, and a high crime rate. They also find in such areas differential application in the enforcement of the law because that is where crime occurs. They find police discretion, control of the courts by whites, and heavy victimization among blacks.52 In the year 1972 Chilton and Marble use.seriousness of offense as a measure of delinquency and re—examined the relationship between delinquency referral and family disrup— tion. They gathered, in 1967, delinquency data from Florida Courts on 8944 children, then made a comparison between the family situation of 5376 of these children against the situations of children in the total U.S. population in 1968. The findings were (1) that children charged with delinquency substantially more often live in disrupted families; (2) that children referred for more serious delinquency are more likely to come from incomplete families than those charged with minor offenses; and (3) that family income is a more important factor for underStanding the referralnfamily 51Guy B. Johnson, "The Negro and Crime", Annals of ‘the American Academy 9: Political and Social ScienCe, Septf 1941, pp. 93-104. 52Burgess, gp. cit. 48 relationship than age, sex, urban versus rural residence, but that family income may not be more important than race.53 Sue Titus Reid reported that Wolfgang, Figlio and Sellin, after studying the cases on 10,000 boys, ages 10-17, in the Philadelphia area, found robbery rates among blacks to be twenty one times greater than among whites, and aggravated assaults to be eleven times higher. Further, in all crimes of violence there were more offenses committed by black youths, blacks were more often recidivists, and blacks were more likely to follow another offense with an act of violence.54 Reid also cited the following: The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that from 1964 to 1967 black crime rates were 4 times higher than white crime rates for the 4 major violent crimes of homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault._ In 1967 the black arrest rate for homicide was about 17 times higher than the rate for white and for forcible rape, 12 times higher. Among juven— iles, the homicide rate for blacks was 17 times higher than for whites. The Commission also found that black crime rates on crimes of violence increased more rapidly than the rates for whites since the early 1970's.55 The F.B.I. reported in the Uniform Crime Reports for the year of 1979 that in the racial breakdown of persons 53Richard J. Chilton and Gerald E. Marble, ”Effect of Income and Race on Relationship Between Family Disruption and Seriousness of Offense," American Sociological Review, Vol. 37, 1972, pp. 93-99. 54Reia, 9p. cit. p. 75. 55. Ibid. 49 arrested for the eight index crimes (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, vehicle theft, and arson) 60.75% were white, 36.88% black, and 2.4% were of other racial . . 56 orlglns. It is known, and many reliable sources have reported on the low percentage of arrests for the other races in the American society, probably because of the social structure under which many of them live, including the extended family. 56United States Department of Justice, F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report, "Crime in the United States," (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), p. 196. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Introduction From 1942 through 1971 this researcher was assigned to the investigation of crimes and juvenile delinquency offenses. This long term experience developed a perception of groups of offenders, i.e. "Early Borns" and "Later Borns” depending on the age of the mother at the time the offenders were born. Further perceptions developed indicating that the "Early Born” children exhibited more delinquent and criminal behavior or at least were more visible as violators than the ”Later Born" group. In addition to the hundreds of cases personally investigated, many thousands of case histories were read and reviewed at police agencies, probation and parole offices, from court files, and in correction institutions. Addition- ally, it was necessary in many cases to interview family members, friends, acquaintences, associates, fellow employees, educators, and employers. Observations as well as responses seemed to confirm the previous c0nceptions but no accurate count was kept during the twenty nine year period. The exceptions were frequent enough to raise considerable doubt regarding the conclusions reached. A review of the literature failed to develop any research studies directly relating to the age of the mother 50 51 at the time offenders were born. The literature reviewed developed considerable information indicating that family income, urbanization, family intactness, unemployment, low academic achievement, and racial minority membership could lead to legal deviance, delinquency and criminal activity. The above factors enumerated by criminologists could not be disregarded and therefore were included as research questions to be concurrently probed. The list was not an all— inclusive list of contributing factors but appeared to be the most significant in the opinion of the majority of the experts. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS Among the male residents confined at the Michigan Training Unit, the incidence of delinquent and criminal behavior will be greater among the "Early Born" than among the "Later Born” offenders. ' The investigation to.measure the merits of the Research Hypothesis involved several steps: 1. Division of the 85 residents, making up the M.T.U. sample, into the groups defined as "Early Borns" and "Later Borns", and that was done on the basis of the age of the mother, under and over 20 years of age. 2. The self reported incidence of delinquency and crime of each resident, either "Early Born" or "Later Born", was tabulated into 3 divisions of Status Crimes, 11 divisions of Vice Crimes, 16 divisions of Crimes Against Persons, 52 14 divisions of Crimes Against Property, and 9 divisions of Other Crimes. The total crime figure was the grand total of the acts of delinquency and crime reported in the five cate— gories and the number for "Early Borns" and "Later Borns" was known. 3. The data were capable of analyzation by simple percentages and by statistical examination including (a) fre- quency tables, (b) t-tests, and (c) discriminant function analysis. 4. To avoid the criticism that the study of crime and delinquency among the M.T.U. residents was too narrow when only the existence of the two groups recognized data on five socio-economic factors were collected from the self reports of the "Early Borns" and "Later Borns". The investi- gative categories included: A. Six divisions of annual average family income ranging from poverty level to high income. B. Nine divisions of size of communities where rearing occured from rural areas to cities over 1,000,000 in population and suburbs. C. Two divisions of the family status: Broken and Unbroken. D. Two divisions of educational achievement: ”On schedule” or "Not on schedule". E.. Two divisions of racial origin: Majority (white/caucasian) or Minority (non-white). 53 (1) All five of the socio—economic factors were designed so the placement of each resident could be ascertained, and thus the groups of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns" could be appropriately determined. (2) The data collected were such that computer processing, using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), could be used to analyze the results for significance at the .05 level of confidence.' The process of the measurement of influence of the 5 socio-economic factors was done by (a) t—tests, (b) partial correlation, and (c) multiple regression. ALTERNATE OR NULL HYPOTHESIS Among the male residents confined at the M.T.U. there will be no significant difference in the incidence of deliné quent and criminal offenses committed by the "Early Born" than committed by the "Later Born” residents. For the purposes of statistical analysis it was necessary to develop the alternate or null hypothesis as the basis for studying the data. The latter hypothesis when examined by such objective testing would be decisive to encouragement or discouragement of any further study. 54 SAMPLE SELECTION AND PROCEDURE A Michigan State University approved Consent Form (Appendix A) was designed to fully protect the identity of the offender while soliciting his cooperation in the research. After signature, with another resident serving as a witness to the signature, the form was immediately made available to a prison official for placement in the institutional file of the resident. The Consent Form and Questionnaire were reviewed by nine Resident Unit Managers (RUMS) and Assistant Resident Unit Managers (ARUMS) of M.T.U. on September 14, 1981. Suggestions for clarity, amplification, and elimination of ambiguity were considered and many of them were included in the final Questionnaire design. The Resident Unit Managers and the Assistants estab- lished a formula for random selection of the resident volun- teers. Resident Units A,C, and E used the divisor of four whereby the fourth name on the resident list roster was asked to volunteer first and then every fourth person thereafter until the quota of twenty was reached. Resident Units B,D, and F used the divisor of three in each of those units to select the volunteers. There were enough volunteers to reach the requested number of 120 volunteers out of the six resident halls. Inadvertently, twenty.one were selected from Unit A, but resident number twenty one was accepted at his special request. The Resident Unit Managers selected 12 other resident 55 volunteers to review the Consent Form and Questionnaire prior to the use by the larger groups. The Questionnaire and Consent Form were completed, critiqued, and then redesigned for simplification in language (including some street language) for validity testing, to improve the instructional portions, and to clarify the understanding of the documents. In a number of the subsections of the Questionnaire repetitive and redundant questions were asked for the purpose of ascertaining, to some degree, the reliability of the responses given. Experienced investigators and researchers are aware that untruthful people tend to be inconsistent. Any inconsistencies were closely checked and such matters were resolved by interview methods. After the instruments were found to be acceptable the required randomly selected number of volunteers from the six residence halls appeared in groups of twenty on alternate days; instructions were given; the Consent Form was executed; and the Questionnaire was completed. The researcher was present and available for individual or group consultation. On each intervening day an individual interview and review of the Questionnaire was conducted by the researcher. All corrections and modifications were.made only after the resident approved such changes. The hypothesis declaration signified that the M.T.U. sample be divided for comparison purposes into two groups: (1) Those residents born to mothers who were under 56 20 years of age - "Early Borns"; and (2) those born to mothers over 20 years of age — "Later Borns”, and the per- centages and ratios calculated. Thereafter the instruments for data collection, the Questionnaire and the interview outline, were designed to collect the total volume of crime in five areas: (1) Status Crimes, (2) Vice Crimes, (3) Crimes Against Persons, (4) Crimes Against Property, and (5) Other Crimes. Those total figures were broken down into the number committed by the "Early Borns" and the "Later Borns”. Ultimately, with the proportions of the M.T.U. sample known from the beginning, a comparison was made to determine if the two groups were relatively equal, or if there were significant differences in the two groups. Research questions were added in five areas which were deemed by criminologists as the most common socio- economic (demographic) conditions present when delinquency and criminality occured: (1) Low family income level, (2) large city residences, (3) family disruption, (4) low academic achievement, (5) membership in a racial minority group. Those five demographic conditions were determined for the membership of the two groups and the design of the instruments included the capacity to collect such data. Once collected the data on each environmental condition could then be applied during the testing procedure (which is set out below in this Chapter), one at a time or in any combin— ation to determine which one or which combination might have 57 a significant effect on the amount of crime and delinquency. In summary, the obtained data on the number and ratio of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns", the amount of delinquency and number of crimes in five broad areas; deter- mined what the status of the resident was within five demo- graphic settings; then measure, in a comparative way, all the delinquency and crime reported for any and all significant differences between the two groups. The hypotheses were to be rejected or not rejected in light of the findings. INSTRUMENTATION Questionnaire: The Questionnaire was developed with seven subdiv— isions, A through G (Appendix B), for use in acquiring the data for the research. Subsection A was designed to determine from the resident: 1. Date and place of birth. 2. Nationality 3. Position in the family constellation. 4. Age of the mother and father when the resident was.born as well as determining if the parents were known, were dead, or were alive. The Subsection F was designed to determine from each resident the number of admitted violations, arrests and convictions as a juvenile or as an adult, and the exact charges. The age of the resident at the time the violations occured was asked.. The offenses in Subsection F included: 58 (a) Juvenile Status Offenses (truancy, runaway, and incorri- gibility), (b) Vice Offenses, (c) Crimes Against the Person, (d) Crimes Against Property, and (e) Other Offenses. Subsections A and F were designed to elicit data on the primary research hypothesis, i.e. the incidence of delin- quent and criminal behavior will be more numerous among the "Early Born" than among the "Later Born". Subsections B through E and subsection G were designed to collect data on the related research questions to determine if male offenders: Subsection B. Were from families at the poverty or low income levels. Subsection C. Had spent their formative years in the larger metropolitan areas. Subsection D. Were reared by both parents, a single parent, a relative, foster or adopted parent, or an insti- tution. Subsection E. Were undereducated. Subsection G. Were representative of a racial minority. The research questions involved an area of the research which is ancillary in nature and the socio-economics questions were to be resolved in either a positive or negative fashion. The responses of the residents of M.T.U. were studied individually to determine whether the resident came from a family economically deprived in terms of income, was 59 raised in a larger size urban community, was reared in a nuclear or broken family, was undereducated, or belonged to a racial minority. This positive or negative approach was designed to limit the research to a level that could be measured statistically. The environmental factors were used as controlled independent variables in terms of their significance to the hypotheses. Specifically such inquiries were not intended or designed to determine cause and effect of the factors in the areas of criminality. The inquiries, corollary in nature, were necessary for any well rounded research project in criminology. In the research questions areas it was necessary, within the Questionnaire, to make decisions and use arbitrary descriptions to classify the residents into rigorous desig— nations necessary for statistical comparisons. l. Males born to families with annual incomes averaging less than $6,000 = Poverty; $6,000 to $8,999 = Poor; $9,000 to $11,999 = Low; $12,000 to $19,999 = Medium; $20,000 to $29,999 = Upper Middle; and $30,000 or above = Upper Level. In Michigan the median income for 4 person families in 1969 was $11,955; in 1975 - $16,546; and in 1978 it was $22,063.1 ' The poverty level indicator in 1970 was $3,968 for a 1United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract 91 the United States, (101st Ed.) (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 455. 60 family of four and $7,412 in 1979.2 For the purpose of this research the "Poor Income" level of $9,000 for a family of four was arbitrarily selected. It was necessary to make arbitrary designations because the residents varied in age from 17 through 25 years and their years in the home settings might have been from 1955 to 1981 or, in the instance of the youngest violator, from 1964 to 1981. Inflation rates during the periods under consideration increased so rapidly that arbitrary figures and income level descriptors had to be used. 2. Those males raised in the cities over l,000,000= Large Cities or their suburbs; 500,000 to 1,000,000 = Medium Large Cities; 250,000 to 500,000 = Medium Size Cities; 50,000 to 250,000 = Medium Small Cities; 20,000 to 50,000 = Small Cities; 5,000 to 20,000 = Towns; 500 to 5,000 = Villages and less than 500 = rural areas. There is no absolute concensus in designation of population centers with regard to the number of inhabitants; thus the above figures and descriptors are arbitrary. For statistical analysis, a critical determination was whether the violators were from the large cities and the suburbs thereof. If the residents were from other than the large cities tables were included to show the proportionate distributions in the other described areas.' 3. Those male residents had relatively stable home 2Ibid, p. 463. 61 lives as (a) a member of an intact or nuclear family, (b) from a disrupted family, (c) was raised by more distant relatives than parents, (d) was adopted into a.family, (e) was raised in a foster or a group of foster homes, (f) or grew up in an institutional setting. In this design the purpose was to determine if the individual was a member of an intact family during his form— ative years or was part of a disrupted family caused by divorce, separation, disappearance, desertion, or death. 4. Those males whose educational attainment was: (a) lst to 6th grade; (b) 7th through 9th grade, (c) 10th through 12th grade, (d) college level from freshman through senior (13th through 16th), and (e) the post graduate level. Conclusions were reached on the accepted description of achieving "academic progress" status or not reaching "academic progress" status.3 The standard was completion of the grades lst through 12th with the appropriate distribution of ages 6 through 18. The exception to the formula in this' report was if the resident completed high school before his incarceration he was judged to have made ”academic progress". Those who did not finish the grade level at the appropriate age (or younger) was considered to have failed to make "Academic progress”. Again tables were formulated on the proportionate distributions at the various grade levels. 3Statement by Dr. Tyrus R. Wessell, Director of the School of Education, Grand Valley State Colleges, Allendale,, Michigan. 62 5. Those males who represent the minorities; (a) Black/Afro-Americans, (b) Chicano/Mexican-Americans, (c) Spanish-Americans/Hispanics, (d) American Indians, and (e) AsianVPacific Islanders, and (f) Others.’ The various racial origins were broadly divided into two groups for statistical purposes i.e. majority and minority. Tables showing proportions of residents in each of the six categories were drawn. DESIGN The design of this study called for a comparison of delinquent and criminal activity between the "Early Born" group and the "Later Born" group. The resident number was reduced to a total of 85 when the Questionnaires were reviewed and evaluated. Some residents were eliminated because they were beyond the age limit of 25, some failed to complete the Questionnaire satisfactorily, some failed to appear at the h interview session, and others were eliminated on the basis of apparent braggadocio. Of the 85 residents there were 31 residents born to mothers who had not yet reached the age of 20, i.e. "Early Borns", and 54 residents born to mothers older than 20 years of age, labeled "Later Borns". All data on admitted delinquent and criminal activity were first gathered and comparisons made between the two groups. The data were broken down thereafter to show the average number of offenses by each resident in his respective group. 63 Five types of delinquency and crime made up the total crime culmination figure. It was deemed appropriate to compare the activity of the two groups under each of the sub-headings making up total delinquency and crime with raw numbers and percentages shown by group, documented in written descriptive terms, and displayed in tables and figures. The design would inform the reader of the participation of the "Early Borns" and "Later Borns" in Status, Vice, Personal, Property and Other crimes in a comparative fashion. The statistics set out would be the basis for computerized calculations of the significance of differences between the two groups and be the basis for evaluation. The evaluation could indicate the need for more or less future experimentation, research or study in any one or more of the five areas. The structure of the Questionnaire and the purpose of the interview were to gather factual data about the environ- mental conditions under which the residents reached legal maturity (age 17 in Michigan). A resolve of the design was to determine, as far as possible: (1) If the.five dimensional stereotypes of a criminal were descriptive of M.T.U. residents; (2) if the descriptors better fit the "Early Borns" or the "Later Borns"; (3) did the sociological or economic factors increase or decrease the number and/or type of delinquency and/or crime significantly if one or more of the environmental factors were present? (4) to determine if anbther factor, maternal age, might be a significant contributor to the delin- quency and criminality of the M.T.U. residents; (5) if so, was 64 maternal age more significant in the criminal and delinquent acts of "Early Born" or the "Later Born" group; and (6) was there reason to accept or reject the hypotheses. DATA ANALYSIS The focus of the inquiry was to find an answer to the question "Is there a significant difference between the 'Early Born' group and the 'Later Born' group in the total number of crimes and delinquent acts committed?" The t-test was employed to ascertain this answer. The overall crime question, referred to above, was subdivided into its five parts. The t-tests were then used to determine significant differences between means of the groups in Status Crimes, Vice Crimes, Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property, and Other Crimes. The research questions involving income, community size, family structure, educational progress, and racial origin also required the use of the t-test to determine if there were significant differences in the means between the two identified groups. A third series of t-tests were used to examine the relationship between birth data and the five crime categories at the .05 level of confidence. The .05 level of confidence was established for determining significant differ- ences for all three sets of computations. An added dimension necessary for understanding was attained by the use of a partial correlation analysis. This examination allowed a correlation to be determined when 65 considering the two groups for total crimes or in each of the five categories of crime, while controlling the five socio- economic (demographic) factors. Such a procedure allowed for elimination of one or more of the latter factors which may interfer with true correlation, whenever such interference may occur. By use of partial correlation technique the contribution of the five socio-economic (environment) factors can be known. The results of the above tests necessitated the use of frequency tests to determine how many of the "Early Borns" and "Later Borns" participated in each of the five crime categories. These results were amenable to basic raw data or percentage comparisons. Called for also was the multiple regression analysis to answer the question: "How are the five socio-economic factors related to the total number of crimes committed by the two groups?" This is a multivariate analysis, allowing a study of the linear relationship between the five types of crimes, and the total number of crimes, while at the same time taking into consideration the relationship between each of the five independent variables. The final treatment was the discriminant function analysis to calculate the effects of combinations of the independent variables on the dependent variable. Certain combinations of those independent variables could distinguish between the cases making up the five crime categories and the 66 relationship of the behavioral patterns to the ”Early Borns” and "Later Borns". The methodology used entailed a matrix wherein the columns represented the "Early Borns” and ”Later Borns” while five rows were labeled Status, Vice, Personal, Property, and Other Crimes. The design answered the question: "How well does each of the crimes distinguish between the two groups?” The procedure allowed the researcher to enter the variables (set out in the paragraph below) singly in the order of their explanatory power; allowed control of the number of discriminant functions; and allowed control of the number of variables entered. A number of criminologists and sociologists have stereotyped male criminals as (1) products of a low income family, (2) residents of a large urban area, (3) burdened by a broken family, (4) under—educated, and (5) members of a minority. The data compilation and statistiCal examinations in this study were designed to determine any contributions that might result from comparing offspring offenders who were born to mothers who were under 20 years of age and offsprings born to mothers who were older than 20 years of age. The design, by use of the compiled statistics on each resident in the sample, was to make it possible to inferen- tially claim residents were or were not similar to what criminologists might describe as the stereotype of a male criminal. 67 SUMMARY The research began with a pilot project of 12 randomly selected residents from M.T.U. who, after signing the Consent Form and receiving instructions, completed the seven part Questionnaire which covers the prime objective and the descriptive environmental factors. The purpose was to eliminate errors and ambiguities in the Questionnaire and Consent Form and to determine if the data were measurable for analysis by computer or other means. After the instrument was found to be acceptable,20 residents from each of the six residence halls were randomly selected, signed appropriate voluntary Consent Forms, received instructions and completed the seven part Questionnaire. The residents from each unit lists are by institution number. The Resident Unit Manager in units A,C, and E have selected the number 4 as a beginning point and that individual and every fourth person after that was asked to become a volunteer. With a total of 120 residents in each residence unit that procedure provided for 30 names from which 20 volunteers were selected. Units B,D,-and F had a slightly larger margin as the Unit Managers divided their lists by the number 3, giving a total of 40 from which the first 20 volunteers were selected. This method was selected so that in an emergency or other unexpected event there would be adequate people for replace- ment. After the Questionnaires were completed and the information verified by personal interview, the data on 85 68 residents were compiled, computerized, examinations conducted, results tabulated, analyses made, and tables drawn. Because of the Questionnaire's design it was possible to determine in whiCh of the five areas of delinquent or criminal activity the admitted offenses belonged, i.e. Status Offenses, Vice Offenses, Crimes Against the Person, Crimes Against Property, or Other Crimes. From the number of admitted offenses in each category proportional table compar- isons were made. The members of each group also were individually listed and counted under the environmental headings of the five research questions: (1) Level of family income, (2)size of community, (3) family structure, (4) education level, and (5) race. Efforts were made to determine the number of residents who fell into several subsections of the above five categories and into the combinations thereof. The effort was to determine how the five stereotype descriptors fit the residents at M.T.U. Further, through statistical examination, it was possible to control the five environmental factors and determine by test the significance of the presence of one or more of the environmental factors on the comparative crime and/or delinquency activity of ”Early BOrns" and "Later Borns". The analysis accurately determined the number and percentage of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns". The number of admitted offenses as juveniles and adults was tabulated for each of the categories, i.e. by "Early Borns" and "Later Borns”. 69 The results then were assigned proportionately to each of the groups and a conclusion reached as to whether the "Early Borns" at M.T.U. were significantly more delinquent and criminal than the "Later Borns". CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS Introduction The annual Uniform Crime Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation designates as Part I Crimes eight offenses with four labeled as Crimes Against Persons: (1) Murder and Non-negligent Manslaughter, (2) Forcible Rape, (3) Robbery, and (4) Aggravated Assault. Four are labeled Crimes Against Property: (5) Burglary, (6) Larceny-Theft, (7) Motor Vehicle Theft, and (8) Arson. All other crimes are designated as Part 11 Crimes. Part I and Part 11 Crimes are tabulated from thousands of police agencies Which report all such offenses that are known to the police. Generally Part I Crimes are regarded as the serious offenses. For this report all the F.B.I. designations in Crimes Against Persons and Crimes Against Property were used, including attempts, and the categories were enlarged for better accuracy as explained below in the section entitled Crime Categories and Analyses, Pages 75 to78 . Status Crimes violations, which are juvenile offenses and not included in the F.B.I. statistics, were tabulated for accuracy as were Vice crimes and attempts (defined as offenses believed to be detrimental to the physical, moral, or mental well—being of an individual). This research report required 70 71 that the categories of Status Crimes and Vice Offenses be added; not all offenses committed but instead those that were detected and/or reported to some authoritarian figure. Other Crimes (including attempts) were added as one of the five divisions of crime in order to place appropri- ately the self reports of violations that by definition did not belong to one of the other four designations. This data analysis section is divided into Part A and Part B. Part A contains the comments, observations and figures which explain the data in terms of the total figures and the total is sub-divided, in most cases, to show the proportionate representation of the two groups, i.e. "Early Borns” and "Later Borns". There is no effort in Part A to assign levels of significance to differences between the groups nor is there any effort to make predictions or to draw any conclusions, but rather the effort is to show the compari- sons in the several sub—divisions. Part B is the section that has three distinct parts: (1) Population in the Analysis, (2) Descriptive Statistics, (3) Statistical Analysis. The first part, Population in the Analysis, describes the sample population used for the statistical analysis. The second part, Descriptive Statistics, describes the sample population in terms of the variables used in the analysis. The third section, Statistical Analysis, examines the hypoth- eses set out in Chapter III, looking to the acceptance or 72 non—acceptance of those hypotheses. PART A OF DATA ANALYSIS Age and Birth Analysis: The relatively young age of the residents at the Michigan Training Unit dictated that the research determine age groupings as older age groups could reasonably be expected to have a greater incidence of crime and delinquency and, conversely, the younger age group to have a lesser incidence of crime. The following table, 4.1, and figure 4.1, represent the number of residents in the age groups. Table 4.1 AGE GROUPINGS OF M.T.U. RESIDENTS Age Early Borns . Later Borns Total 17 1 l - 2 18 4 9 13 19 6 13 19 20 13 10 23(Mode) 21 3 11 14 22 1 2 3 23 1 3 4 24 2 4 6 25 0 - 1 1 85 "Early Borns" Mean Age — 19.7 Years of Age. ”Later Borns" Mean Age - 20.2 Years of Age. 73 Graph by Age Grogps At M.T.U. 15 13 i U) //\ 11 +_, ll \ C a 10 / 10 \ .H \ U) \ CD \ {I} \ E 5 \ *4 \ / \ a * 3 8 3\\ *2/ I’Ax a ‘~*1--—-*l’ 1 :3 z 0 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Age of Residents 31 "Early Born” (---) 54 "Later Born" (——-0 Figure 4.1 The analysis indicated that there were only two residents at the age of 17 (one "Early Born” and one "Later Born”) and one resident at age 25, (a ”Later Born"), there— fore the extremes of the age grouping were very limited in number. There were 69 (81.1%) in the age group from 18 through 21, with 26 ”Early Borns" and 43 "Later Borns". In the age grouping of 22 through 24 there were 4 ”Early Borns" and 9 ”Later Borns". 97% of all the residents were in the two age groups including 30 of the 31 "Early Borns", and 52 of the 54 "Later Borns”. From the above statistics the 74 crime and delinquency comparison between the two groups could be expected to be approximately the same. The mean age for the entire sample was 20.1 with the "Early Borns” having an average age of 19.7 and the "Later Borns” with an average age of 20.2. Table 4.2 reflects additional information obtained from the residents during September of 1981. Table 4.2 Family Structure Early Borns Later Borns Total Mothers Known 31 54 85 Mother Alive 29 51 80 Father Known 29 54 83 Father Alive 24 44 68 Half Brothers & Sisters 28 73 101 Step Brothers & Sisters 16 45 61 Adopted Brothers & Sisters 0 7 7 "Early Born" Mean for all types of Brothers & Sisters = 4.6 ”Later Born" Mean for all types of Brothers & Sisters = 6.2 From the above it can be observed that all 85 residents knew the identity of their mother and all but 2 knew the identity of their father, even though there were 13 children in the sample who would be classified as illigitimate. The average size of the family of the "Early Borns” was considerably smaller than the average size of the family for the "Later Borns", with the former reporting 4.6 other children in the family and the latter 6.2 children. This included siblings, half brothers and sisters, step brothers 75 and sisters, and adopted children for both the ”Early Borns" and "Later Borns". Crime Categories Analysis: The Federal Bureau of Investigation at the mandate of Congress annually compiles the crime statistics for the United States. From long study they have developed a system, while not entirely satisfactory, which divides the types of crime into two parts for a relatively easy method of crime reporting. Within the United States there are over 40,000 local and state police agencies enforcing thou- sands of laws,-resu1ting in the fact that in some localities certain behavior may be illegal while in other localities the same behavior may be legal. The method selected for the Uniform Crime Reports was to have the criminal offenses divided into Part I Crime: (1) Murder and Non—negligent Manslaughter, (2) Forcible Rape, (3) Robbery, (4) Aggravated Assault, (5) Burglary, (6) Larceny-Theft, (7) Motor Vehicle Theft, (8) Arson. The Part 11 Crimes are all other offenses except traffic offenses. It is to be noted that the crime of Arson was a late addition (1978) to the list of Part I Crimes and prior to 1978 Arson was carried as a Part II offense. At the present time only limited Arson statistics are being printed because the completeness and reliability of the reporting procedure has not yet been validated. Additionally crime statisticians divide crime in 76 other ways such as violent or non-violent crime, serious or non-serious crime, victimless or victim crimes, crimes against the person, crimes against property, etc. Each descriptive category is useful to the criminologists or sociologist but tend to confuse the readers of the material. For this report five categories of crime have been used. For the first designation the term Status Crime has been used for the crimes by juveniles and'include truancy, run— away and incorrigibility. The second is Vice Crimes, e.g. those crimes which theoretically are detrimental to the moral, mental, or physical wellbeing of the violator. In both of the above types of crimes the residents reported only violations when they were detected and reported to some person in an authoritative positiOn. The heading, Vice Crimes, included the illegal use, possession, and sale of drugs, dangerous substances, and alcohol as well as Gross Indecency, Indecent Exposure, Window Peeking, Gambling and Indecent Liberties. The third type of crime reported is that based on fear of death or personal injury and designated in the statistical tables as Crimes Against the Person, namely all actual and attempted homicides, rapes, Criminal Sexual Conduct violations, incest, all robberies, and assaults, and/or batteries and kidnappings. The category is neces- sarily more inclusive than the crimes reported by the F.B.I. 77 in the Part 1 Crimes. In this study, as the fourth type of crime, are Crimes Against Property. The tabulations of admitted offenses included: (1) Arson, (2) Breaking and Entering (burglaries), (3) Destruction of Property, (4) Larcenies and Theft, (5) Receiving or Possessing Stolen Property, (6) Vandalism, (7) Motor Vehicle Theft, (8) Safe Cracking, (9) Embezzlement, and (10) various violations of the Check and Fraud laws. The above crimes are designated as the fourth category because violations cause property loss for the victims and therefore logically form a category. The, category is a more widely defined claSS of behavior than would be found in the F.B.I. Part I Crime Statistics. A fifth category entitled "Other Crimes" was included for statistical compilation since some crimes and attempts did not fit precisely into the previous four groupings but were admitted to, in one or more instances, by the residents at M.T.U. The specific offenses and attempts were: (1) Carrying Concealed Weapons, (2) Extortion, (3) Vagrancy, (4) Violation of Parole or Probation, (5) Escape, (6) Breach of the Peace, (7) Absent Without Leave (U.S. Military), (8) Resisting Arrest, and (9) Hit and Run Driving. For the general categories of Crimes Against the Person, Crimes Against Property, and Other Crimes the residents made self reports on all attempts and offenses 78 they could recall regardless whether the-act was detected and/or reported, i.e. all offenses committed. Total Crime Analysis: The research hypothesis called for an investigation on the question of whether the ”Early Borns” are more delin- quent and criminal than the "Later Borns” among the M.T.U. residents. Table 4.3 records the accumulated figures on the total delinquent and criminal acts with appropriate divi- sion by ”Early Borns” and "Later Borns". Table 4.3 Number of Delinquent & Criminal Acts Admitted by M.T.U. ResidentS' No. of Offenses Percent: No. of Offenses' Percent Total by "Early Borns” by "Later Borns" No. 3013 28.2% 7689 71.8% 10702 Mean Number of Offenses for all Violators = 126 Mean Number for "Early Borns" = 97 Mean Number for "Later Borns" ‘ = 142 Table 4.4 divided the total crimes into five types of crimes with appropriate allocation for "Early Borns" and "Later Borns”. 79 Table 4.4 Number of Crimes with 5 Categories for ”Early” and "Later Borns” Crimes Early Borns Later Borns ’ Total Status 516 1015 1531 Vice 177 900 1077 Personal 245 667 912 Property 1514 4321 5835 Other 561 786 1347 Total 3013 7689 10702 The total number of crimes admitted by the 85 residents selected was 10702 delinquent and/or criminal acts, approximately 126 acts contrary to the law were admitted per individual. In four of the five general categories the average was relatively low with 1531 in Status Crimes, 1077 in Vice Crimes, 912 in Crimes Against Persons, and 1347 in Other Crimes. The highest number of crimes per capita was in Crimes Against Property. The total was 5835, showing that the average for each resident to be approXimately 69. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has noted in its reports that violent crimes (Crimes Against Persons) make up a relatively low percentage of all crime and the research at M.T.U. corroborates this showing only 8.5% of the total crimes in the Crimes Against Persons category. The F.B.I. also reports a high percentage of all crime in the category of property crimes. In this research the high 80 rate was verified with 54.5% of all the admitted violations in the Crimes Against Property designation. A division of the 10702 total crimes shows that 3013 were committed by "Early Borns” (28.2%) and 7689 by "Later Borns” (71.8%). The average number of crimes committed by ”Early Borns" was 97, while each of the "Later Borns” averaged 142. Status Crimes Analysis: The Status Crimes, comprised of Truancy, Runaway, and Incorrigibility violations, committed by the "Early Borns" and ”Later Borns" are reflected in Table 4.5 below. Table 4.5 Status Offenses by "Early Borns” and "Later Borns" Type of Crimes E.B. % ‘ L.B. % ‘ Total Truancy 319 37.4 534 62.6 853 Runaway 116 40.0 174 60.0 290 Incorrigibility 81 20.9 . 307 ' 79.1 388 Total 516 1015 - 1531 Mean of No. of Status Crimes Committed by "Early Borns"=16.6 Mean of No. of Status Crimes Committed by "Later Borns"=18.8 Percentage of Status Crimes by ”Early Borns" =33.7 Percentage of Status Crimes by "Later Borns” =66.3 An analysis of the data on Status Crime revealed that the percentage of Status Crimes committed by "Early Borns" was 33.7%, having committed some 516 of the total 1531 crimes, an average of nearly 17 offenses per resident. 81 The "Later Borns”, with 66.3% of the Status Crimes, averaged approximately 19 offenses. The percentages of Status offenses by "Early Borns" and by "Later Borns" are reasonably close to their respective representation in the M.T.U. sample population, i.e. 36.5% and 63.5% respectively. Figure 4.2 illustrates the Status offenses by ”Early Borns” and ”Later Borns". Status Offenses by "Early Borns" & "Later Borns” 600 500 400 300 Violations 200 Truancy Runaway Incorrigibility Figure 4.2 Early Born (--—) Later Born (———) 82 Vice Crime Analysis: Vice Crimes statistics consisted of seven titled offenses: (1) Drugs - Use, Possession and Sale, (2) Alcohol- Use, Possession and Sale, (3) Gross Indecency, (4) Indecent Exposure, (5) Window Peeking, (6) Gambling, (7) Indecent Liberties. Table 4.6 revealed the number bf violations in each of the seven areas of Vice Crime by the "Early Borns" and "Later Borns” and the totals. Table 4.6 Vice Crimes Offenses E.B. % L.B. % Totals Drugs ~ 71 15.6 384 ' 84.4 455 Alcohol ' -78 13.6 495 86.4 573 Gross Indecency 0 0 1 100.0 1 Window Peeking 0 0 1 100.0 1 Indecent Exposure - 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 Gambling _ 26 63.4 15 36.6 41 Indecent Liberties , 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 Totals 177 900 1077 Mean Number of Vice Crimes per ”Early Born” = 5.7 Mean Number of Vice Crimes per "Later Born” =16.7 Vice Crime statistical analysis reflects 1077 total Vice crimes and three of the subdivisions had numerous offenses: (1) 455 Drug offenses, (2) 573 Alcohol related violations, (3) 41 Gambling cases. Additionally, there was 1 incident of Gross Indecency and 1 Window Peeking, 3 cases 83 of Indecent Exposure, and 3 Indecent Liberties offenses. It should be noted that most residents with homo- sexual histories are prohibited from entering M.T.U., thus there is a low number of Gross Indecency offenses. The "Early BornS" committed 177 (16.4%) of the total Vice Crimes and "Later Borns” accounted for 900 violations (83.6%). The three divisions with the largest number of offenses revealed that "Early Borns" had 71 offenses (15.6%) in the field of drugs, 78 (13.6%) in the alcohol area, and 26 offenses for Gambling (63.4%). One "Early Born" resident admitted to 20 Gambling offenses which was nearly half of all Gambling violations reported, but the total number of Gambling offenses was so low that little importance could be given to the gambling statistic. The "Early Borns" accounted for only 2 offenses in the other subdivisions of Vice Crimes. The average (mean) number of Vice Offenses for the "Early Borns" was 5.7 while the "Later Borns" averaged, as a group, 16.7 offenses. Figure 4.3 is a graphic illustration of the Vice violation by "Early Borns” and "Later Borns" in the areas of Drugs, Alcohol and Gambling. 84 Three Vice Crimes Committed by "Early Borns" and ”Later Borns” 500 495 400 384* 300 200 100 __ ;n————”“ 76~~1\ / ' ~ ~ 26 0 JL/ N ‘1‘15 Drugs Alcoholu Gambling "Early Borns" (—-—) ”Later Borns" (———) Figure 4.3 Crimes Against Persons Analysis: An analysis of the data in the area of personal crime is most important in terms of the concerns of American society. Crimes Against the Person are those violent crimes which threaten the life and safety of the victims. Such crimes, when detected and prosecuted, frequently bring severe societal retribution in the form of capital punish- ment or longtime incarceration. The F.B.I. Uniform Crime Report in the Part I Index 85 lists only Murder and non-negligent Manslaughter, Forcible Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault.‘ For this research the category was enlarged to include all Homicides, all Rapes, all Criminal Sexual Conduct violations, Incest, all Robberies, all Assaults, Kidnappings, as well as all attempts to commit any of the above since these crimes involve actual or threatened personal injury. Crimes Against the Person represent 8.5%, a small percentage, of the total crimes admitted. The data revealed only 912 violations but many of the residents at M.T.U. are imprisoned because of criminal activity in the form of personal crime to which society has reacted retri- butively and has demanded isolation and incapacitation of the offender. Table 4.7, set out below, shows five categories of personal crimes committed by "Early Borns" and "Later Borns" and the tabulation has combined (1) Criminal Sexual Conduct, Rape and Incest, (2) all degrees of Homicide, (3) the two types of Robbert and Assaults, and has individually listed (5) Kidnapping. 86 Table 4.7 Crimes Against Person Offenses E.B. % L.B.' % Total Criminal Sexual 7 25.9 20 74.1 27 Conduct, Rape & Incest Homicides 7 41.2 10 58.8 17 Robbery, Armed & 100 21.1 374 78.9 474 Unarmed Assaults, Simple & 127 33.0 258 67.0 385 Aggravated Kidnapping 5 55.6 4 44.4 9 Totals 246 666 912 Mean No. of Crimes Against Person per “Early Born" = 7.9 Mean No. of Crimes Against Person per "Later Born" = 12.3 Figure 4.4 is a graphic diagram of the Crimes Against the Person. Crimes Against Persons by "Early Borns" and "Later Borns” 4 00 * 74 2 300 o -r-4 4..) .‘3 200 o '9. B 100 '//,}100 1: . 10*/————-——— 29// \\\* 2 0 7* ________ .t7 5*4 omicides Rapes, CSC, Robbery AssaultsKidnap Incest "Early Borns" (---) "Later Borns” (———) Figure 4.4 87' The "Early Borns" were responsible for approxi- mately 27% of all Crimes Against Persons with 246 offenses admitted while the "Later Borns" admitted 666 offenses (73%). The combination of all the offenses under Crimes Against the Person results in the finding that each "Early Born” averaged approximately 8 violations and the "Later Borns" approximately 12 violations. The individual crime statistical analysis revealed 7 of the 17 Homicides were the responsibility of the "Early. Borns” as were 7 of the 27 Rapes, CSC and Incest violations (25.9%), and 5 of the 9 Kidnapping crimes (55.6%). In only two of the categories were there more than 350 offenses reported. There were 474 Robberies, 100 by "Early Borns" and 374 by "Later Borns", and 385 Assaults with 127 by the "Early Borns" and 258 by the ”Later Borns".' The average number of Robberies per "Early Borns" was 3.2, while "Later Borns” had a 6.8 average. For Assaults the "Early Borns" averaged 4.1 offenses to 4.9 violations for the "Later Borns". Kidnapping totaled 9 offenses with 5 (55.6%) self reported by "Early Horns" and 4 (44.4%) self reported by ”Later Borns". The total number of Kidnapping offenses is so low that no inferences should be drawn. 88 Crimes Against Property Analysis: As indicated, the Crimes Against Property consti- tuted 54.5% of all crime reported by the M.T.U. residents and more than six times greater than Crimes Against Persons. Data collected in law enforcement statistics, The Uniform Crime Reports, verify the above phenomenon. In this investigation some 5835 violations were self reported by the 85 M.T.U. residents, or an average of just under 69 violations per resident. Table 4.8 distinguishes the property crimes by types, by number of offenses in total, and divides the offenses by "Early Borns" and ”Later Borns" numerically and by percentage. Table 4.8 Property Crimes Offenses E.B. % L.B. % Total Arson 12 27.9 31 72.1 43 Burglary 455 28.6 1134 71.4 1589 . Destruction of 40 23.0 134 77.0 174 Property ’ Larceny-Theft 439 32.1 928 67.9 1367 Receiving & Poss. 248 37.5 414 62.5 662 Stolen Property ' , Vandalism 75 8.6 799 91.4 874 Vehicle Theft 213_ - 28.9 524 71.1 737 Safe Cracking 3 75.0 1 25.0 4 Embezzlement 0 0 38 100.00 38 Check Laws 29 '8.4 ,318 91.6 . 347 Total 1514 4321 5835 Mean No. of Offenses by "Early Borns" = 48.8 Mean No. of Offenses by "Later Borns" = 80.1 89 In addition to Burglary and Larceny-Theft there were five other categories of property crime with over 100 violations: (1) Vandalism = 874, (2) Vehicle Theft = 737, (3) Receiving and Possession of Stolen Property = 662, (4) Check Laws = 347, and (5) Destruction of Property = 174. The total number of offenses committed by "Early Borns" and by "Later Borns" was 605 for the former (21.7%) and 2189 for the latter (78.3%). In offenses where there were more than one hundred violations reported, the "Early Borns” had the highest percentage (37%) in Receiving or Possessing Stolen Property and the lowest in Check Law violations with 8%. The "Later Borns" admitted 4321 offenses in the Property Crimes (74.1%) and averaged 80.1 violations per resident. Again, among offenses with over one hundred total violations, the "Later Borns" committed 92% of the Check Law offenses and had their lowest percentage (63%) in Possession of Stolen Property. Other Crimes Analysis: Table 4.9 summarizes all of the "Other Crime" violations numerically and by percentage according to the number of crimes admitted to by the "Early Borns" and ”Later Borns" and in total. 90 Table 4.9 Other Offenses Offenses I - E.B. % L.B. % Total Carrying Concealed 531 43.0 700 57.0 1231 Weapons Extortion 8 14.0 50 86.0 58 Vagrancy 2 25.0 6 75 0 8 Probation & Parole - 13 35.0 24 65.0 37 Escape 4 50.0 4 50.0 8 Breach of Peace 1 50.0 1 50.0 2 Absent Without Leave 1 100.0 0 0 l Resisting Arrest 0 0 1 100.0 1 Hit & Run 1 100.0 0 -0 1 Total 561 786 1347 Mean No. of Offenses by "Early Borns" = 18.1 Mean No. of Offenses by "Later Borns” = 14.6 The general classification of "Other Crimes” included: (1) Carrying Concealed Weapons (C.C.W.),~ (2) Extortion, (3) Vagrancy, (4) Violation of Probation or Parole, (5) Escape from Custody, (6) Resisting Arrest, (7) Breach of the Peace, (8) Absent Without Leave (AWOL), (9) Hit and Run. Carrying Concealed Weapons Offenses comprised the greater majority of the crimes, 1231. The total of "Other Crimes" recalled by the 85 M.T.U. residents was 1347, nearly 16 violations per indivi- dual. The average number of violations for "Early Borns" 91 was 18.1 and "Later Borns" had an average of 14.6. The "Early Borns" gave an account of 561 "Other Crimes” or 41.6% of the total, and had 531 CCW offenses (43%). ”Later Borns" reported 787 "Other Crimes" Offenses (58.4%) and in Cow had 700 (57%) of the offenses. Only two additional subsections listed over 25 offenses: Extortion with 58 and 37 Parole and Probation violations. In the prior category the "Early Borns" had 8 violations (14%) and the "Later Borns” had 50 violations (86%).1 In the latter ”Early Borns" admitted 13 crimes (35%) and "Later Borns” had 24 admitted crimes (65%). The remaining six subsections totaled 21 for recalled crimes and that limited number prohibits any meaningful analysis. Socio-Economic Factors Analysis: The areas of socio-economic concerns in criminology studies have a wide range but almost without exception the matters of family income, size of the community, family structure, educational achievement, and racial origin are included. The stereotype of the criminal in its most ele- mentary form would at least include the allegation that he/ she is the product of a poor or economically deprived family, is from the ghetto or slum area of a large city, is the son or daughter in a disrupted family setting, is one who is under-educated and is a member of a minority group. 92 This does not mean that bio-genetic, psychological causes or social, economic, or etiological reasons can or should be ignored in empirical studies, but it does mean that this investigation is designed to limit the considered factors to the five outlined above, i.e. their individual and combined relationship to the delinquency and criminality of the M.T.U. residents. The decision to adjust the average income brackets shown below to a family 0f four was influenced by the average size family as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Information published by that agency indicated that the average family in the United States in 1960 was 3.67 persons and in 1970 was 3.70.1 Since all M.T.U. residents were born between 1956 and 1964 the family size of 4 was selected as the basis of adjusting the reported average annual family income. If the income reported was for four persons (or under) it was not adjusted; if the family size was over four proportionate adjustments were made. Family Income Analysis: A review of the data assembled for this report included information on M.T.U. residents who reported 1United States Bureau of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract 2: the United States (Wash- ington D.C.: 1980), p. 45. 93 annual income for their respective families in six brackets: (1) Under $6,000 = Poor, (2) $6,000 to $8,999 = Low Income, (3) $9,000 to $11,999 = Low Medium, (4) $12,000 to $19,999= Medium or Middle Income, (5) $20,000 to $30,000 = Medium High Income, (6) over $30,000 = High Income. The assembled data are summarized in Table 4.10. Table 4.10 Adjusted Family Income Recapitulation for 31 ”Early Born" & 54 "Later Born" M.T.U. Residents Income Bracket E.B. % L.B. % Total % Under $6,000 9 29.0 13 24.1 22 25.9 $6,000—$8,999 8 25.8 9 16.7 17 20.0 $9,000—$11,999 4 12.9 5 9.3 9 10.6‘ $12,000-$19,999 5 16.1 16 29.6 21 24.7 $20,000-$29,999 4 12.9 11 20.4 15 17.6 Over $30,000 1 3.2 o o l 1.2 Total ‘91— '79?" ‘85— The information analysis on average annual family income revealed that just under one—half (45.9%) of all M.T.U. residents came from families in the Poor or Low Income brackets. There were 22 residents from the Poor level and 17 in the Low Income classification. Although exact comparisons with national groups is neither possible nor desirable in this writing it is worth noting that the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1975 reported only 12.8% Of families had an income of less than $9,999, 94 and in 1970 the percentage was 19.9%.2 When 39 residents of the 85 in the sample emerge from the two lowest income classifications more credence, perhaps, can be given to the assertion that criminals often come from economically deprived families. Further analysis indicated that only one resident (1.2%) came from the High Income group, and 15 (17.6%) came from the Medium High Income families. This study could lend some credence to the assertion that children from the upper middle or highest income families are less frequently incarcerated or, alternately, are less delinquent or criminal in their activities. There were 9 "Early Borns” and 13 of the "Later Borns” from the poverty income level. Additionally, 8 of the former and 9 of the latter were from Low Income families. The 17 "Early Borns" from the two leVels made up approximately 55% of all the "Early Borns" in the M.T.U. sample and for "Later Borns" the percentage was approxi- mately 41%. The one resident from the Highest Income group was an "Early Born” and at the Medium High Income level there were 4 others, the total making up 12.9%. The "Later . Borns” had 10 others (18.5%), all of whom were in the Medium High Income designation. 2 . Ibld, p. 451 95 Size of the Community Where Rearigg Occured Analysis: The Bureau of the Census for 1970 reported that 73.5% of the population of the United States lived in urbanized (over 2500 peOple) areas while 26.5% lived in the rural areas. From the same source came information that 10.4% of the population lived in areas with less than 5,000 persons, thus approximately 62% lived in larger urban communities with 9.2% in urban communities over 1,000,000 in population.3 In this thesis study 33 M.T.U. residents (38.8%) came from cities (and suburbs) of over 1,000,000 in popu- lation. The high percentage of inmates from the larger communities supports the F.B.I. statistics, as reported in the Uniform Crime Report, that delinquency and crime while not an exclusive phenomenon of the industrialized cities is a larger social problem therein. The following Table 4.11 displays the pertinent data on the size of the community where rearing occured both for the "Early Borns", ”Later Borns" and in total. 3Ibid, p. 16. 96 Table 4.11 Size Of City Where Rearing Occured Area Size E.B. % L. % Total %Total Rural 1 3.2 2 3.7 3 3.5 (up to 500 Pop.) Village 3 9.7 4 7.4 7 8.2 (500-5,000) Town 4 12.9 4 7.4 8 9.4 (5,000-25,000) Small City 3 9.7 5 9.3 8 9.4 (25,000-50,000_ Medium Small City 8 25.8 16 29.6 24 28.2 (50,000-250,000) Medium Size City 1 3.2 ' 0 0 1 1.2 (250,000-500,000) Medium Large City 1 3.2 0 0 l 1.2 (500,000=1,000,000) Large City 8 25.8 18 33.3 26 30.6 (Over 1,000,000) Suburbs 2 6.5 5 9.3 7 8.2 Total 31 54 85 There were 10 “Early Borns" among the 31 M.T.U. residents (32.3%) from the largest urban communities and suburbs with 23 "Later Borns" (42.6%) coming from such areas . M.T.U. residents. The combined total of 33 made up 38.8% of the 85 Only two residents (both ”Early Borns”) were from the Medium Large and Medium Size cities of 250,000 to 1,000,000 in population. This is probably explainable by the fact there are no cities in Michigan that fall within 97 that population range. While not all of the M.T.U. residents were reared in Michigan the great majority were native citizens of the state. The second largest segment of the M.T.U. sample population was 24 residents from Medium Small cities of 50,000 to 250,000 in population. There were 8 ”Early Born” (25.8%) and 16 (29.6%) "Later Born” in that group. The resident count for the Medium-Small cities and the Large cities is 57 or 67% Of the total sample popula- tion, lending some further support to statistics and conten- tions that crime is a more prevalent urban problem. Periodicals, books and news articles reporting on crime, delinquency, and social conditions have Often deplored the living conditions of the poor and economically deprived individuals who become violators Of society's standards and laws. Such writers generally contend that crowdedness, poor sanitation, and dilapitated housing may well be contributing factors in asocial and anti-social behavior. The termsrmxatoften used are "The Ghetto" or "The Slums" which imply that the people there live in poorly maintained and crowded large apartment buildings, adjacent one to another. V Table 4.12 displays the information on living conditions as reported by the "Early Borns" and "Later Borns". 98 maofiomnm HH maceommw 6O630Hoca w 6O630HOQD Op63696< 6m puma measuO6< puma 6O630Ho tamoxm HH 6O630Ho nfiooxm u aHoHnHoooz m oooo mm aHoenaoooz oooo 4H 6O630HU HHam HH 6O630Ho HHnm 6 ms zaonprm H noon m 86 mHoEOprm Hoom m mm moeom OquHm Opm=UO6< m 6O630HU sHoennosoz H oooo m 6O6BOH0 yeah N . o sHoEonexm H noon H o operates oooo H .mon .Hos HHsem nsoHonom H sooo H _ HoH ao>ov m oposooo< H nHoa H N 66556664 anm H .mon .eos twang monmm mooxmb Oommm mooxmm H6609 6OpHOQom 6Opaoaom .m.q 6OpHOQOm 6OpHOQOm .m.m mafiafimsa mo ooze :oHpsHspHQdoom :OHHH6600 wcH>HH Nfl.6 OHDmB 99 The data revealed that, contrary to the general conception, 76 of the M.T.U. residents spent their child— hood and adolescent years, for the most part, in single dwellings; additionally, another 6 were reared in small apartment buildings with less than ten apartments therein. Only 3 reported they lived in large apartment buildings. The 3 from the larger apartment buildings said the conditions of upkeep of the large apartments were either fair or good and the space either adequate or spacious. Only one of the six residents who lived in the smaller apartment building reported the upkeep as poor, with 3 saying the upkeep was good and 2 who said upkeep was fair. On crowdedness, one resident said the smaller apartment was extremely crowded and one said moderately crowded while 4 reported the space as adequate. With 76 of the 85 M.T.U. residents citing that they lived in single dwellings there were 5 who said upkeep and conditions were poor; 2 said the crowdedness was extreme; and 7 reported moderately crowded conditions. There were 71 who reported upkeep as fair, good or excellent, and 67 of the same group reported the area of space to live in was adequate, uncrowded or spacious. Two of the 31 "Early Borns" reported their single dwelling homes were poor in upkeep, 1 said the residence was extremely crowded and 4 said moderately crowded. There were 24 "Early Borns" who reported home upkeep as good or 100 better and space as adequate or better. The 54 "Later Borns" had 4 reporting the housing as poor in upkeep; 1 said his single residence was extremely crowded, and 3 said moderately crowded. All other "Later Borns" had fair, good or excellent ratings for the home upkeep and adequate, uncrowded or spacious ratings on living conditions therein. Family Structure Analysis: Table 4.13 is a summary of the research data on the Family Structure of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns", including the totals for both groups. Table 4.13 Family Structure Recapitulation for 85 M.T.U. Residents by "Early Borns" & "Later Borns" Early Borns (31) Later Borns (54) Total NO. Of Intact No. of Intact Families = 10(32.3%) Families = 18(33.3%) 28(32.9%) NO. of Broken No. Of Broken 57(67.1%) Families = 21(67.7%) Age of M.T.U. Resident When Disruption Occured 0 - 1 = 4 4 — 7 = 7 8 -11 = 5 12 -15 = 5 Families = 36(66.7%) Age of M.T.U. Resident When Disruption Occured 0 - 3 = 15 .4 - 7 = 8 8 -11 = 5 12 —15 = 5 16 -19 = 3 101 There were 57 M.T.U. residents (67%) who suffered a family disruption through divorce, separation, desertion, or death. Many disruptions occured in the early life of the resident; 34 of the 57 occured before the offspring had reached the age of 8 and 44 by the age of 11. In 46 cases it was the father who left the household, 10 mothers left, and in one case both the mother and father were gone. The intact family was present in 28 of the cases, a ratio of approximately one in three (32.9%). In 7 cases the first disruption was caused by the death of the father. There were no cases where the disrup- tion occured when the mother died. The 31 "Early Born" residents had 21 individual family disruptions (67.7%), and the 54 "Later Borns" suffered 36 such family disturbances (66.7%). Educational Analysis: Since Cesare Lombroso's early studies of criminal characteristics, more than 100 years ago, there has been concern expressed by criminologists about the mental capa- city Of delinquents and criminals.4 Educators and crimin- ologists have combined their efforts over the past few decades to establish and verify a correlating relationship between school dropout rates and crime and delinquency rates. 4Hermann Mannheim, (ed.), Pioneers lg Criminology (Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith, 1972), pp. 168—227. 102 In this study it was considered necessary to observe the educational level of achievement among the residents at M.T.U. who have been adjudged criminals. More specifically, it was decided important to look for any significant differ- ences in the dropout rate of the ”Early Borns” and "Later Borns" and whether’that difference, if any, was reflected in the criminal and/or delinquent behavior patterns. To do so an assumption was made that children in America begin their grade progression at age 6 and complete high school (grade 12) at age 18. The satisfactory completion of each grade according to each succeeding year is variously labeled by educators as "Educational Progress", "Educational Attainment", ”On Schedule" or "Not on Schedule".5 For the purposes of this study any M.T.U. resident-who had completed high school before his confinement was considered as having made "Educational Progress" and "On Schedule”. Table 4.14 records the tabulation of the educational data on educational levels achieved by the M.T.U. residents with ”Early Borns” and "Later Borns" divisions. , 5Statement by Dr. Tyrus Wessell, Ph.D., Director Of the School of Education, Grand Valley State Colleges, Allendale, Michigan. 103 Table 4.14 School Dropouts by "Early Borns" & ”Later Borns” Grade Level E.B. m L.B % Total %Total 3rd Grade 0 0.0 l 1.9 l 1.2 6th Grade 0 0.0 2 3.7 2 2.4 7th Grade 2 6.5 2 3.7 4 4.7 8th Grade 5 16.7 7 13.0 12 14.1 9th Grade 7 22.6 12 22.2 19 22.4 10th Grade 5 16.1 9 16.7 14 ’ 16.5 11th Grade 2 '6.5 7 13.0 9 10.6 Total 21 40 61 Percentage of Dropouts (61 of 85 in M.T.U. Sample) = 71.8% Percentage of "Early Borns" Dropouts (21 of 31) = 67.7% Percentage of ”Later Borns" Dropouts (40 of 54) = 74.1% Only 7 Of the 85 residents in the study sample had completed high School outside the institution (8.2%); 17 others dropped out while still making "Educational Progress" (20%); there were 61 who failed to complete the specified grade on schedule (71.8%). Of the dropouts there were 3 who dropped out in elementary school (3.5%), 16 in junior high school (18.8%), and 42 before completing high school (49.4%). The Bureau of the Census has reported for 1979 the percentage of high school dropouts was 12.3% for the entire United States.6 6Bureau of the Census, 22. cit., p. 164. 104 Among the 61 M.T.U. dropouts there were 21 "Early Borns" and 40 "Later Borns". Those figures provide the data that over 6.7 of every 10 "Early Borns" in the M;T.U. sample were dropouts from school and 7.4 of every 10 ”Later Borns” were dropouts. Racial Origin Analysis: All racial surveys conducted by penologists and criminologists in the last 40 years have noted the dispro- portionate number of blacks and other minorities among the prison population and various theories relative to the cause have been advanced. The theories cover everything from psychological and social malajustments to condemnation of the institutional systems, sociO—economic values and attitudes and beliefs of American society. This writing is not designed to establish cause and effect explanations or to be predictive, but instead is designed to compare the two groups relative to their racial origin which can, like the four other demographic conditions, be used for statis- tical analysis, i.e. race and its relationship to crime. and delinquency amOng "Early Borns" and "Later Borns". Table 4.15 consolidates the data collected by the seven racial designations and the proportionate percentage for "Early Borns" and "Later Borns”. 105 Table 4.15 Recapitulation Of Racial Designation Race E.B. % L.B. % Total %Total White/ 16 51.6 27 50.0 43 50.6 Caucasion Black/Afro— 13 41.9 24 44.4 37 43.5 American Chicano/Mexican 0' 0.0 l 1.9 l 1.2 American Spanish/American 0 0:0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Hispanics American 0 0.0 l 1.9 l -l.2 Indian Asian/Pacific ' l 3.2 0 0.0 l 1.2 Islanders Others 1 3.2 l 1.9 2 2.4 Total - 31 54 85 The data indicated 43 M.T.U. residents in the sample population were White/Caucasians (50.1%); 37 were Black/Afro—Americans (43.5%); 1 Chicano/Mexican-American (1.2%); 1 American Indian (1.2%); 1 Asian/Pacific Islander (1.2%); and 2 residents classified as Other (2.4%). The total minority membership of 42 of the 85 M.T.U. residents made a high percentage representation of the sample population, nearly 50%. The Black representation of 37 (43.5%) was higher-than would be expected from the general population. 106 In 1979 the percentage Of blacks in the general population of the United States was given as 11.8% of approximately 220,099,000 people and other minorities at 1.9%.7 Ibid, p. 28. 107 PART B OF DATA ANALYSIS Population in the Analysis Data was collected on a sample of 106 subjects. Initial analysis of the data indicated that for three of the reported crimes a total of twenty one (21) subjects reported what appeared to be abnormally high rates of crimes on one or more of the crimes. In order to attempt to control for braggadocio any subjects who reported more than five hundred (500) incidences for any crime were eliminated from the study. This resulted in eighty five (85) subjects being available for statistical analysis. Given the number of variables and types of analysis selected, this, subject to variable ratio, is considered to be more than adequate. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Crime Variables: The following variables represent the self reported number of crimes in the areas of Status Crimes, Vice Crimes, Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property and Other Crimes. They, like the demographic variables, are discussed in terms Of their accompanying frequencies and descriptive statistics. 108 Status Crimes: The mean number of Status Crimes across all sub— jects was 18.0 with a standard deviation of 37.8. Table 4.16 presents the frequency distribution for Status Crimes. Table 4.16 Status Crimes (Frequencies) No. Reported Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. Cum. Freq. (Nor) (Pct) (Pct) 0 28 32.9 32.9 1 11 12.9 45.9 2 1 1.2 47.1 3 4 4.7 51.8 4 2 2.4 54.1 5 3 3.5 57.6 6 l 1.2 58.8 7 2 2.4 61.2 9 3 3.5 64.7 10 4 4.7 69.4 11 2 2.4 71.8 13 2 2.4 74.1 14 1 1.2 75.3 15 l 1.2 76.5 17 l 1.2 77.6 18 l 1.2 78.8 19 l 1.2 80.0 20 1 1.2 81.2 24 1 1.2 82.4 25 l 1.2 83.5 26 l 1.2 84.7 32 l 1.2 85.9 33 l 1.2 87.1 40 l 1.2 88.2 45 1 1.2 89.4 47 l 1.2 90.6 60 l 1.2 91.8 73 l 1.2 92.9 105 l 1.2 94.1 114 l 1.2 95.3 120 1 1.2 96.5 135 l 1.2 97.6 150 1 1.2 98.8 216 1 1.2 100.0 Total 85 100.0 109 Vice Crimes: The mean number of Vice Crimes reported was 12.7 (standard deviation of 31.3). Table 4.17 presents the frequency distribution for Vice Crimes. Table 4.17 Vice Crimes (Frequencies) No. Reported Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. Cum Freq. (No.) (Pct) (Pct) 0 36 42.4 42.4 1 8 9.4 51.8 2 9 10.6 62.4 3 2 2.4 64.7 4 4 4.7 69.4 5 2 2.4 71.8 6 3 3.5 75.3 9 2 2.4 77.6 10 l 1.2 78.8 11 l 1.2 80.0 12 l 1.2 81.2 13 l 1.2 82.4 17 1 1.2 83.5 20 2 2.4 85.9 25 1 1.2 87.1 27 l 1.2 88.2 30 l 1.2 89.4 31 1 1.2 90.6 36 l 1.2 91.8 59 1 1.2 92.9 70 l 1.2 94.1 81 l 1.2 95.3 100 1 1.2 96.5 101 1 1.2 97.6 120 l 1.2 98.8 200 l 1.2 100.0 Total 85 100.0 110 Crimes Against Persons: The mean number of Crimes Against Persons reported was 10.7 (standard deviation of 18.1). Table 4.18 presents the frequency distribution for Crimes Against Persons: Table 4.18 Crimes Against Persons (Freguencies) Code Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. Cum Freq. (No.) (Pct) (Pct) 0 12 14.1 14.1 1 11 12.9 27.1 2 14 16.5 43.5 3 7 8.2 51.8 4 4 4.7 56.5 5 2 2.4 58.8 6 3 3.5 62.4 7 3 3.5 65.9 8 2 2.4 68.2 10 l 1.2 69.4 11 l 1.2 70.6 12 4 4.7 75.3 13 l 1.2 76.5 14 l 1.2 77.6 16 3 3.5 81.2 18 2 2.4 83.5 20 l 1.2 84.7 21 1 1.2 85.9 22 l 1.2 87.1 23 l 1.2 88.2 25 1 1.2 89.4 26 l 1.2 90.6 28 l 1.2 91.8 34 l 1.2 92.9 40 l 1.2 94.1 43 l 1.2 95.3 60 2 2.4 97.6 75 l 1.2 98.8 113 l 1.2 100.0 Total 85 100.0 111 Crimes Against Prgperyy: The mean reported number of Crimes Against Property was 68.8 (standard deviation Of 113.2). Table 4.19 presents the frequency distribution for Crimes Against Property. Table 4.19 Crimes Against Property (Frequencies) No. Reported Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. Cum Freq. (No.) (Pct) (Pct) 0 8 9.4 9.4 l 5 5.9 15.3 2 3 3.5 18.8 3 2 2.4 21.2 4 l 1.2 22.4 5 5 5.9 28.2 6 2 2.4 30.6 7 l 1.2 31.8 8 3 3.5 35.3 10 2 2.4 37.6 11 l 1.2 38.8 12 4 4.7 43.5 13 1 1.2 44.7 14 2 2.4 47.1 18 l 1.2 48.2 19 3 3.5 51.8 20 1 1.2 52.9 22 2 2.4 55.3 23 1 1.2 56.5 24 1 1.2 57.6 26 l 1.2 58.8 32 1 1.2 60.0 35 2 2.4 62.4 36 l 1.2 63.5 38 2 2.4 65.9 45 1 1.2 67.1 51 1 1.2 68.2 55 3 3.5 71.8 60 1 1.2 72.9 62 1 1.2 74.1 71 l 1.2 75.3 81 1 1.2 76.5 82 l 1.2 77.6 112 Table 4.19 (cont) NO. Reported Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. Cum Freq. (No.) (Pct) (Pct) 105 2 2.4 80.0 117 l 1.2 81.2 124 2 2.4 83.5 125 l 1.2 84.7 132 1 1.2 85.9 150 l 1.2 87.1 164 l 1.2 88.2 199 l 1.2 89.4 200 l 1.2 90.6 259 l 1.2 91.8 312 l 1.2 92.9 344 l 1.2 94.1 371 l 1.2 95.3 392 l 1.2 96.5 400 l 1.2 97.6 460 l 1.2 98.8 499 l 1.2 100.0 Totals 85 100.0 113 Other Crimes: The mean reported number Of Other Crimes was 15.9 (standard deviation of 38.1). Table 4.20 presents the frequency distribution for Other Crimes. Table 4.20 Other Crimes (Frequencies) Code Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. Cum. Freq. ' (No.) (Pct) ~ (Pct) 0 16 18.8 18.8 1 16 18.8 37.6 2 12 14.1 51.8 3 5 5.9 57.6 4 3 3.5 61.2 5 l 1.2 62.4 6 4 4.7 67.1 7 1 1.2 68.2 8 l 1.2 69.4 10 2 2.4 71.8 13 4 4.7 76.5 15 2 2.4 78.8 16 1 1.2 80.0 20 3 3.5 83.5 26 1 1.2 84.7 28 2 2.4 87.1 30 1 1.2 88.2 39 1 1.2 89.4 42 l 1.2 90.6 46 l 1.2 91.8 51 l 1.2 92.9 60 l 1.2 94.1 74 l 1.2 95.3 81 l 1.2 96.5 101 l 1.2 97.6 202 l 1.2 98.8 250 l 1.2 100.0 Totals 85 100.0 114 Table 4.21 summarizes the mean (average number of crimes for each category for each subject). In addition, the table presents the total mean number of crimes across all categories. Table 4.21 Summary Of Crimes by Category Category Mean Standard Deviation Status Crimes 18.01 37.84 Vice Crimes 12.67 31.34 Crimes Against Person 10.72 18.12 Crimes Against Property 68.64 113.20 Other Crimes 15.85 38.14 Total 125.88 ' 163.46 Demographic Variables: The following demographic variables were used in analysis. These variables represent characteristics of the population such as family income, etc. In this section the variables will be discussed in terms of their accompanying frequencies and descriptive statistics. Birth Date: Birth date was used in the analysis as described in Chapter III in terms of ”Early Borns" and "Later Borns". Table 4.22 illustrates the absolute frequency (number), adjusted frequency (percent) and cummulative frequency for 115 "Early Born" vs. ”Later Born”. Table 4.22 "Early BornR/”Later Born" (Frequencies) Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. Cum Freq. (No.) (Pct) (Pct) "Early Born" 31 36.5 36.5 "Later Born" 54 63.5 100.0 Total 85 100.0 Adjusted Family Income: Family income was categorized into six levels. These levels and the frequencies for each are presented in Table 4.23. The mean income level by category was 2.918. Essentially this means that the average adjusted family income was in the upper part Of category II ($6,000 to $8,999). Table 4.23 Adjusted Family Income (Frequencies) Category AdjuSted Income Absolute Adjusted Cum Freq. Freq. Freq:. (No.) ' (Pct)' ' ' (Pct) I Below $6,000 22 25.9 25.9 . II $6,000-8,999 17 20.0 45.9 111 $9,000-11,999 9 10.6 56.5 IV $12,000-19,999 21 24.7 81.2 V $20,000-29,999 15 17.6 98.8 VI Over $30,000 1 ' 1.2 100.0 Total - 85 ‘ 100.0 116 Community Size: Communities were categorized into nine levels or sizes. The levels and the frequencies for each are pre— sented in Table 4.24. The data evidences that the mean community size was a medium small city. Table 4.24 Community Size (Frgguencies) Category Community Size Absolute Adjusted Cum Freq. Freq. Freq. (No.) (Pct) (Pct) I Rural 3 3.5 3.5 11 Village 7 8.2 'll.3 111 Town 8 9.4 21.2 IV Small City ‘ 8 9.4 30.6 V Medium Small City 24 28.2 . 58.8 VI Medium City 1 1.2 60.0 VII Medium Large City 1 1.2 61.2 VIII Large City 26 30.6 .91.8 IX Suburb 7 ' 8.2 ~100.0 Total 85 100.0 Family Structure: The frequency distribution for family structure in terms of broken or unbroken is presented in Table 4.25. Table 4.25 Family Structure (Freguencies) Adjusted Freq.Cum Freq. Family Structure Absolute Freq. (No.) (Pct) ‘(Pct) Unbroken 28 ‘ 32.9 32.9 Broken 57 67.1 100.0 Total 85 100.0 117 Educational Attainment: The frequency distribution for Educational Attain- ment in terms of ”On Schedule" or "Not On Schedule" is presented in Table 4.26. Table 4.26 Educational Attainment (Frequencies) Absolute Freq. Adjusted Freq. 'Cum Freq. (Pct) (PCt) "On Schedule 21 24.7 24.7 "Not On Schedule” 64 75.3 100.0 Total 85 100.0 349: The frequency distribution for race by ethnic back— bround is presented in Table 4.27. Essentially there was a total Of 43 white subjects and 42 minority subjects in the sample. Table 4.27 Race (Frequencies) Race Absolute Adjusted Cum Freq. Freg. Freq.(Pct) (Pct) White 43 50.6 50.6 Black 37 43.5 94.1 Chicano/Mexican l ' l 2 95.3 Spanish/American 0 0 0 American Indian 1 1.2 96.5 Asian 1 l 2 97.6 Others 2 2 4 100.0' Total 85 100.0 118 A cross-tabulation was also performed of birth by race. Table 4.28 presents the results of this breakdown. Table 4.28 Race by Birth Birth Minority Majority "Early Born” N=15 N=16 48.4% 51.6% "Later Born” N=27 N=27 50.0% 50.0% STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Before statistical analyses were performed to examine the relationships between birth data and self reported crimes a series of t-tests were performed in order to assure that the two groups ("Early Born" and ”Later Born”) were equal. Essentially, the series of tests examined the statistical equality of the two groups on the variables of adjusted family income, community size, family structure, educational attainment and race. The results presented in Table 4.29 indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups on any of the variables. 119 m0m.0 000m.0 6m chem Hmong www.0 Hm.m0 6H.0 wom.0 Hmfim.0 Hm chom aflhsm comm 806.0 bovb.H 66 :Hom amend wvm.0 H0.mm hH.HI mnv.0 68>0.H Hm caom mapmm papacflmwp< HaaOHHmOS6m 086.0 8000.H 6m chom Hound 0N0.0 mh.m0 0H.0 mhv.0 6000.H Hm caom magma manpozhmm hHHEmm mum.m m0mn.m 6m :Hom Hound Hm6.0 m0.m0 08.0: 00m.m wwmm.m Hm :HOm >Haam ONHm upH:=EEOo 0am.H 0mm0.m 6m chom young 08m.0 0>,H0 0H.HI 0mm.H 6800.N Hm :Hom zHHom oeoocH >HHEdm 6owm=n6< HHoaoH .mHmc HHHHHQaQOHm EO6OOHm .OsHm> :oHpmH>OQ momwo HHwBIN mo wooawmm e 6Hd6cdpm cam: mo Honssz mm.6 OHQdB mOHpmHHouOmHmno OH£QMHMOEOQ new? dawn nuuflm mammals 120 Once it was established that the two groups were statistically equal on the above demographic variables, an additional series of t-tests were performed in order to examine the relationships between birth data and the five crime categories. The results presented in Table 4.30 indicate that, based on a significance level Of .05, on no crime was there a significant difference evident between the two groups. 121 660.0wH wvam.mvfl vm caom H6664 06H.H 00.06 mm.H| 660.6NH mem.80 Hm :Hom 8HH6m H6poe . 8mm.8m mwam.6H 66 upon H6p6q 060.0 0H.0m H6.0 mm0.06 mfimH.wH Hm ahom 8HH6M 66EHH0 H6660 www.mma mmao.ow 66 neon H6964 06H.0 00.06 mm.H| 666.66 mmow.mv Hm anom 8Hh6m 8666ooam #66H666 66EHH0 660.0H 666m.ma vm :Hom H6664 66m.0 66.68 8H.H| 06N.6H 6660.8 Hm :Hom 8Hn6m 6:06H6m 666H6w< 66EHH0 6H6.8m 806.6H 66 :Hom H666A 660.0 86.00 ©0.HI 0000.NH 0808.6 Hm caom 8Hh6m 66EHH0 6OH> 6H6.06 m®08.wH 66 cHom H6664 N08.0 H0.m8 0m.0: www.mm N660.6H Hm zoom 8Hm6m 66EHH0 65p6um HHoaoH .mHmc 86HHHQ6QOHQ EO666Hm 6=H6> coHp6H>6Q 66660 HH6BIN mo 6666660 9 66666666 6662 Ho 669862 66EHH0 H6608 6:6 6EHH0 Ho ooze seHs dean sonHm om.v 6HQ6B H666elp 122 In order to further examine the relationship between birth (in terms of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns") and total reported crimes, birth data were correlated with the total number of crimes. The results evidenced a corre- lation co-efficient of .1335 which was not significant. Partial correlations were then performed in order to examine the effects of the demographic variables of adjusted family income, community size, family structure, educational attainment and race on this correlation. Table 4.31 presents the results of these partial corre- lations. While evidencing small changes, none of the demographic variables significantly affected the correlation. Table 4.31 Partial Correlations: Birth Data With Total Crimes Controlling for Demographic Characteristics . (A) ' (B) Controlling for - Simple Change* Differences** Variable Correlation to Correlation A-B (Birth w/Total) Income .1335 .1305 .0030 Community .1367 -.0032 Family .1358 -.0023 Education .1320 .0015 Race .1354 -.0019 Income, Community Family, Race, and Education .1333 .0002 * All Correlations not significant ** All Differences not significant 123 The relationship between the demographic variables and total crimes was further examined through multiple regression analysis. The results, presented in Table 4.32 indicated that together the demographic characteristics accounted for only about 4% of the variance in the inci- dence of delinquency and crime with Birth Order, in terms of "Early" and "Later Borns", as the single best predictor of total crimes (evidencing the strongest single relation- ship). Birth Order and Family Structure, in terms of broken and unbroken families, accounted for mOst Of the variance and as such, would appear, in combination to be the best predictors of total crimes. It must be noted. however, that this multiple correlation is quite low particularly in reference to the small amount of variance accounted for, and thus inconsequential. Table 4.32 Multiple Regression: Total With Demographic Characteristics Multiple R R Sguare" RSQ Change‘ Simple R Birth 0.13347 0.01781 0.01781 0.13347 Family 0.18086 0.03271 0.01490 ‘ 0.12057 Race 0.20847 0.04346 0.01075 0.08993 Income 0.21354 0.04560 0.00214 0.03347 Education 0.21426 0.04591 0.00031 0.02006 Discriminant Function Analysis was also performed in order to examine the ability of the crimes to descrimi- nate between "Early" and "Later Born" subjects in light Of 124 the low variance accounted for (.04), small coronical relationship with birth (.20) and lack of significant discriminating power (P .67). Table 4.33 Discriminat Function Analysis: Values for Single Function Based Upon Crimes Function Eigenvalue Coronical After Wilk's )62 DP Sig. Correlation Function Lambda ' 1 .04094 .19832 0 .96067 3.23 5 .6646 Summary: The statistical analysis indicated that "Early Born” and "Later Born" subjects in the study did not statistically differ on the variables of adjusted family income, race, family structure, educational attainment and community size. These variables further accounted for only approximately 4% of the variance with total reported crimes. Additional analysis indicated that of the five crime categories, no crime significantly discriminated between the ”Early‘Born” and "Later Born” subjects. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Included in this chapter is a summary of the back- ground, purpose and methodology as well as the findings, conclusions and implications for further research. SUMMARY Background and Purpose: After approximately forty years in the criminal investigative field and in criminal justice education this researcher accumulated what seemed to be persuasive evi- dence that male offsprings born to mothers who had not yet reached the age of 20 were more delinquent and more criminal in behavior than male offsprings born to mothers who were over 20 years Of age. The accumulated Observa— tions and impressions came from investigations, from inter- views, from criminal histories, from probation and parole reports, and from prison records. Since there was no file kept to verify and document and/or refute such Observations it was deemed to be a worthy project for further investigation. The purpose was to provide, in a comparative way, the delinquent and 125 126 criminal behavior of the male children born to mothers who at child—birth were under 20 years of age, "Early Borns”, and the delinquent and criminal behavior of male children born to mothers who were over 20 years of age at child- birth, "Later Borns”. The results of the comparison could prove helpful and useful in many areas of social research, institutional research, and for legislative consideration and activity. Should the comparison show a significant difference where- in the "Early Borns" are far more delinquent and criminal than ”Later Borns" then criminal justice educators, crimi— nologists and sociologists could enlarge their knowledge and teachings to include such findings, hoping eventually to find all the components of what makes a delinquent and/ or criminal person. TO planners, political individuals, and legislative bodies such information could be valuable in matters pertaining to family planning, juvenile and adolescent counseling, education, and the allotment of funds to juvenile and youth oriented programs. Should the comparative findings fail to substantiate the premise that "Early Borns" are more prone to delinquency and criminal activity than are "Later Borns" then the purpose is also served in that the question has been researched at least in a preliminary investigation that can be found no where else in the literature. The investigation is unique and it is purposeful. 127 Populations and Sample: The number Of residents to be used for the sample was 120 of the 720, or one—sixth, of the incarcerated males at the Michigan Training Unit prison at Ionia, Michigan. It was a random sample'and fully representative of the Michigan Training Unit population since the sample consisted of every third male resident in three of the dormitories being asked to volunteer for participation in the study. Every fourth resident was selected to volunteer from the remaining three resident units. Twenty residents from each dormitory were included in the original sample. After the 120 residents were querried by the use of a questionnaire and an oral interview the number in the sample was reduced to 85 for a variety of reasons including being beyond the age groupings, no knowledge of the identity or age of the mother, failure to complete the Questionnaire, withdrawal from the research, and bragga- dOcio tendencies. . The Michigan Training Unit population was know to contain residents who are from 17 to 25 years of age and representative Of the segment of our population who are most responsible for the high crime rate of the United States. Sue Titus Reid in her book, Crime and Criminology, reported for the year of 1976 that persons under 25 accounted for 73.7% of the 1,787,106 Part I Index Crimes 128 and 56.7% of the 7,912,348 Part 11 Crimes.1 The Bureau of the Census reported that in 1970 the age grouping of 14 to 24 years constituted 19.8% of the population, and in 1979, 20.7%.2 Statement of the Problem: The elements of the problem consisted of the following: 1. The residents were (or were not) born to mothers under 20 years of age, clearly two groups, i.e. "Early Borns” or "Later Borns”. 2. The residents designated as "Early Borns" were (or were not) more delinquent and criminal than "Later Borns". 3. There was (or was not) a significant differ- ence between the two groups in one or more Of the five categories of crime. 4. One or more of the 5 demographic conditions did (or did not) contribute significantly to the difference between the two groups in delinquent or criminal behavior. lReid, Sue Titus, Crime and Criminolo , (New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), p. 79. 2 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the U.S., (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980), p. 34. 129 Methodology: The methodology included a seven part Questionnaire designed to gather birth data, family composition and stability, family income, place or places of residence, family structure, educational attainment, racial member— ship and the incidence of delinquency and crime. The Questionnaire was of a self reporting design and was limited in Status and Vice Crime to those instances where the deviant, delinquent or criminal violation was detected and reported to someone in authority. In the other three areas of (1) Crimes Against Persons, (2) Crimes Against Property, and (3) Other Crimes there was no limitations and all violations committed were reported. The Questionnaire information was reviewed by the researcher for disorepancies, falsehoods, errors, or ommissions and thereafter the residents were individually interviewed on the basis of the information furnished in the Questionnaire. All changes were acknowledged as true by the resident and changes, if any, were made in his presence. The anonymity of the resident was maintained at all times. The collection of the information was done by an accounting procedure by including the preparation of appro— priate descriptors so that the crimes within five cate- . gories could be counted from the self reports by each resident. Also the five socio-economic matters could be 130 labeled, categorized, and the individual's status within each could be tabulated. The total frequencies and per- centages could thereafter be accounted for in the recapit- ulation, e.g. how many residents made up the heading of ”Early Borns” or ”Later Borns", were from low income families, or how many from each group grew up in a large city of over 1,000,000 population, etc. The results of the accounting procedures were then subjected to computer analysis in a series of six statistical testing procedures: 1. Frequency tables in the five categories of crimes were prepared showing each individual resident along with their membership in the various subheading for the five socio—economic groups. The mean and the standard deviation were established for the ten areas Of interest. 2. The ”t" tests were applied for-birth data, total crimes, and the five categories of crime at an .05 level of confidence in the five sociO-economic areas. 3. Similarly, t-tests were administered to determine if there were significant differences between the two groups again at the .05 level of confidence in the five sociO-economic areas. 4. Partial correlation examinations were then conducted with the birth data (in terms of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns") with the total number of crimes. There— after a similar partial correlation was made to examine 131 the effects of the sociO-economic variables (demographic) on the residents' illegal or delinquent activities. 5. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between the demographic variables and the total crimes. 6. Finally a discriminate function analysis was made to examine the ability of crimes to discriminate between the "Early Borns” and ”Later Borns". Findings: 1. In the sample of 85 residents at the Michigan Training Unit it was determined that there were 31 who were "Early Borns” and 54 who were ”Later Borns”; the percentage for the "Early Borns" was 36.5% and for the "Later Borns” 63.5%; and the ratio was slightly greater than 1 to 2. 2. Of the total of 10702 self reported offenses the "Early Borns” admitted 3013 (28.2%) and the "Later Borns" admitted 7689 (71.8%). The "Early Born” activity was somewhat less (8%) and the "Later Born" activity was somewhat greater (8%) than their respective representation in the M.T.U. sample. Since there was a variation in the proportions from the normal expectancy for the two groups making up the sample it was decided to examine the five crime categories in light of the alternate hypothesis, i.e. that there would 132 be no significant differences found between the two groups in the total crimes or within the five categories. Essen— tially the alternate hypothesis contended the two groups would show proportionately the same percentage of the vio— lations as the group's respective representation in the M.T.U. sample. 3. The findings for "Early Borns” in committed offenses were as follows: a. In Status Crimes, 516 Of 1531 (33.7%). b. In Vice Crimes, 177 of 1077 (16.7%). c. In Crimes Against Persons, 246 of 912 (27% d. In Crimes Against Property, 1514 of 5835 (25.9%). e. In Other Crimes, 560 of 1347 (41.6%). 4. After application of the statistical tests, at the .05 level Of confidence, it was determined there were no significant differences between the two groups in either the total delinquency and crimes reported or in any of the five categories making up the total. With the statistical equality of the two groups as a fulcrum, the statistical procedures were applied to examine the five sociO-economic (demographical) factors as they pertained to the two groups and the contribution to the amount of delinquency and/or crime committed. Those 133 five factors are: (a) adjusted Family Income, (b) Commun- ity Size, (c) Family Structure, (d( Educational Attainment, (e) and Race. 5. After the appropriate examinations including frequency tests, t-tests, partial correlations, multiple regression, and discriminant function analysis, it was determined there were no significant differences between the two groups when the variables are considered individ— ually or in combination. 6. Only the multiple regression analysis revealed that when the socio-economic factors were con- sidered the four percent variance accounted for was incon— sequential. 7. The data revealed Over a 1—2 ratio Of ”Early Borns" and "Later Borns" in the sample of M.T.U. residents (31 to 54), a high ratio. Further, that there were 18 of the 31 ”Early Borns" who were also first born (58%), 11 were among the middle born (35.5%), and 2 were last born (6.5%) into their respective families. 8. The finding, when annual adjusted family income average before the resident was incarcerated was considered, was 17 of the 31 families Of "Early Borns" and 23 of the 54 families of "Later Borns (45.9% of the total sample) existed on less than $9,000 per year. The "Early Borns" came from families averaging 4.6 children and the ”Later Borns" from families averaging 6.2 children. 134 There is a disproportionately high number (17) and percentage (55%) of the "Early Borns” from families having average annual incomes of less than $9,000 per year and the l to 2 ratio with "Later Borns” did not exist. The ratio was approximately 1 to 1-1/3 when the income factor for the two groups was considered. 9. Fourty three residents, 10 of the "Early Borns” (32.3%) and 33 of the "Later Borns" (42.6%) were reared in the large cities with over 1,000,000 population or the suburbs thereof. In the above community size where rearing occured, the ”Early Borns” were proportionately under represented when compared to the "Later Borns”. There was a ratio of approximately 1 to 3 for "Early Borns” compared to "Later Borns" who were reared in the large cities or their suburbs. 10. Contrary to stereotyped thinking about living conditions in which delinquency and crime are alleged to breed, the M.T.U. sample data revealed 76 (89%) of the residents spent most of their early life in single dwellings, 71 (84%) reported the upkeep as fair, good or excellent, and 65 (76%) said the space was adequate, uncrowded or spacious. Only 5 reported upkeep as poor and only 2 said the living space was extremely crowded. 11. The data revealed that two thirds of all the M.T.U. residents in the sample reported family disruption by divorce, separation, desertion, disappearance, or death with 44 of 57 occuring before the resident had reached the age of 11. The ratio of approximately 1 to 2 existed as to family disruptions among the families of ”Early Borns" and "Later Borns". 12. In the field of educational achievement and completion of grades at expected intervals, the data revealed 71.8% of the M.T.U. residents would be classified as dropouts. The ratio of 1-2 remained consistent in this field with 21 dropouts among the "Early Borns” and 40 among the "Later Borns". 13. The racial data revealed a high percentage of residents represented the black minority (43.6%) and all minorities made up 49.5%. The l to 2 ratio of "Early" and ”Later Borns" held steady. Summary: The analyses, both by descriptive and statistical procedures produced findings that the "Early Borns" and the "Later Borns” in the M.T.U. sample did not differ significantly in the incidence of delinquency and crime reported regardless of their birth order or any effects of the socio-economic environment from which they emerged. The five socio-economic conditions were responsible for only 4% variance in admitted delinquent and criminal acts and thus the percentage could be considered inconsequential in the overall analyses. 136 The hypothesis assertion that among male residents at the Michigan Training Unit the incidence of delinquent and criminal behavior would be found to be more numerous among the "Early Borns" than the "Later Borns" is rejected. The alternate or null hypothesis that there would be no significant difference found in the incidence Of delinquency and criminal offenses committed by the ”Early Borns” and ”Later Borns” is not rejected. Conclusions: It is concluded from the research conducted and from the data analyzation that there were no significant differences in the incidences of delinquency and crime among the "Early BOrn" and "Later Born" groups confined to the M.T.U. at Ionia, Michigan. The conclusion is clearly contrary to the original hypothesis that signifi- cant differences would be found and tends to mitigate stereotyped thinking that the younger females, who bear offsprings before the age of 20, may be somehow responsible for the delinquent and criminal behavior of such offsprings. The data gathered for this study tends to support the Observations of many criminologists, sociologists, and penologists that delinquency and crime are more commonly found among low income families, in the larger metropolitan areas, among children of broken families, with dropouts or underachievers in the educational community and among the 137 minority races, particularly blacks. It, however, is not to be concluded that these are the only causes and perhaps not even the most relevant or causal. Instead the data indicate that the majority in the M.T.U. sample dispropor- tionately came from low income families, had large city rearing, suffered from broken homes situations, had low educational achievement, and were representative of minority groups. Discussion and Implications for Future Research: There is a concern to be examined in future research as to the number of "Early Borns" found among the M.T.U. resident population. The ratio of "Early Borns" to ”Later Borns” within M.T.U. is approximately 1 to 2 according to the sample used for this research. All of M.T.U. residents used in the sample were born between 1956 and 1964. The Bureau of the Census in 1960 reported there were 594,000 births to mothers under 20 years of age, 14% Of all births, or a ratio of approximately 1 to 7. Since there was nothing found in the literature that would explain or account for such a high ratio of ”Early Borns" in the resident population at M.T.U. and this research failed to prove such "Early Borns” are more delinquent and/or criminal than "Later Borns", further investigation would seem to be warranted, particularly the question of birth order (first-born, middle or youngest) 138 might be a worthy endeavor. The high proportion of residents who were both "Early Born” and first born to the mother may suggest some support for sociological theorists who contend that the mother may not herself be adequately socialized and/or mature to pass on to the child the social attitudes, values, and beliefs that would normally prevent, or at least deter, the delinquent or criminal activity of the offspring. Further, as some sociologists suggest, such mothers are more concerned with self-gratification and the pleasures of life than they are of the welfare of the child. S.R. Slauson made some reference to this type of parental activity when he noted in his article that there is a jealousy and envy on the part of adults towards younger people wherein parents, particularly, sometimes pass on their own confused feelings about suppression of desires and overcoming prohibitions.4 The 1967 Task Force Report, Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, the source used by Winslow in his book, Crime ip_a Free Society, reported several causes of delin- quency including life in the slums, insufficient income, deprivation and hazards, family disorganization, female centered families, single parents, deep unhappiness in 4S.R. Slauson, Reclaiming the Delinquent, (New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1965), pp. 7-8. family relationships, inconsistent discipline and/or affection and situations: ". . . where children arrive so early and unbidden that parents are too immature to prefer their own pleasure to a child's needs."5 Contradictory theories are expressed by several sociologists and criminologists, including Rahav,6to the effect that middle born children, particularly in large families, are more delinquent and/or criminal than are first or last born children. The cause most often advanced is that first and last born children enjoy more love, affection, attention, and guidance than do the other children. This investigation revealed that there were 27 of the M.T.U. residents (31.8%) who were first born into the respective families (18 of those were "Early Born" and 9 were "Later Born"), and who confessed to having committed 2822 of the crimes or an average of 104.5 offenses per resident. Forty three of the residents (50.1%) were among the middle children born into their respective families (11 ”Early Borns" and 32 "Later Borns”) and each averaged 95.7 self reported offenses. Finally there were 15 M.T.U. residents who were the last born child in the family (2 5Robert W. Winslow, Crime 3p.a Free Society, 3rd. ed., (Encino, CA: Dickenson Publ. CO, Inc., 1977),p. 120. 6Giora Rahav, ”Birth Order and Delinquency", British Journal ofCriminology, (London, Eng.: 1980), 20 (4), pp. 385-390. 140 "Early Borns" and 13 "Later Borns”) and those 15 admitted 3659 Offenses, an average of 243.9 per resident. From this limited survey it appears that the last born children in this sample committed the most unlawful acts however there were only 15 last born children located among the sample of 85 residents. Any firm conclusions based upon a limited number would, however, be highly suspect at best and could not be supported without much more evidence on a greatly expanded population. Additional to the l to 7 ratio of ”Early Borns"' and "Later Borns" reported by the Bureau of the Census it is also apparent that for the mothers in this study the child bearing years of mothers of ”Early Borns" are from approximately 15 to 20, a five year span, while mothers of ”Later Borns" would have approximately 20 years, from 20 through 39. From these statistics it might be logical to assume there should be at least a l to 4 ratio between the number Of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns". Yet at M.T.U. the random sample under study revealed a ratio of more than 1 to 2. Future research may seek the reason for such a high ratio of ”Early Borns", look to causes and motivation and the types of crime committed by "Early Borns" as well as to the legal procedures whereby convictions are obtained. Much has been written on the chances of an individual charged with a crime ever going to prison 141 including an allegation by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice that only nine of every one hundred persons charged with a felony ever enters a prison, and when the total number Of crimes is considered only two persons see prison gates close behind them.7 The future research might well indicate that ”Early Borns" are more easily convicted or perhaps are more violence prone. Crimes of violence, historically, have brought about more retribution, more societal retal— iation, and more severe sentences, including imprisonment. Thus the research may find significant correlations between "Early Born" children and a propensity for crimes of violence and/or ease of conviction. This research found one ”Early Born” among every three residents at the Michigan Training Unit and that representation makes it appear that the "Early Borns" are disproportionately represented. Further research and study with adequate control of other pertinent variables would be both necessary and useful to criminologists and penologists. The analyses of the data revealed that there were no significant differences between the "Early Borns" and f 7The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force RepOrt: Science and ‘Technology (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing, 1967, p. 61. 142 ”Later Borns' in total acts of delinquency and crime or in any one of the five categories of crime making up the total. The related research involving family income, community size, family structure, education and racial origin were selected as essential areas for inquiry to determine if any one, or any combination, would signi- ficantly influence the amount of delinquency and crime committed by the "Early Borns” or the "Later Borns". The data analysis concluded that they did not, at least, with- in the limits of this study as conducted. It was noteworthy that 39 (45.8%) of the M.T.U. residents reported family income, prior to incarceration, at $8,999 or less. As noted above in this report the Bureau of the Census in 1975 published figures that only 12.8% of the families in the United States had incomes of less than $9,999 and five years before that (1970) the percentage was 19.9%. When nearly 46% Of the M.T.U. residents came from families at the poverty or poor level it lends support to those sociological studies that indicate delinquency and crime is a far more serious problem among the poor. Shaw and McKay in their book,Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas, reported that traditionally the Official data on crime has indicated that most delinquency and most crime exists among the lower class than found in either the middle or upper classes, and that for a long time in 143 the socio-economically deprived areas the figures on crime and delinquency have been heavy.8 Whether the causes of such behavior are from necessity, lack of opportunity, various associations and exposures, or physiological, mental, or psycholOgical influences, is not the purpose of this research to deter— mine. Nevertheless, the income level information about the M.T.U. residents could be beneficial to those who continue to probe for the causes of crime and delinquency. Urbanization, anonymity, loss of social and religious influences, increased gang and peer pressures, poor housing and sanitary conditions, crowded cOnditions, normlessness, are among the flaws associated with city living. In this investigation the personal, physiological, mental and psychological pressures which may cause delin- quency and crime have been excluded but it was deemed important to query the living conditions in which the residents received their rearing. In terms of the size of the city, 33 of the residents were from cities and suburbs with populations exceeding 1,000,000 people. Several were from large cities outside of Michigan but predominately the residents in this group were from the Detroit area. 8Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (revised ed.), (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1972). 144 The second largest group of 24 residents were from cities labeled Medium-Small, 50,000 to 250,000 and included in that group were Grand Rapids, Flint, and Lansing. NO cities in Michigan are listed in the current atlas as having a population of 250,000 to 500,000 - Medium Large City. Among the residents emerging from the Large Cities and the Medium-Small Cities the ratio of ”Early Borns" to "Later Borns” was approximately one to two and the total of 57 of the 85 residents represented over two thirds of the M.T.U. sample. The following figures revealed the l to 2 ratio: There were 10 "Early Borns" from the Largest Cities and 8 from the Medium-Small Cities while the "Later Borns” had 23 from the Largest Cities and 16 from the Medium-Small Cities. The figures are approximately pro- portionate to the number of "Early Borns" and "Later Borns" represented in the M.T.U. sample. With over two thirds of the residents coming from the larger population centers of Michigan it lends support to the contention that delin- quency and crime are more prevalent in the larger cities. The finding that 76 Of the M.T.U. residents (89.4%) were reared in single dwellings rather than in tenements was surprising, probably, in light of the media depictions, movies and television programs, showing delin- quency and crime, filth and squalor as conditions found 145 mostly in large slum multiple dwellings. Even the three residents who were reared in large apartment buildings reported the upkeep as either fair or good, with two reporting adequate space and one reporting spacious conditions. It was also worthy of note that the upkeep results on the 76 single homes revealed 71 were rated as fair, good, or excellent and 67 listed the space as adequate, uncrowded, or spacious. In summary the M.T.U. resident survey does not seem to support the stereotyped description of living conditions that may foster delinquency and criminal activity. This study was not designed to draw conclusions about the contribution towards criminality of poor living conditions but rather to observe the data and report the situation as it pertains to the M.T.U. sample pOpulation. The breakup of the traditional family has been linked for many decades to delinquency and crime among the Offspring. As far back as 1931 Shaw and McKay compared delinquent and school boys of the same age and national derivation and found 42.5% of the delinquents came from broken homes and 36.1% of the school boys were from broken homes.9 9Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay, "Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency", National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement, Report on the Causes of Crime, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. pFInting Office, 1931). II, pp. 262-285 146 Since the publication by Shaw and McKay a number of sociologists and criminologists including Gresham Sykes, Walter D. Miller, Robert W. Winslow, Calvin F. Schmid, Richard J. Chilton, and Gerald E. Marble have noted the strong correlation of the broken home and delinquency/crime. The findings of these authors in reference to the influence of the broken or disorganized home has been reported in Chapter II. The data results from M.T.U. can only add to the data base of the disrupted home as a contributing factor for the crime and delinquency phenomenon. Two thirds of the residents in the M.T.U. sample reported family breakup by divorce, separation, desertion, disappearance, or death. The great majority of disruptions (44 of 57) occured in the family before the child reached age 11. It cannot be concluded however that disruptions occured any more frequently in the families of "Early Borns” than in the families of "Later Borns" since the ratio was approximately 1 to 2, i.e. one broken family among the ”Early Borns" for every two found among the "Later Borns". Such data and findings tend to support the long believed theory that family disruptions contribute to offspring delinquency and criminality. The data revealed that there were 13 illegitimate male offsprings, 8 "Early Borns" (25.8%) and 5 "Later Borns" (9.3%). No effort was made to determine the extent of the delinquency and criminality of the illegitimate 147 children or any comparison with the illegal activity of the remaining 72 M.T.U. residents. In the analysis of educational attainment it became apparent that the M.T.U. residents included a high number — 71 (71.8%) who failed to make ”educational progress" defined as reaching the appropriate grade at the appropriate age, i.e. grades 1 through 12 at ages 6 to 18. Further only 7 residents in the 85 person sample had completed high school before being incarcerated (8.2%). The Bureau of the Census for the year of 1979 reported that 67.7 of all United States students completed high school.10 The ratio of l to 2 for ”Early Borns" as against "Later Borns” holds very close in the dropout ratio with 21 dropouts being classified as "Early Borns” and 40 classified as "Later Borns". Beneficial studies might be made from consider— ation of the relationship of educational achievement and crime and delinquency, noting: (1) there are far more "Early Borns” found in M.T.U. than would be expected in the general population Of the United States, (2) the drop- out rate is extremely high even when this investigation excluded those persons who were making "educational pro- gress" as numbering among the dropouts, and (3) the high 10Bureau of the Census, op.'cit., p. 149. 148 average number of crimes admitted by the M.T.U. residents, over 135 for each individual. The data presented in this report is limited and not designed as a cause and effect study of crime and delinquency yet further research might include the results from this report in the study of learning disability of children and its relationship to illegal behavior. The future research could well include a study of learning disability, criminality, and delinquency in relationship to the age of the mother at the time the child was born and determine as far as possible the behavior of the mother in relation to maturity, assumption of responsibility, and general maturity. Such research is far beyond the scope of this investigation. In the matter of racial origin it was discovered in the analyses that 37 of the 85 residents were Black/ Afro Americans and that the total for all minorities was 42 (49.5%). The figures are both above the national popu- lation distribution. The "Early Borns” and ”Later Born" ratio of l to 2 held steady with 13 minority members desig- nated as "Early Borns" and 24 as "Later Borns". No attempt was made to compare the delinquency and criminality of the racial sub-samples. Future research might be worthy of effort to attempt to explain the disproportionate representation of the minorities among the resident population at M.T.U. 149 None of the socio—economic factors studied by comparison methods, using the M.T.U. sample, in any way explained the disproportionate number of "Early Borns" and the problem remains. The main hypotheses rejection indicated that "Early Borns" are no more, and perhaps a little less, delinquent and criminal than the "Later Borns" at least by comparison. Factually there were no signifi- cant differences found even when the socio-economic factors were applied to the statistics. The comparative investigation conducted and reported herein was not designed as a cause and effect study. The data collected suggests that male children born to mothers who had not reached the age of 20 are disproportionately represented in the population at M.T.U. thus may be disproportionately represented in other prison institutions. The reasons such a phenomenon may exist does not seem to include such "Early Borns" are more delinquent and/or criminal. Further research might prove or disprove the disproportion and seek out other causes, thus be of utilitarian use to all of the social sciences. APPENDI CES APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM APPENDIX A man FORM DATE: PLACE: I, . Michigan Dqlartmalt of Corrections # do he'ety acknowledge that the purpose of this resarch ecperimalt has been etplained to me and I understand it. I know tlat my tame and number as a volunteer will be kept confidential and the original of this consalt form will be available only to the Superintaldalt or desigrated Officials Of the Michigan Training Unit. I will answer to the bet of my ability the quationnaires and/or opinionnaires in a truthful fashion and make then available to Professor Robert D. OOOpa‘, the rsearche: on this ecperiment. I know they will be usal without reveling my identity for his resarch. Only my mnbe: (frcm l to 100) and my Michigan Training Unit hwsing rumba: (A through F) will be known to Mr. Coopa'. I fully urfia'stard, and lave ban promised that my answers will be held in strictest confidace and will retain anonymous. The answers will be counted for statistical purposes but not individually desigrated as caning from me in any portion of the preliminary or fiml rqaorts. I know also tl'at copis of quationnaira and/or Opinionnaires that were carpleted by me will be made available to me upon requst for a period of two years, the) all originals will be dstroyal. I also know trat a copy Of the final rsults of the entire ecper— iment will be made available (after printing) and capable of review by me at the Michigan Training Unit library. This consent form will be placed in my institutional file at the Michigan Training Unit arxi a copy will be made available to me at a late“ date if I so rapist. I freely and voluntarily corsalt to participate. I know I my decide to discontinue my participation at any time and flat no sanctions or penalties will be imposel upon me ty anyone in cl'arge. Witness Sigrature 150 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE I SUB—SECTION A Birth Data — Para'rtal Age W DATE: For Person Answa'ing Oustionnaire PLACE: PLEASE READ ALL THE QIEILIONS BEFORE ANSWERING ‘IHE QUESTIONS! 1. My date of birth is Month my Year 2. My place of Birth is City County State Country 3. I vas barn in the United State or Pug-to Rico: a b Yes NO 4. (If your answer is m to #3 fill in:) I was born in a foreign country: a b Yes No 5. I am the 0166!: child born to my motha‘: a b Yes NO I am one of the middle children: a b Ya NO I am the youngest child in the family a b Yes NO 6. My mother is row: a b Alive Dead 7. My mother is: a b 8. (Answe- eithe- one or both) My motha- was yars Old when I was born or My mother is yers Old now. 9. My fatha: is a b Krnwn thknown 10. (Answe- either one or both) My fatha' has yers Of age whal I was born or My father is yers Old now. 11. My father is a b Alive Dad 12. I have Of full blood brotha-s and sisters born to my mother and Nunba: father. 13. I la e Of Ialf brothers and sisters. v m 14. I lave Of step-brotha‘s and sisters. Nunba‘ 151 SUB-SECTION B Family Incane Nunber DA'I‘E: For Person Answering Questionnaire PLACE: PLEASE READ ALL QUESTIONS BEFORE ANSWERING ANY QQQIILIONSI NOTE: **"Parents" mean. real parents (includes step—father or mothers and adopted/ foster parents) . 1. Incane a. The main source Of income for my family up to the time I was incarcerated was from (1) Mother's employment. (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) . checkmark real step foster adOpted (2) Father's e'rployment. (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) . checkmark real step foster adopted (3) Other immediate relatives with the family (brothers. checkmark sisters, half brothers, half sisters. step— brothers, step-sisters) . (4) More distant relatives (grandfathers & mothers, aunts, checkmark and uncles, cousins, etc.) . (5) Agencies (Government) . (a) . (b) , (c) . checkmark Welfare Social Other Security b. Myself. Since what age ? Incane per week ? checkmark amount c. Other. explain: 2. For the first 10 years of my life I would estimate (guess) the income of the family to be about (a) per week; or about (b) per month. Dollars Dollars 3. After I was age 10 until I was imprisoned I would guess the average family income to be (a) per week; or about (b) per month. Dollars Dollars 4. I have been locked up (over 50% of the time) since I was age years Old (either in juvenile hares or county jails or state prisons). H 0| (0 Sub—Section B, P. 2 If you are unable to a_n§wer question #5 leave it blank. 5. I think overall my family income would be (use one Of the following during the years before incarceration.) a. unda' $6. 000 per year (poverty level). b. from $6, 000 to $9,000 per year (poor level). c. $9,000 to $12,000 per year (lowe- income level). d. $12, 000 to $20,000 per year (middle incane level). e. $20, 000 to $30, 000 per year (upper middle income level). f. over $30, 000 per year (high income level). 6. Other persons with wham I lived (not paralts) . a. grarrlparelts ? Age to Age___ checkmark number Of years b. brothers (full, half, step) ? Age—to Age______ checkmark , numba‘ Of yars c. sista's(full, half, step) ? Age—to Age— checkmark number of years d. foster parents ? Age—to Age— checknark number of years e. adopted parents ? Age___to Age— checkmark number Of years f. aunts & uncles ? Age__to Age— checkmark number of yars g. cousins ? Age__to Age___ checkmark number of years b. friends ? Age___to Age— checkmark number Of years 1. others ? Age__to Age__ checkmark number Of yars For Person Answering Questionnaire PLACE: 154 SUB-SECTION C Commmity Size Number DATE: ME READ ALL THE mfijlflONS BEFORE ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS! 1. 2. 3. Ian a. b. C. Years old. I arm the youngest child (1) (2) Yes No I am one of the rmiddle children (give number) (1)_ (2)_ Yes No I am the oldest child (1) (2) Yes No (3)— Number among other children I have been locked up (over 50% of the time) since I was years old. (includes juvenile hams, jails, and prisons). Iwasbornin City County State Country a. The place where I was born had a population of about peOple in the area. Number I was raised (for the most part) since age in: a. a village in a rural area or on a farm. b. a small town or village frcm 500 to 5, 000 population c. a town frcm 5, 000 to 20,000 in population d. a city of 20,000 to 50,000 in population e. a city from 50,000 to 250,000 in population f. a city from 250,000 to 500,000 in population 9. a city from 500,000 to 1,000,000 in population h. a city ova 1,000,000 in population. I would say that the area I lived in most of my life before prison was: a. rural area b. village c. town d. small city e. Indium small city f. meiium size city g. medium large city h. large city Sub-Section C. P. 2 6. For the most part of my life (over 50%) I lived in housing described as: a. big apartmeut building (ova 10 apartments). checkmark b. small apartment building (under 10 apartments - or remodeled checkmark houses with sevaal apartmeuts) . c. single family houses. checkmark I would describe the condition of the place I lived in as: a. Juoor. checkmark b. fair. checkmark c. good. checkmark d. eccelleut. checkmark For the most part of the time lived in the same Numba of peuple place with me and were supported by the breadwinner(s) . I consida the condition of the housing as: a. extremely crowded. checkmark b. crowdei. checkmark c. adequate (enough room) . checkmark d . uncrowded (more than euough room) . checkmark e. spacious (lots of space for everyone). checkmark Number For Person Answaing Questionnaire 1 5 6 SUB-SPIZTION D Family Structure DATE : PLACE : PLEASE READ ALL THE QQQTIONS BEFORE ANSWERING 'IHE wg'I'IONS! When I was born I had: 1. 2. a. one parent living . checkmark b. two parents living checkmark c. Unknown (orphan) checkrmark My mother was or . Married Single (unmarried) I was a: a. first child checkmark b. one of the middle children checkmark c. last child checkmark For the most part of my life: a . checkmark b. checkmark checkmark d. Were your parents divorced or separated (circle one)? (3) (4) (5) (6) e. Did one of your parents die or disappear (circle one)? (1) (3) (4) (5) Which one left? How old were you ? Did the remaining parent bring you up? For In» many years ? Which one? Did remaining pareut bring you up? For how many years ? I lived with both my mother and father (blood relatives) for how many years ? I lived with my mother (blood) for how many years ? I lived with my father (blood) for low many years ? (1)_. (2) . Yes No Father. (a) Motlar, (b) (a) No. Until I was age . ____Yes, (b)— (2) . Yes No mother . How old were you ? Yes. (b) (a) father. (b) NO. (6:) Until I was age Sub—Section D, P. 2 157 f. I lived with other relatives checkmark (1) relationship of person. (2) low long (number of years)? (3) beginning at what age? I lived in foster homes. checkmark (1) Beginning at what age ? (2) How long did you live in a foster home(s) ? I was adopted. (1) Yes, (2) No. (3) Beginning at what age ? (4) How long did you live with adopted parents ? I lived in an orphanage-(1) Yes, (2) No. (3) Beginning at what age ? (4) How long did you live there ? Were both parental figures present in your years at a foster home or in the adopted home setting?(l) Yes, (2) No. If the answer to "3'" was "No" please answer the following questions. (1) Was there only one pason wro served as a foster parent or .as an adopted pareut from the beginning? (a)________Yes, (b)____No. (2) Did one of the foster or adopted parents leave the rouserold through death, divorce, separation, abandonment? (a) Yes, (b) No. (3) If one left which one was it? (a)___foster or adopted mother. (b) foster or adopted father. (4) What was your age when the separation, death, divorce, or abandonment occured? Age (5) How long did you rerain with the foster or adopted single pareit2______. Years SUB-SEL‘TION E Education Data Number DATE: For Person Answering Questionnaire PLACE: l. I attended scrool: (a) Yes (b) No 2. I can read: (a) Yes (b) No 3. I can write: (a) Yes (b) No NOTE: Before entering the Michigan Correctional (prison) system: 4. I attended elemeutary school. (a) Yes (b) No 5. I finished (mark one) (a) lst grade; (b) 2nd grade: (c)___3rd. grade (d) 4th grade; (e) 5th grade: (f) 6th grade 6. I finished middle school (mark one); (a)_7th grade; (b)___8th grade (C)___9th grade. 7. I finished in high school (mark one): (a)_lOth grade; (b)__1lth grade (C)_12th grade. 8. I finished in college (mark one): (a) fresl'man year: (b)__sophorore year, (c)_junior year, (d)___seuior year. 9. I finished in graduate college (mark one): (a)_l year, (b)__2 years. (c)__3 years, (d)___more than 3 years. 10. I told diploras and/or degrees: a. high school/GED (circle one) . b. college (2 years)?“ 'Iype? Year? c. college (4 years): Type? Year? d. Professional education degree: Type? Year? 15 9 SUB—SECTION F Arrests and Convictions Numba DATE: For Person Answering Questionnaire PLACE: PLEASE READ ALL THE ONS BEFORE ANSWERED THE IONS! l. I have been arrested as a juveuile Yes, No, How many times? Number NOTE: **On the questions involving status offenses (truancy, runaway, and incorrigibility) and vice offenses (drugs, marijuana, alcol'ol, horosexu- ality, gross indece1cy, indecent exposure, window peédng, and gambling— "a" through "j" below), count only the times you were caught by someone and turned you over to your parents, guardian, sclool autl'orities, truant officers. police, court personnel, etc. 2 . I have done and been caught on charges of: a. Truancy (skipping school) at ages ? Number of times b. Runaway at ages ? Number of times c. Incorrigibility (uncontrollable) at ages ? Number of times d. Drug(inc1udi.ng Marijuana) or dangerous substance (LSD, etc.) . Number of times (total) (1) use at ages ? Number of times (2) possession at ages ? Number of times (3) sale at ages_______? Number of times NOTE: “The Number of times in (1). (2), and (3) above sl'ould total up to the same number as appears in the space after "d" above. e. Alcohol Number of times- (total) (1) use (drank) at ages ? Number of times (2) possession at ages ? Number of time (3) sale at ages ? Number of times NOTE: **The numbers in (1), (2) , and (3) slould add up to the same number as appears in the blank space after "e" above. 160 Sub-Section F, P. 2 f. Gross Indecency (homosexual activity, etc.) at ages ? Numba of times Indecent Exposure (flashing, etc.) at ages ? 9-—____ Number of times h. Window Peeking at ages ? * * Number of times i. Gambling at ages ? Number of times Indecent Liberties at ages ? J- ______.__._ Number of times m: **‘IHE FOLLOWING ARE OFFENSES OUTSIDE OF JUVENILE STATUS OFFENSES ("6” through "c" above) AND OUTSIDE OF VICE OFFENSES (”d" through "j" above). ON THE FOLLOWIM; ITEMS GIVE THE NUMBER 01“ TIMES YOU DID (committed) 'II-fli ACI‘, REEARDLESSIFYQJWERECALIGIH‘ORNOI‘CALXSHI‘! k. Homicide (murder) at ages ? Numba of times (total) (1) lst Degree Murda at ages ? Number of times (2) 2nd Degree Murda at ages ? Number of times (3) Manslaughter at ages ? Numba of times (4) Voluntary Homicide at ages ? Number of times (5) Involuntary Homicide at ages ? Numba of times NOTE: “The number of times for (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) slould add up to the total numba after "k" above. l. Rape at ages ? Number of times m. Criminal/Sexual Conduct Act at ages ? Number of times (total) (1) ________lst Degree at ages ? Numba of times (2) 2nd Degree at ages ? Number of times (3) 3rd Degree at ages ? Numba of times (4) _____4th Degree at ages ? Number of times NOTE: “The numba of times for (1), (2). (3), and (4) above stould add up to the number in the space after "m" above. 1€1 Sub—Section F, P. 3 n. robbery Number of times (total (1) unarmed at ages ? Number of times (2) armed at ages ? Numba of times NOTE: ***The number of times for (1) and (2) should add up to the total on "n" above. 0. vandalism at ages ? Number of time p. assault at ages ? Number of time (total) (1) simple assault at ages ? Number of times (2) aggravated assault at age ? Numberoftimnes NOTE: ** The number of times of (1) and (2) above should add up to the numba in the space afta "p". q. arson at ages ? Number of time r. breaking and entering at ages? Number of time s . destruction of property at age ? Number of time t. larceny/theft Number of times (total) (1) larceny from a building at ages ' ? Number of times (2) simple (under $100) at ages ? Number of times (3) grand (over $100) at ages ? Numberoftimes NOTE: ** The figures in (1), (2), and (3) above sl'ould add up to the number in the space after "t" above. 162 Sub—Section F, P. 4 u. Receiving & Possession of Stolen Property at ages Numba of time v. Vagrancy at ages ? Number of time w. Carrying Concealed Weapons at age ? Number of time x. Michigan Check Law Numba of time (total) (1) Forgery or Altered Checks & Uttaing & at ages ? Numba of time Publishing (2) Issue 3 Fraudulent Checks in 10 Days at ages ? Numba of times (3) Non-sufficient Funds at age ? Numba of time NOTE: “The numbers afta (1) , (2), and (3) above stould add up to the number in the space after "x". y. Vehicle or Auto Theft or UDAA at ages ? Numba of times 2. Embezzlement at age ? Number of times z-l. Kidnapping at age ? Numba of time 2-2. Extortion at age ? Numba of times 2-3. List any other offense. 91.11292 Mes Ami-2.3M (.1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 163 Sub-Section F, P. 5 ‘D NOTE: The next 11 questions are about arrests that happened to you, both as a juvenile and as an adult. Convicted means to "cop out" (plead guilty) or the judge and/or jury said you were guilty. If you had more than 11 add more letters under question 11 such as b,‘c,d,e,f,etc and put the facts on the back of the sheet. 1. My first arrest was for give violation or offense. at age _. a. Convicted (1) Yes, (2) No. 2. My second arrest was for give offense (crime). at age a. Convicted (1) Yes, (2) No. 3. My third arrest was for give offense . at age a. Convicted (1) Yes, (2) No. 4. My fourth arret was for give offense . at age a. Convicted (1) Ye, (2) No. 5. My fifth arret was for # give offense . at age a. Convicted (1) Yes, (2) No. 6. My sixth arret was for give offense . at age a. Convicted (1) yes, (2) No. 7. My seventh arrest was for give offense . at age a. Convicted (l) Ye (2) No. 8. My eighth arrest was for give offense . at age a. Convicted (1) Yes, (2) No. 9. My ninth arrest was for give offense . at age a. Convicted (1) Yes, (2) No. 10. My tenth arret was for give offense . at age a. Convicted (1) Ye, (2) No. 11. My eleventh arret was for _______give offense . at age a. Convicted (l)_____Ye, (2) No. 12. I arm now serving a minimum to maximum______year sentence. 13. I has placed on adult probation at ages . 14. I completed my adult probation number of times . 15. I violated my adult probation number of times. 16. I have served time in a juvenile facility_______Yes, ________No. a. How many time? b. At what age? I I lst time 2nd time 3rd time 4thtime I I 6th time 7th time 8th time 9th time 10th time 5th time 164 Sub—Section F, P. 6 c. On charge of , , , , , lst time 2nd time 3rd time 4th time 5th time 6th_time’ 7th time, 8th time, 9th time, 10th time 17. I have served sentence at the county jail: Yes, No. a. How many times? . b. Onwhat charge: 1. , 2. , 3. 4. , 5. . 6 , 7. , 8. , 9. , lO. . c. At what age and for km long (see "b" above)? fig Length of Sentence (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) 18. 19. I have been sent to state or federal prisons on other occasions (not the one your serving now) Yes, No. How many times The charges, lengths of sentence in state or federal prisons, and my age at the time were as follows: Mes 151ch of sentence Egg 165 SUB-SECTION G Racial Number DATE: For Person Answering Questionna ire PLACE: READALLOFTHEQUESTIONSFIRSTTHENMARKJUSTONEWITHACIWRK. l. I belong to one of the following racial groups: a. White/Caucasian b. Black/Afro Americans c. Chicano/Mexican Americans d. Spanish Americans/Hispanics e. American Indians f. Asian/Pacific Islanders g. Other - Please specify. APPENDIX C DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APPENDIX C DEFINITIONS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Adults: All persons who are 17 years of age or older. ARUM(s): Assistant Resident Unit Manager (3). C.C.W.: Carrying Concealed Weapons Crime (criminal, criminality): Acts committed in violation of statutory law. Crimes Against Persons: All crimes where the victim is human (simple and aggravated assaults, robbery, rape, murder and non-negligent homicide). Crime Against Property: All property crimes (willful destruction of property, vehicle theft, vandalism, larceny, theft, burglary, arson, etc.). Delinquent (delinquency): Status offenses, and criminal acts, committed by persons under 17 and prosecutable under Juvenile Delinquency Statutes. Detainer: A warrant on file to be served when the resident is available to be brought to trial. Differential Association: Edwin Sutherland's theory that behavior is learned from exposure to different persons. Differential Opportunity: Cloward and Ohlin's theory that People develop behavior patterns according to exposure to persons and opportunities available to them. 166 167 Early Born: Offsprings born to mothers before the mother is 20 years of age. E.B.: Early Borns Etiology: Study of causes. Extortion: Demand for a thing of value accompanied by a threat to the person or property of the victim or another. Felony: Any statutory offense where the penalty that may be imposed is a year or more in prison, life, or the death penalty. First Born: The first child born to a mother. Gross Indecency: Homosexuality and other grossly indecent acts as judged by society as improper - a felony. Hedonism: The doctrine that pleasure is the chief good. Indecent Exposure: Any exposure of the human body in an indecent manner or way - a misdemeanor. Indecent Liberties: Such liberties as the common sense of society would regard as indecent and improper. Incorrigibility: Beyond hope of reform or improvement in conduct. Index Crimes: 8 categories of crime listed as Part I crimes in the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports. In these cate- gories the tabulation of offenses are made from violations ”known to police" and included (1) murder and non-negligent homicide, (2) aggravated assault, (3) robbery, (4) rape, (5) burglary, (6) larceny— theft, (8) arson. 168 J.D.: Juvenile delinquency. Juvenile: Any person who has not reached his 17th birthday (Michigan). L.B.: Later Borns Last Born: The last child born to a mother in a family with more than one child. L.D.: Learning disability. Misdemeanor: Any statutory criminal offense that is not a felony. The maximum sentence is up to 1 year in a county jail or if the offense is specifically designated in the statute as a high misdemeanor regardless of the penalty. Middle Born: Offsprings born to a mother who is not a first born nor a last born child. M.T.U.: Michigan Training Unit Prison, Ionia, Michigan. Other Crimes: All crimes that are not designated as Status Offenses, Crimes Against Persons, or Crimes Against Property. Part I Crimes: Equivalent to Index Crimes. Part II Crimes: All statutory crimes that are not included in Part I or Index Crimes. Residents: Prisoners confined to a state prison after a felony conviction. Resident Units: Dormitories at the Michigan Training Units. 169 RUM(s): Resident Unit Managers Status Offenses: Punishable offenses against juveniles that if committed by an adult would not be a punishable offense. Valid Test: Capable of measuring what it was designed to measure. Vice Crimes: Offenses believed to be detrimental to the physical, moral, or mental wellbeing of an individual. B I BLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Abrahamsen, David, Who Are the Guilty? A Study of Education and Crime. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952. Becker, Howard. Outsiders: Studies in_the Sociology of Deviance. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1963. Bredemeier, Harry C. and Richard M. Stephenson. The Analysis of Social Systems. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and ‘WInston, 1962. Bonger, Willem A. Criminality and Economic Conditions. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1969. Burt, Cyril. The Young Delinquent. London, Eng.: University of London Press, 1965. Chambliss, William J. Crime and the Legal Process. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1969. Cloward, Richard A. and Lloyd E. Ohlin. Delinquency and Opportunity. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1960. Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1955. . Deviance and Control. Englewood Cliffs, N.Y.: Prentice—Hall Publishing Co., 1966. Durheim, Emile. The Rules of the Sociological Method. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1964. Dugsdale, Richard L. The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease, g Heredity. (4th ed.). New York, N.Y.: Putman Co., 1942. Erikson, Kai T. Wayward Puritans. New York, N.Y.: Wiley Publishing Co., 1966. Ferri, Enrico. The Positive School of Criminology. Chicago, Ill.: Kerr Co., 1913. Freud, Sigmund. ’A General Introduction 39 Psychoanalysis. New York, N.Y.: Liverright Publishing Co., 1948. 170 171 Gazell, James A. and G. Thosam Gitchoff. Youth, Crime, and Society. Boston, Mass.: Holbrook Press, Inc., 1973. Garafalo, Raffaele. Criminology Translated Qy Robert W. Millan. Boston, Mass.: Little & Brown Publishing Co., 1914. Gluek, Sheldon and Eleanor Gluek. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. New York, N.Y.: Commonwealth Fund, 1950. Goddard, Henry H. Feeblemindednesgnyt's Causes and Consequences. New York, N.Y.: MacMillan & Co., 1914. Healy, William. The Individual Delinquent. Boston, Mass.: Little and Brown Publishing Co., 1915. and Augusta Bronner. Delinquents and Criminals: Their Making and Unmaking. New York, N.Y.: MacMillan Co., 1926. Hills, Stuart L. Crime, Power, and Morality. Scranton, Pa: 1971. Hirschi, Travis. Causes 9f Delinquency. Berkeley, CA.: University of California Press, 1969. Hooten, Ernest A. Crime and the Man. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1939. Jacob, Herbert. Crime and Justice ig_Urban America. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc., 1980. Katkin, Daniel, Drew Hyman and John Kramer. Juvenile Justice and the Juvenile Justice System. Belmont, CA.: Duxbury Press Division of Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1976. Lewis, Oscar. Poverty gg 3 Source 9: Low Class Subculture. New York, N.Y.: Random House, 1968. Mannheim, Hermann (ed.). Pioneers lg Criminology, (2nd. ed.) Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith Publishers, 1973. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1968. Nettler, Gwynn. Explaining Crime. New York, N.Y.: McGraw— Hill Book Co., 1974. Park, Robert E. et al. The City. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1967. 172 Petersilia, Joan, Peter W. Greenwood and Marvin Lavin. Criminal Careers 9: Habitual Felons. Santa Monica, CA.: Rand Corp., 1977. Philipson, Michael. Understanding Crime and Delinquency. Chicago, Ill.: The Aldine Publishing Co., 1974. Quinney, Richard. Critique 9f Legal Order: Crime Control lg g Capitalistic Society. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown Publishers, 1979. . Critique gf_Legal Order. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown Publishers, 1974. Rainwater, Lee and William L. Yancey. The Moynihan Report and the Politics 9f Controversy. Cam-ridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1967. Reid, Sue Titus. Crime and Criminology. New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979. Schafer, Stephen. Theories lg Criminology. New York, N.Y.: Random House, 1969. Schrag, Clarence. Crime and Justice: American Style. Rockville, MD.: National Institute of Mental Health, 1971. Schur, E.M. Labelipg Deviant Behavior: Its Sociological Implications. New York, N.Y.: Harper and Row Publishers, 1971. Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (revised ed.). Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1972. Sheer, Edwin M. Radical Non-Intervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1973. Sheldon, William H., et.at. Varieties 9f Delinquent Youths. New York, N.Y.: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Short, James F. Jr. (ed.). Gang Delinquency and Deviant Subcultures. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1955. Silberman, Charles E; Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice. New York, N.Y.: Random House, 1978. Skinner, B.F. Bgyond Freedom and Dignity. New York, N.Y.: D. Appleton—Centure Publishers, 1972. 173 Slauson, S.R. Reclaiming the Delinquent. New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1965. Sutherland, Edwin H. The Professional Thief. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1937. Sykes, Gresham M. Criminology. New York, N.Y.: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1978. Taft, Donald. Criminology. New York, N.Y.: MacMillan & Co., 1956. Tannenbaum, Frank. Crime and the Community. Boston, Mass.: Ginn Publishing, 1938. Tappan, Paul. Crime, Justice and Correction. New York, N.Y.: McGraw—Hill, 1960. Thrasher, Frederic M. The Gang. Chicago, 111.: University of Chicago Press, 1927. Turk, Austin T. Criminality and Legal Order. Skokie, Ill.: Rand-McNally Publishers, 1969. United States Department of Justice. F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979. Vetter, Harold J. and Ira J. Silverman. The Nature 9f_Crime. Philadelphia, PA.: W.B. Saunders Co., 1978. Voss, Harold L. (ed). Society, Delinquency g Delinquency Behavior. Boston, Mass.: Little & Brown, 1970. Winslow, Robert W. Crime 12,2 Free Society (3rd.ed.). Encino, CA.: Dickenson Publishing Co., Inc., 1977. Wolfgang, Marvin E. (ed.). et a1. Sociology 91 Crime and Delinquency (2nd ed.). New York, N.Y.: The Wiley Co. 1970. 174 B. PERIODICALS Adams, Reed. "The Adequacy of Differential Association Theory", Journal 9: Research Eu Crime and Delinquency, (November, 1974), pp. 1-8. . "Differential Association & Learning Prinsiples Revisited". Social Problems, 10:458-470, 1973. Andrews, June M. "Violence Among Delinquents by Family Intactment and Size", Social Biology, Vol. 25, Fall, 1978, pp. 243—250. Barnett, Arnold, Ellen Essenfeld and Daniel J. Kleitman. ”Urban Homicide: Some Recent Developments", Journal gf Criminal Justice, Vol. 8, #6:379-385, 1980. Black, Donald J. ”Production of Crime Rates”, American Sociological Review, (August, 1970), pp. 733-748. Burgess, Ernest W. "The Economic Factor in Juvenile Delinquency", Journal 9; Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, #43 (May-June, 1952), pp. 29-42. Cantor, Nathaniel. "The Causes of Crime”, Journal 9; Criminal Law and Criminology, 23: (March-April, 1933), pp. 1029-34. Chilton, Richard and Gerald E. Marble. ”Family Disruption, Delinquent Conduct and the Effect of Subclassification", American Sociological Review, Vol. 37: N1 (Feb., 1972). Dentler, Robert A. and Lawrence J. Monroe. "Early Adolescent Theft”, American Sociological Review. 26: (October, 1961). Goddard, Henry H. "Heredity of Feeble Mindedness", Eugenics Records Office Bulletin #1, (1911), pp. 165—178. Jefferey, C.R. "Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory", Journal 9: Criminal Law, Criminology g Police Science, 56:294-300, 1965. Johnson, Guy B. "The Negro and Crime", Annals g; the American Academy 9: Political and Social Science, (September, 1941), pp. 93—104. Miller, Walter B. "Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency", Journal 9: Social Issuesy 3:5-19, 1958. 175 Montagu, Ashley. "The Biologist Looks at Crime", Annals 9f the American Academy 9: Social and Political Sciencey 217: (September, 1941), p. 55. Nye, F. Ivan and James F. Short. ”Scaling Delinquent Behavior", American Sociological Review, 22: (June, 1957), pp. 326-331. Quay, H.C. "Psychopathic Personality as Pathological Stimulation-seeking”, American Journal 9: Psychiatry, 122:180-183, 1965. Rahav, Giora. ”Birth Order and Delinquency", British Journal 93 Criminology, London, England, 20:4, 1980, pp. 385-390. Reckless, Walter C. and Simon Denitz. "Pioneering With Self Concept as a Vulnerability Factor in Delinquency", Journal 9; Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, (December, 1967), p. 58. Schmid, Calvin F. "Urban Crime — Part II", American Social Review, (October, 1960), #25, pp. 655-678. Schuessler, Karl F. and Donald R. Cressey. "Personality Characteristics of Criminals”, American Journal 9: Sociology, 55: (March, 1950), pp. 476-486. Sellin, Thorsten. "Culture Conflict and Crime”, Social Science Research Council, Bulletin No. 41. Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. "Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency", American Sociological Review, 22: (October, 1957), pp. 261-284. Shichor, David, David L. Decker & Robert M. O'Brien. "The Relationship of Criminal Victimization, Police per Capita and Population Density in Twenty-Six cities”, Journal 9f Criminal Justice, Vol. 8:#5, pp. 309-316. Sullenger, T. Early. "Juvenile Delinquency, A Product of the Home”, Journal 9: Criminal Law and Criminology, 24: (March-April, 1934), pp. 1088-92. Zimmerman, Joel, William D. Rick, Ingo Keilitz, & Paul K. Broder. "Some Observations on the Link Between Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency", Journal 2: Criminal Justice, Vol. 9: #1, pp. 1-18.