102 606 ..T.HS F—l THESIS Date I 7;? "-7 ”‘"‘- V" 5* fifty-s a? g‘ 1'?! n «‘- __ ‘ "‘1‘ g 1 r ,fl-‘i ‘9 ‘ J ‘J: ’ .s _, . 'd 1" ‘5? it g 2“ may " :.‘.. .- m «A x. I ‘34 2‘ I (In This is to certify that the thesis entitled IDENTIFYING VARIABLES TO USE IN JUVENILE COURT PLANNING WITH NEGLECTFUL PARENTS HAVING ALCOHOL PROBLEMS presented by GARY FLOYD BOBER has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.S. Criminal Justice degree in Ijmcfljiwow. Major gofessor I 6-8-82 07639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES “ your record. RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. JR 92304 C720004 g. N 0 fiYDQB IDENTIFYING VARIABLES TO USE IN JUVENILE COURT PLANNING WITH NEGLECTFUL PARENTS HAVING ALCOHOL PROBLEMS By Gary P. Bober A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1982 G//7'?7O ABSTRACT IDENTIFYING VARIABLES TO USE IN JUVENILE COURT PLANNING WITH NEGLECTFUL PARENTS HAVING ALCOHOL PROBLEMS By Gary P. Bober The purpose of this research was to identify variables that would be useful in Juvenile Court case planning with parents having alcohol problems and also identified as neglectful parents. The variables of em- ployment. income. education. family history. children's performance. social isolation. and violence were compar- ed in two parent populations. Population I contained 9 parents identified as either neglectful or abusive and having alcohol problems. Population II contained 9 non-drinking AA members. also parents. Population I represented parents temporarily separated from their children because of neglect or abuse and all encountering multiple family problems. These parents also represented a group of individuals involved with the criminal justice system thru the Juvenile Court. Social isolation was found to be significantly higher in population I. while other variables were inconclusive. The research also provided useful insights regarding both population groups. This writer based on the experience 03 using AA members as research subjects would not recommend this group to others for similiar research. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the individuals who assisted and encouraged me throughout this research. First. my thesis committee chairman. Doctor Vincent Hoffman who provided the incentive I needed to start this research and who maintained me throughout with his advice and support. Even more important than either his advice or support is the example Vincent Hoffman has provided by his own principles and his dedication to growth thru learning. I also wish to thank Doctors Robert Trojanowicz and Robert Scott for their assistance. Their insights in interpretating data and suggestions for presentation have been most helpful. The volunteers from Alcoholic Anonymous and other parents who provided the information are also acknowledged for sharing some very personal information for this research. Last. but certainly not least. I would like to thank my own family for the support they have shown and the sacrifices they have made. Without the support of my wife. Sharon. this research would not have been possible. to her I express my greatest appreciation. This research is dedicated to my wife Sharon. and our children. Jennifer. Stephanie and Nathan. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. III. .IV. V. LiSt Of TableSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Introduction: The Problem..................... Literature ReVieWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. DefinitionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0. Variables Affecting Alcohol Consumption...... Variables Resulting From Alcohol Consumption. Social Isolation........................... School Performance......................... Violence In the Family..................... Social Isolation and Neglect............... Research Hypothesis........................ Methodology.................................... ReseaI‘Ch SiteOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00. Research Subjects............................ Research Design.............................. Measuring Device............................. Research Strengths and Weaknesses............ Findings....................................... Data Analysis................................ Mean Scores............ ..... ................. F Distribution............................... Test for Differences Between Means........... Conclusions.................................... Inoonclusive Findings........................ Conclusive Findings.......................... Application.................................. Population Characteristics................... Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaire..................... Appendix B: Definitions of Questionnaire Terms and Scoring...................... Appendix C: Population I - Cycle of Problems.. Appendix D: Population II - Comparison 2 Part Questionnaire.................... B1bliography...‘00......O00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 111 Page iv 1 55 61 62 63 6a LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Alcohol Problems of Population I....... ’21 3.2 Values for Question 33 (Parent Use of Physical Punishment).................. 28 3.3 Population Characteristics............. 29 5.1 Ages of Subjects and Their Children.... 32 5.2 Employment............................. 33 5.3 Religion and Church Attendance......... 34 5.4 Isolation Items........................ 35 5.5 Number of Subjects with Drinking Parents............................... 36 5.6 Spanking As A Form of Discipline....... 36 5.7 Geographic Living Area................. 37 5.8 F Distribution......................... 39 5.9 The Standard Error of the Difference... 41 5.10 The Standard Error of the Difference... 42 5.11 Children's Performance................. #3 Appendix C Population I - Cycle of Problems....... 63 Appendix D Population II - Comparison 2 Part QueStionnaireooooooooooooooooooooooooo 6,4 iv Chapter I Introduction This research is focused on discovering the relation- ship between certain variables and the behavior of alcohol consumption of parents identified as both parents with alcohol problems and either neglectful or abusive parents. In 1976. the American Humane Association indicated there were 18.227 valid cases of either child neglect or child abuse from the 99.754 reported cases (Orme and Rimmer. 1981). Research concerning the drinking practices of Americans indicates 68% of the adult American population drink to some extent (Cahalan and Cisin. 1968). The question of how many child neglect or child abuse cases have resulted because of parents having alcohol problems is not known although some research has indicated a very high occurence. Behling (1979) found that 69% of the 51 cases of child abuse he studied had parents who were also abusing alcohol. The main focus of this thesis is to study some of the variables found in multi-problem families. The problems being: first. parent alcohol problems and second. being either neglectful or abusive parents. Neglected and abused children become involved in the Juvenile Justice System as soon as a petition alleging neglect is filed. The court must make a decision to either accept or reject a petition. If a petition is accepted the court must then make the next decision which is to either allow a child to remain at home or be placed with a relative or in a foster home. The hear- ings are held in the following order: preliminary hearings. adjudication hearing. disposition hearing. and then 6 month review hearings. The Criminal Justice System is involved in abuses and neglect from the initial com- plaint until the case is dismissed or closed. This involves police. prosecutor and the Juvenile Court Judge and staff. The time involved in this legal process is often excessive. Any procedures or processes that can successfully shorten the amount of time a case is active with the court will save resources and hopefully lessen the suffering of the families involved. In this State. the Welfare Department assumes respon- sibility. via court order. for the care of neglect and abused children as well as case planning for the entire family. Department requirements include case planning directed at re-uniting the family if there has been a separation with the children placed away from the parents. In some of these cases the families are suffering simulta- neously from both alcohol problems and either child abuse or neglect. Kinney and Leaton (1978) indicate "In cases of child abuse. alcohol is a contributing factor in over half the cases". By studying some of the variables that appear to effect alcohol consumption as well as violence and neg- lect. hopefully casework can become more successful in working with these multi-problem families. Caseplanning for a family containing an active problem drinker often becomes a problem at the point of implementing the case- plan. The problem drinker often is not reliable in following thru with a caseplan. Missed visits with children in foster care. mis-spent funds on alcohol. miss- ed appointments. and often long drawn out separations between parent and child are examples of problems encounter- ed. While alcohol may account for a large amount of neg- lect and abuse cases. there are many alcoholics who are not petitioned to court for neglect or abuse. who may have other problems similar to alcoholic parents who abuse their child. Alcoholics are estimated to make up 4% of the U.S. population. 20 years or older. or about 9 million individuals. Kinney and Leaton (1978). This research will attempt to compare some variables between problem drinkers involved in recent neglect or abuse with former problem drinkers who are not involved with neglect or abuse. If it could be determined that there is some varience in these variables than perhaps caseplans could be constructed for individual families in a manner most likely to help them eliminate the abuse and neglect. The benefits of this research could include shortening the length of time the case is in the Criminal Justice System and assisting caseworkers in making more effective recommendations that at times involve terminating parental rights. The variables of parents education. parents employ- ment. family income. and family history have all been identified in the literature as factors that appear to affect alcohol consumption. Low parent education and inconsistent employment (Hoffmann and Noem. 1975: Hoffmann. 1974) appears to be more prevalent among heavy drinkers in comparison to higher education and steady employment. Low family income also appears to be more prevalent among heavy drinkers (Cahalan and Cisin. 1968; Hoffmann. 1974). Elizabeth Penich (1978) in a study of the family histories of 155 men alcoholics sums up well some of these problems: These findings like those of previous studies demonstrates that alcoholics having a family history of alcoholism (especially a parent or a grandparent who misused alcohol) tend to drink at a younger age and to have more social and personal drinking - related problems at an earlier age than do alcoholics having no history of alcoholism in the family (p. 1947). Three other variables that have been identified as possible consequences of problem drinking are violence. social isolation. and poor school performance of children in school will also be examined. Byles (1978) found that violence is more than twice as likely to occur in families with rather than without alcohol problems. Isolation especially among chronic alcoholics appears to be a factor related to alcoholism (Estes and Heiman. 1971). Haberman (1966) found the children from alcoholic parents to be two times more likely to cause behavior problems in school than children from non- alcoholic parents. Chapter II Literature Review Definition Orme and Rimmer (1981) reviewed a number of research articles that have lent support to the theory of alcohol- ism and alcohol misuse being prominent factors in the etiology of child abuse. However. they found fault with some of the studies because of methodological issues. and defining alcoholism and/or an alcoholic was one important issue. A definition of alcoholic or alcohol problems was not used in many of the studies. or when a definition was used there was often no uniformity between studies. This writer has noted also how the terms alcoholic. alcohol problem. or misuse of alcohol and other like terms sometimes appear in both research and text books with no definitions. When definitions do appear they are often long and difficult to apply to individual situations. For instance. A. Silverstein (1975) describes alcoholics in part the following way. Characteristics of alcoholics recognized by many people in the field are; First. an inability to choose consistently whether to drink or not to drink; then. once a drink has been taken. an inability to choose consistent- ly whether to continue drinking or to stop. Alcoholics feel that they need to drink and they go on drinking even when their reason and judgement tell them to stop......(p. 73) This definition of Silverstein continues for 2 more pages describing basic behavior in alcoholism. To apply such a definition to a research project would be diffi- cult. The present study will attempt to overcome this problem of definition by describing parent's drinking problem as part of the definition. In their extensive research Cahalan and Cisin (1968) covering all states except Alaska and Hawaii found differences in individual drinking practices that pertain to this present research. Cahalan used the categories of abstainers. infrequent drinkers. light drinkers. moderate drinkers. and heavy drinkers in his research. Heavy drinkers constituted 12% of the American population and 75% of this group were classified as heavy escape drinkers. Heavy escape drinkers were individuals who acknowledged that at least two or more of the following 5 statements are true about themselves. 1. I drink because it helps me to relax. 2. I drink when I want to forget everything. 3. A drink helps me to forget my worries. 4. A drink helps cheer me up when I'm in a bad mood. 5. I drink because I need it when tense and nervous. This study also indicated a heavy turnover rate in the drinking population with many individuals changing their drinking practices as they get older. usually moderating their drinking. Variables Affecting Alcohol Consumption Eduation. Heavy escape drinking was most common in lower educated. lower social levels. between the ages of 21 and 39. Men were more prevalent then women as heavy drinkers and Mulford. (1964) found the rates of "trouble due to drinking” to be higher among those with less than 8 years of school. Employment Problems. Unemployment is related to alcoholics or problem drinkers. In their study concern- ing children of alcoholics Wilson and Orford (1978) found over half of the parents with alcohol problems were unemployed. Hoffmann and Noem (1975) found 53% of the alcoholic subjects they examined did not have continuous employment. and also noted that alcoholics appeared to be characterized by poor job performance. In another study by Hoffmann (1974) of alcoholics. it was found that un- employment appeared more important as a contributing characteristic of alcoholism than poverty. Family History. The family history of alcoholics and problem drinkers appears to be an important variable according to the literature. Hoffmann and Noem (1975) found in a study of 1.694 alcoholic patients. both male and female. that 32% of the females and 29% of the males had alcoholic parents. In a research project testing two groups of alcoholics. Group I having alcoholic parents or grandparents and Group II not having alcoholic parents or grandparents. Temples. Ruff and Ayers (1974) found important differences. Group I were titled “essential alcoholics” and were characterized by a poor prognosis and described as inadequate. psychosexually immature persons who begin drinking in their teens with- out a precipitating environmental stress. Group II were called ”reactive alcoholics” and described as socially and psychosexually more mature. starting excessive drinking at a later age as a result of environmental stress. and this group had a better prognosis. In another study of alcoholics and their family history. Penich. Read. Crowley. and Powell (1978) state: Since offspring and siblings of alcoholics are more likely than men and women in the gener- al population to become alcoholics. it has been suggested that these are target populations for primary preventive efforts (p. 1947). In a research project of Navy personnel. Schuckit. Gunderson. Heckman and Kolb (1976) found that personnel who were not alcoholic but who were from families with either parents or grandparents who were alcoholic. had 10 more difficulties in all the areas examined than a group of men whose family did not include alcoholic members. The areas examined were school truancy. school behavior. arrest record. alcohol related problems in marriage difficulties. and drunken driving. The result of this study indicated that the familial alcoholism pattern may have isolated a group of high risk for the future development of alcoholism as well as other behavioral problems. Whether alcoholism runs in families because of learn- ed behavior or because of hereditary reasons or possibly both is not known for certain. Goodwin (1971) studied adopted twins from both alcoholic parents and non-alcoholic parents. He discovered that those whose natural parents were alcoholics were in adulthood themselves more likely to be alcoholics. In this present research the fact that a background of excessive alcohol use is more prevalent in alcoholics compared to non-alcoholics is important whether it happens because of heredity reasons or is learned be- havior. In dealing with parents having alcohol problems the importance of their background could be beneficial in helping them understand their drinking problem and the implications for their own offspring. ll Variables Resulting Prom Alcohol Consumption Violence. The definition of child abuse often includes both children physically abused and children who are neglected because they are not receiving adequate food. clothing. shelter. supervision. or parental inter- action. This section is concerned with physical abuse. defined as ”parental intention to injure“ by Orme and Rimmer (1981. p. 274). Physical abuse is an act of violence and there is evidence that shows a correlation between alcohol consumption and violence. Still other studies have shown a correlation between parents with alcohol problems and physical abuse of children. Byles (1978) studied the relationship between alcohol and violence in the domestic problems of 139 adults with alcohol problems appearing in family court. Most of the persons studied were victims of violence rather than the offenders. The categories of violence included. 52% reported assaults on the wife and 10% reported assaults of the children. The final analysis concluded that violence is more likely to occur in families with alcohol problems. Zerichner and Pihl (1979) conducted a study entitled ”Alcohol. Behavior Contingencies. and Human Aggression“. They concluded that subjects who were administered 12 alcohol behaved more aggressively on measures of physical aggression than non-intoxicated subjects. They also felt their findings suggest that the occurrence of aggressive behavior following the consumption of alcohol may in part be due to the individual's inability to process information pertinent to the consequences of his behavior. In a study of 11 families with alcoholic parents. Wilson and Orford (1978) found 36% of the families reported violence to either the spouse or the children. Young (1964) reported 60% of the 300 families with neglect or abused children had alcoholic parents. Research indicates that violence from drinking may occur in some families in the form of child abuse. Some of the following studies also indicate that some children may be neglected because of their parents drink- ing. The highest rate. 69% of parents with alcohol problems from Behling's study (1979) was mentioned in the Introduction of this paper. Others include Birrell and Birrell (1968) who reported a rate of 19% of alcoholism in 42 cases of neglected or abused children. Booz. Allen and Hamiliton (1974) reported that 28% of the children of 50 alcoholic parents had experienced or witnessed physical abuse. Delsordo (1963) reported 13 16% of the children from homes with excessive drinking were abused. From a study of 1.380 abused children Gil (1970) indicated that 12.9% of the parents were intoxicat- ed at the time of abuse. Johnson and Moorse (1968) indicated 25% of the fathers of 101 abused children. Lowry and Lowry (1971) found 16% of the parents were alcoholic. Browning and Boatman (1977) studied 14 family cases of incest and found 50% of the families had alcoholic fathers or stepfathers. One study that seems to refute the higher rates of alcoholic parents was by Steele and Polloch (1974) who found only 2% of 60 families of abusers were alcoholic. Steele suggested that the prevalence of alcoholism is no greater than it is in the general population. This writer certainly found most studies to show a high rate of alcohol use in neglectful and abusive families. However. as this present research is focused on the difficulty of working with drinking parents. the writer only wishes to establish that some of the neglect- ful and abusive parents have alcohol problems. While the literature seems to indicate that alcohol is a contributor of violence in abusive parents. this present research is focused on variables surrounding alcohol use and not directly on the cause of child abuse 14 or child neglect. This issue is mentioned at this point for clarification because of the literature that states there does not seem to be strong empirical evidence to show that alcohol causes child abuse or that alcohol consumption is necessarily higher among abusive or neglectful parents. However. the number of studies supporting the concept of alcohol causing family problems gives a strong argument for. if not empirical evidence. that alcohol is at least a contributor to child neglect and abuse. Social Isolation. In regard to social isolation. Heinemann. Smith and DiJulion (1977) states: There are many factors responsible for the social isolation that occurs in chronic alcohol- ism. Characteristic sharp distinction between sober and drunk behavior are accompanied by inconsistent and unpredictable actions that eventually become a source of annoyance and frustration to those around the alcoholic person and lead to severance of social bonds. The person's inability to function adequately on the job leads to unemployment. loss of economic security. and disruption in family life. adding to the person's overall isolation.(p.18). School Performance. Haberman (1966) compared child- ren with alooholic parents with children of parents with stomach ulcers and a third group whose parents had neither ailment. Children from the families with alcohol- ic parents were found to be more likely known to correct- ional or school authorities. had more temper tantrums and 15 fights. Day (1961) indicates the child of the alcoholic is bound to have problems in learning what is expected of him and what he can expect from others as almost inevitably his parents have behaved inconsistently toward him or her. Hughes (1977) in a study regarding children of alcoholics found that ”adolescents of alcoholic parents" often suffer from negative emotional moods. low self- esteem and poor social adjustment. Cork (1969) studied the children of alcoholics partly by direct interview. The children in his study suffered both with familial relationships and in relationships outside the family. Their school work was seriously affected. Violence In The Family. Gelles and Straus (1979) studied violence in families by examining 2.143 American families. nationally. Their research does not mention alcohol as being a cause of violence in families. However. some of the variables they mention as affecting violence are the same variables examined in this research. They found families with the lowest income (less than $6,000 per year) had the highest rate of violence. The rates of violence were highest among non-professional occupations. Employment also seems to affect violence in that l6 non-employed husbands were more violent than employed husbands. Social isolation also seemed to be a factor as parents who did not belong to organizations such as clubs. unions. church groups. ect.. were more violent than those who do. Also. they found that parents who lived in the same neighborhood for less than 3 years had higher rates of abusive violence than parents who have lived in the same neighborhood for 3 years or more. Violence was more prevalent in parents who had experienc- ed violence as a child. and their own children were more violent than children from less violent homes. In homes where violence did occur. it usually occurred more than once. It is interesting that some of the same variables that seem to affect families with alcohol problems also seem to affect violence in families. Social Isolation and Neglect. In a study comparing a sample of parents identified as neglectful with another group not identified as neglectful. Polansky and Chalmers (1979) found social isolation to be more prevalent among the neglectful parents. Social isolation was determined by examining who. if anyone. the subject goes to for assistance. The neglect parents were more than 3 times as likely to be completely isolated as the control group. 17 Summation. The literature seems to indicate that a person of little education. no employment. small income. and coming from a background of alcohol problems is more likely to have drinking problems than a person of more education. with employment. higher income. and parents who do not drink. Violence seems to be affected by some identical variables: that is a person with no employment. low in- come. and coming from a background of violence (similiar behavior) in the family is more likely to be violent than a person with employment. more income. and not coming from a background of violence. Alcohol use is sometimes followed by violence. social isolation and poor school performance of children. Social isolation is also more prevalent in abusive and neglectful families. Researchgypothesis The purpose of this research will be to apply infor- mation already available thru the literature concerning the behaviors and consequences of parents with drinking problems and to add to this information by examining parents who have changed this behavior. Hypothesis I. It is hypothesized that parents who have had a drinking problem but who have stopped will 18 have more employment. more education. higher income. and their family history will reveal that fewer had parents with alcohol problems: when they are compared to parents still having drinking problems. Hypothesi§:II. It is further hypothesized that the children of the former drinking parents will have less physical punishment and will perform better in school and in the community than the children of the parents currently drinking. HypothesisAIII. It is also hypothesized that the former drinkers will be less isolated than the parents presently drinking. The null hypothesis is also stated in that the data gathered may indicate that there is no difference in education. income. employment. family history. children's performance. and social isolation between the former problem drinkers and those currently having drinking problems. Chapter III Methodology Research Site The location of this study is in a rural county in a midwest state. The 1980 census indicates a population of approxiamately 20.000 people. It is a tourist area. attracting tourists from southern areas both instate and out. There is very little industry. The largest employ- er in the county is a textile factory making disposable diapers which employs about 400 persons. There are other various small factories making some car parts and other industrial products. Wood products from very small operations. with wood coming from local forests also contribute to some employment. unemployment typically reaches 25% in the winter months. even when the national economy is good. Personal median income was $1.300 less than the national average in 1969 with 14% of the populat- ion below the poverty level. Sommers (1977). The economy appears basically the same now as it was in 1969. Research Subjects The subjects for this research were chosen from two different population groups of parents. One subject group (population I) consisted of parents identified as problem 19 20 drinkers and also identified as either neglectful or abusive towards their children. The second subject group (population II) consisted of parents currently attending AA meetings who define themselves as recovering alcohol- ics. The sample from the first group. population I. con- sisted of nine parents. four couples and one single parent. This sample was obtained from this writer's caseload. They are parents of temporary court wards supervised by the Department of Social Services. From this sample. at least one parent in each family had an alcohol problem. The total sample of 9 subjects actually contained 7 who are active alcohol users. Table 3.1 lists the subjects and also identifies a problem or problems they have encountered as a direct result of their drinking. The following are alcohol related problems found among these parents: being arrested for drunk driving. physical assault of others. losing a job. use of funds intended for shelter or food to purchase alcoholic beverage. forcing family members to do without basics. As previously stated defining the term. alcohol prob- lem. can be confusing. For this research an alcohol problem is defined as one or more of the above problems when it can be established that alcohol was a contributing factor. Subjects 1. Husband A 2. Husband B 3. Wife B 4. Husband C 5. Wife C 6. Husband D 7 . Wife D 8. Husband E 9. Wife E TABLE [Alcohol use Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 21 .1 Problems Husband arrested and con- victed; driving under in- fluence. Arrested for disorderly conduct while under influence. Husband had forced lay-off from job because of drinking. Missed over 1 yr. of employ- ment. Physically abusive towards wife and children. Welfare funds mispent on alcohol; with food and hous- ing needs for family ignored. Physically threatening and abusive to wife and children. Wife had drank to point of being sick. Missed appoint- ments. Threatening to husband. Husband physically assaultive to wife and children while under influence. Admits not being able to remember amount of money spent while drinking. Husband has had 8 drinking related arrests. Presently in jail for driving offense while under the influence. Wife and 5 children currently living in 8140 mobile home: attempting to save several hundred dollars for fines and court costs. Obviously having difficulty with food. heat and shelter. In all above cases these problems have been documented either by direct observation by this writer or official records made available from court reports or child welfare records. 22 The neglect and abuse of the children has been established by the adjudication process in the local Probate Court. Neglect for this research is defined as failure to provide the necessities of food. shelter. medical care. and supervision. Abuse is defined as parental injury resulting from intentional acts by the parents. Population I consisted of the parents who dis- played behaviors which need to be changed in order for their children to be returned to their custody. Population II consisted of parents who were currently attending AA meetings in this county. The sample included individuals who voluntarily agreed to complete a two-part questionnaire. These individuals by their own definition were recovering alcoholics. meaning they had made a decision that they are individuals who should not drink because of the adverse affect alcohol has on them. They are individuals who also by their own definition have had problems because of their drinking. This population represented individuals who have changed their behavior in the area of alcohol use. Research Design The independent variables of this study are: parent education. parent income. parent employment history. family alcohol history. and parent alcohol use. The major 23 independent variable is parent alcohol use. The dependent variables of this study are: parent social isolation. parent use of violence and children's performance in school. The information regarding the parents from popula- tion I was recorded when each set of parents were inter- viewed in the same office by this writer. As all of these families have been intensely involved with Social Services. lengthy case histories have been accumulated. The information from population II was solicited by contacting available AA member leaders listed in a local AA pamphlet. These leader members are contacts for other individuals interested in attending AA meetings. Four individual leaders were contacted from four different locations in the county and after explanation was given regarding the research project. a meeting was requested with them. Three of the four leaders agreed to do this. The one abstainer explained it was his position that absolutely no outside material is allowed at AA meetings. and he would not ask members to fill out a questionnaire. This individual also refused to participate beyond the phone call. The remaining three agreed to meet with this writer. At each individual meeting the research was explained by this writer. as 24 well as the importance of having parents who are re- covering alcoholics as sources of information. Each of the three AA member leaders agreed to attempt to have parents from their respective AA meetings complete the questionnaires. The questionnaires were designed so that no subject identifier material was contained in them. A post office box was rented for this specific research project to receive filled out questionnaires and stamped addressed envelopes were provided with each questionnaire. By having members of the AA hand out the questionnaires on their own. subject anonymity was maintained. The questionnaires for the AA members were designed in two sections. The second section was a repeat of 21 questions to be answered as the questions referred to when drinking was a problem. Measuring Device A 33 item questionnaire was used for the measuring device (Appendix A). Population I subjects completed only the 33 questions as contained on the first three pages of the questionnaire. Population II subjects were requested to complete both the original 33 questions and an additional 21 questions. Population II subjects were requested to answer these additional 21 questions as they 25 pertained to the point in their lives when alcohol was a problem. These additional questions were a repeat of some questions in the original 33 questions. The reason for repeating the questions was to use for comparison to population I and also so a comparison could be made between the past and present with-in population II. In the original 33 questions. the first five quest- ions covered: age. sex. marital status. number of child- ren. and religion. The answers were all scored as they appeared on the questionnaire. Question 8 in regards to education was measured by a numerical value of l to 16. with the value of 12 represent- ing a High School education and 16 a College degree. Income was coded as it appeared on the questionnaire. Employment history referred to the percent of the time an individual had been employed and was recorded as it appeared. Occupation was divided into 3 categories and is de- fined in Appendix B. Family history was in regards to whether or not an individual's parents had a drinking problem and was answered by either yes or no. As noted above. the dependent variables of this study are children's performance. social isolation and violence. Children's performance was measured by their grades 26 in school as indicated by question 28. The answers were recorded as answered. Question 29. answered as recorded. indicated child activities. Question 30 indicated if the children attend church. This question as well as the previous question was an attempt to de- termine social isolation of the children. In regards to the parents. social isolation was addressed by 10 different questions which were: 6.7.19. 20.21.22.23.24.25. and 26. Questions 6.7.19.20. and 21 were also scored as answered. Question 22 was based on a scale called the Family Support Index from research by Polansky. Chalmers. Buttenwiser. and Williams (1979). This question was scored a value of one thru six based on one of the follow- ing categories. 1. Completely isolated. No one helps. or client stated that the only person to be counted on was a social worker. 2. Family dyad. One parent or one sibling can be counted on to help. 3. Friend dependent. No family member can be counted on. only one friend can be called on. 4. Family bound. Two or more immediate family members (parents or siblings) only can be called upon to help. 5. Family and friend related. At least one member of the immediate family and one friend or more didtance relative can be called upon to help. 27 6. Supported. At least one immediate family member and at least two friends or more distant relatives can be called upon to help. Questions 23 thru 26 were scored as answered. Violence was dealt with by question 33. This question was asked in regards to disciplining a child by spanking. While spanking one's child would not be viewed by many as violence. this research used the definition from the research by Gelles and Straus (1979). Their research includes spanking as an act of violence based on the reasoning that a spanking is an act intended to cause pain. and if administered to someone who is not a family member. would be viewed as assault in the eyes of the law. Their definition of violence is ”an act carried out with the intention or perceived intention of physically hurting another person“ (p. 20). This writer felt that the likelihood of receiving an accurate answer in regards to violence in the home would be slight. However. as spanking is common. (between 84% and 97$ of all parents use some form of physical punish- ment of their children at some time during the child- rearing relationship. Erlanger. 1974) the feeling was that parents would be more open about this form of violence. 28 Values were given to the available responses as indicated in Table 3.2. TABLE 3.2 Values For Question 33 (Parent Use of Physical Punishment) Response Value A. Never 5 B. Less than once a month C. Once a month D. Once a week E. Once a day 0 H NW 4? F. Several times a day Research Strengths and Weaknesses All four of the AA leader members selected as con- tacts were very guarded in regards to becoming involved in gathering any information. The AA organization stresses anonymity and it was their feeling that many members would not participate even though extensive measures were being taken to assure that individuals could not be identified. There was no way of predicting how large a sample would be possible from this group. The questionnaire was designed to be as non-threatening 29 as possible. but it was impossible to directly approach the subjects who would fill it out. The major weakness in this research is the small number in both population I and II. as indicated on Table 3.3. TABLE . Population Characteristics Population I Population II (N=97 (AA. Members N=9) Age (mean) 30.8 44.5 Sex Males (5) 56% (7) 76¢ Females (4) 44% (2) 24% unmatched comparison groups is another weakness of this present study. however. until the research was well underway. knowledge relating to this was unobtainable. In selecting these two types of population. matching factors such as age of parents and ages of children was not practical. The small number was one reason for this. however. there was a large difference between ages of population I and population II with population II being much older. A major strength is the accuracy of the data from population I. As this is typically a difficult group 30 of individuals to work with. this writer felt fortunate to have access to this information to make a compari- son. While population II was alSo a difficult group from which to obtain information. it was felt self-reporting with complete anonymity was a strength that would allow for accurate answers. One further point should be made about the small numbers for this research: Since the research was conducted in a small county with a population of 20.000 individuals. and because the samples chosen both came from two small select groups. (AA and adjudicated neglect cases) this writer feels the sample is a representative group of both populations. Chapter IV Findings Data Analysi . The data collected was analyzed using three different methods: a comparison of means. the F Distribution and the Standard Error of the Differ- once. A comparison of means was used for all the questions used in the analysis except those excluded from the research. Section II of this chapter presents the means. The F Distribution was used to test the null hypothesis that two Sample variances estimate a common population variance. Testing was done at the .05 level of significance. Section III presents analysis of the data on: age. income. education. church attendance. social isolation items. family history. and physical discipline. The Standard Error of the Difference as a test for differences between means was used to test two sets of items also at the .05 level of significance. The first set contains 9 items identified as isolation items and the second set contains 4 items identified as family history items. The fourth section presents the 31 32 findings using the Standard Error of the Difference. There were some questions discarded because of a lack of data. These are questions 13.15.28.29.30.3l. and 32. Five of these questions were in regards to children's performance and were not answered by some AA members (Population II) because their children are now adults. However. as there are answers from Popula- tion I in regards to children's performance. the last section of the chapter on Findings makes a comparison between the literature and Population I. Section II Mean Scores. The mean age of the subjects and their children is presented on Table 5.1 and shows a sub- stantial age difference between groups. Also included is the mean age when subjects started to drink and their sex. TABLE .1 Ages of Subjects and Their Children ‘Egpgg Pop.II (AA members) Mean Age Subjects 30.8 44.5 Mean Children's Age 4.8 18.4 Mean Age Subjects started to drink 16 17.8 Sex of Subjects: Male 7 7 Female 2 2 33 Table 5.2 compares means for income. employment (Percent of time employed defined in Appendix B) and type of occupation (also defined in Appendix B). Population II will have 2 columns of answers. the second column is for the questions that were repeated in their second questionnaire. TABLE 5.2 Employment 222;; {gowII fahefildrink- ins) Percent Time Employed 19% 83% 80.5 Income $11,200 $21,755 $17,000 Occupation Type: Professional 0 44% Skilled o 33% unskilled 100% 221 34 Religion and church attendance data is presented in Table 5.3. Religion is presented exactly as listed by the subjects. This data indicates AA members attended church more often when they were drinking as compared to the present. TABLE . Religion and Church Attendance Pop.I Po .11 P0 .II (now) (when drink- ins) Religions: Baptist 2 1 Catholic 1 l Methodist 1 2 Non-Denominational 2 0 Protestant 3 5 Total 9 9 Percent (mean) Sundays in church now. 6.6% 24.4% Percent (mean) Sundays in church as child. 33% 75% Percent Sundays for AA in past. 33% 35 Social isolation items are shown in Table 5.4. While the individual questions are scored by different methods. including percentage. assigned values and direct scores. the scores are designed to give higher values for less isolation. All scores given are means. TABLE .4 Isolation Items Pop.I Po .II Po .II (now) (when drink- ins) Subjects having telephones 40% 100% 100% Subjects having cars 60% 100% 100% Number of times per/wk. able to leave home 5 6.7 5.7 Visits out of the home (per/wk.) 2.5 3.6 3 Visits in the home (per/wk.) 2.4 1.7 2 Percent of time not alone 63.2% 76% 78.6% Isolation Score (question 22) 1.7 4 2.1 Organization participation 0 1.8 .6 36 The most important question regarding family history is the subject's parents drinking. This information is presented in Table 5.5. Three other items that are part of family history; church attendance as a child. education and age of first drink have already been presented. TABLEg5g5 Number of Subjects with Drinking Parents Pop.I Pop.II Parents with Drinking Problems 9 (100%) 5 (55%) Violence was measured by one question and that question was asked in regards to spanking one's child. This question was scored by placing a higher value on less spanking. The results are presented in Table 5.6. There is no result for population II at the present as most of their children are now adults. TABLE .6 Spanking as a-Form of Discipline Pop.I Pop.II (when drinking) Score from Question 33 2-7? 3 37 The type of geographic area in which the subjects were in the past. and now are living. is presented in Table 5.7. The definition of the areas are found in Appendix B. TABLE 5.7 Geographic Living Area Pop.I Po .II Po .II (now) (when drinking) As a child: City 1 a No Township 2 1 information Rural 6 4 Presently: City 3 1 1 Township 0 2 2 Rural 6 6 6 38 Section III F Distribution Using the null hypothesis that the two sample variances estimate a common population variance. testing was done using the F Distribution (Loether and McTavish. 1974). The testing was done with .95 confidence limits. The results of the categories used for F Distribu- tion are presented on Table 5.8. As the N for both population is 9. the Degrees of Freedom (N-l) was df1= 8 and df2= 8 for all categories except. income. Because the income for population I represented 5 households in that particular category df1= 4. The Critical Score than was 3.44 for all categories except income and that value is given as 6.04. In the categories of employment. income. education. church attendance as a child. and discipline. the F score was lower than the Critical Score indicating that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for hypothesis I and II. The F score was greater than the critical score in the categories of drinking age. present age. isolation scale. and present church attendance. In these categories the null hypothesis is rejected. supporting the hypothesis that population II is less isolated (hypothesis III). 39 $5 a: ms.a ::.m mo.s as.m ao.a as.m ss.: :2.m om.m as.m am.a a:.m ma.s so.o as.a as.m cacom .ooaoua adoaaaao om mm.n m~.sma soa.c mos.oa mm.:s a:.ma oom.ame.m m:m.m mocmduo> a Ho.m m.H mm.m mm.oa m.m «.3: as.mm m.om mm s:m.m mm :.:m oom.m o.m m.sa 3H 0H m.mH mw.:~ N.oa oom.am‘ ooo.moa.m oo~.aa mm mmmm ma some Asses HH. 0% Oofimdhwb H. Om Seapfindhpman .m m. mqm<8 ANN soaaocsov mason coapmaomH omaaodoman Aumomoaov owd adage no code lessons ceases Asocv some reasons £09530 owd wcdxcann coausosum caoosH umoahoaosm Nnouopmo 40 In some categories the F Distribution was not used because either in population I or population II. there was no variance. In population I all individuals have had parents having drinking problems. In population II all individuals have telephones and cars. There was no organization participation in population I. These categories will be tested in the next section. Section Four Tgpt for Differences Between Means To further analyze some of the data a test for differ- ences between means was used giving a T score computed from the Standard Error of the Difference. Table 5.9 demonstrates the findings of 9 items from the question- naire. all identified as isolation items. The values listed in the first two columns are all means and the higher values indicate less isolation. To reject the null hypothesis that population I has isolation equal to or greater than population II will take a T value great- er than 1.860. This is a one-tailed test. .05 level of significance. with 8 degrees (N-l) of freedom. The results of this analysis indicates a T value of 2.06 meaning the null hypothesis was rejected. This same method was used to analyze the following four items together (Table 5.10): parents with alcohol 41 amen n mow $.ch am.~ am; o~.m sma so.oo oom.a oow.m m.mma m.md n.H m. H.H m.N m.H w.m 0: om on :.:m v.0 To m m.H s.m m.m m.m : m.H m.H 0 on m.oo 00H ow ooa on Amanda Anamoav S. cm mug cocoachman on» no gonna uncommon wqmda one oonoocopum mousse oao: ohmoH on sand mac: ca madma> 0502 no #50 madma> spoon zodpmaoma mans Inonaoa oodaonaoowao cacao no: made danmhonso you odsmhccso oaosooaos maouH modpoaomH 42 8.2.2 u mow Sosa Ho.m :m.m ma. mm T? u onw m: mm mm H.m m.ma N.oa m.H m.ma 0H :. s.a a I. zoos Afimoa Q HH. om H. om coconomman 02» mo nonnm uncommon one 0H. Manda .Uaano mo cocoUGOppo 209530 codnmosofi scape co cocoons owe .maoHQOHo Hosooam so“: munohmm osoaH uncooam aaasoa 43 problems. age started to drink. education. and church attendance as a child. All of these items were listed as family history items (see Appendix B for explanation of values assigned to parents with alcohol problems). The result of this analysis was a T value of 1.12. As there were 4 items. the critical value at the .05 level of significance is 2.353. As T was less than this. the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. While this research was not able to make a compari- son between population I and II in regards to children's performance. Table 5.11 gives the result to two questions as answered by population I in regards to children's performance. TABLE .11 Children's Performance Population I Number of children performing below average academically in school. 4 (26%) Number of children experiencing behavior problems in school or community. 5 (335) In research by Habermann (1966) comparing children from alcoholic families with two comparison groups. the children from alcoholic families had the highest percent 44 ages in all areas tested including: ”Frequent trouble in school because of bad conduct or truancy”. 19.5% and “Constant fighting with other children". 19.5%. The percentages for the general population was 9.8% in both categories. This present research also indicates a high percent of children from families with alcohol problems having difficulties in school. The results of the present study are less conclusive when it is noted that 6 of the 15 children from population I are not yet old enough to attend school. Chapter V Conclusions Both hypothesis I and II could not be supported by the findings from this research. however. hypothesis III was supported. Hypothesis I stated that a sample of non-drinking parents (population II) would have more employment. higher education. higher income. and less family history of alcohol problems than a sample of parents who do have a drinking problem (population I). Hypothesis II stated that the children of population II would have less physical punishment and perform better in school and community than the children of population I. Hypothesis III stated that population II would be less socially isolated than population I. The purpose of the research was to identify variables which might be used to facilitate the Juvenile Court planning and hopefully reunite families. First. the inconclusive findings in the areas of employment. education. income. family history. children's problems. and violence will be discussed in section II. Social isolation. the only variable with conclusive results will be discussed in section III. The fourth 45 46 section deals with application of this research. The fifth section provides a description of the two population groups and the final section (Section VI) summarizes the research. In the discussion that follows in this chapter. the small N of both populations should be taken into account. Sectioan; Ipconclusive Findings. Employment. education and in- come scores were higher in population II when the means are compared lending support to the hypothesis. However. when analyzed via the F distribution. the null hypothesis was supported. The small N is probably the major reason this research was unable to establish a significant difference in these areas using the F distribution. With- in the two populations there were a few individuals with employment and income scores that varied by a large amount. With a small N their scores affected the variance more than would have been the case with a large N. In population I every subject had at least one parent with a past drinking problem. Population II had 5 (55%) of the individuals with parents having drinking problems. The literature did indicate that family history does have an effect on the behavior of individuals in regards to age when they start to drink and their prognosis for recovery. with the prognosis being less optimistic for 47 those with drinking parents. In the present research. population I did start drinking at an earlier age. When the four items identified as family history items were analyzed together by the Standard Error of the Difference. there was not a significant difference between the two populations. There was a difference between both populations in favor of the hypothesis when just the means are compared. Physical punishment was used as an indicator of violence. The research using the results from the questionnaire was not able to demonstrate by using the F distribution that there was a statistical difference at the .05 level. However. the results from population II does not appear to be appropriate. Although all subjects except one answered the question. three others have no children under 18 years old. This writer feels these answers may either reflect how they used to discipline their children or their present philosophy towards discipline. However. as there is no way to be sure what these three answers reflect. it would not be appropriate to apply the results of this question. The performance of children in school has already been discussed in some detail in the results chapter. 48 Section III Conclusive Findings. Social isolation is the one area this research was most conclusive about. Ten questions were used to measure this subject and all but one demonstrated that there is more social isolation among population I. Statistically by comparing the means individually and collectively by using the differ- ence of means test. this research was able to reject the null hypothesis of no difference between the two populations. The literature indicated social isolation as a symptom of alcoholism but did not give a detailed definition of social isolation. Social isolation was also noted in the literature to be more common in homes of neglected children in comparison to other homes. This present research in regards to social isolation in population I presents a picture of a family which. compared to population II. belongs to no outside organizations. has fewer individuals to go to for help with a problem. visits fewer individuals outside of the home. has less transportation and fewer phones. and attends church less often. Social isolation. in this present research was used as a dependent variable. 49 However. it appears social isolation can be both a result of drinking and a cause for drinking and to effect change in families. it should be viewed this way. Section IV Application. The implications for applying this results to obtain change within families would appear good. Unlike family history. social isolation is an occurrence that can be changed. Social isolation may be a link in behavior that may operate in a cycle. (see Appendix C) changing the link may help family behavior. In some family situations there has not been success when the court emphasis has been on the parents to stop drinking. Perhaps in these cases if the emphasis were placed on re-arranging family schedules and living patterns to break the social isolation. success could be increased. Further application of Social Isolation could be a good predictor of child neglect and abuse not only in cases with problem drinkers but all cases. In making a decision in regards to placing children in foster care. once neglect and abuse has been established an evaluation of social isolation could be used. This 50 writer acknowledges that at least informally. it is already used by workers. However. I am suggesting that if this use could be refined and standardized. then when used. it would be more reliable. To accomplish refining and standardizing social isolation as a predictor would require further re- search. This writer would suggest a comparison of neglectful and abusive parents to non-abusive and non— neglectful parents to determine differences in social isolation. From these differences a scale containing threshold measures for social isolation could be con- structed. The use of such a scale could be at the first stages of a protective services investigation. Then. if children are removed. the scale could be used to help determine when to return them and finally in some cases. terminating parental rights. Section V ngulation Characteristics. This research provided an opportunity to learn about two different populations of parents. The emphasis was on population I. as they are the families involved with the Juvenile Court. Population II subjects. were chosen as AA members be- cause AA is an organization with members that have had 51 drinking problems. This writer felt AA members may have changed other variables when they changed their behavior with alcohol. Even though the county studied has a small population (20.000 persons) it would seem possible to obtain at least 25 responses from 25 different individuals. This projection was made after speaking to one of the AA leader members who seemed very optimistic. The response was extremely dis- appointing. The first hint of this negative response came when one of the contact persons refused to even meet to discuss the research. Two of the contact persons were extremely cooperative and felt they could disperse questionnaires at AA meetings. However. as it turned out. it appears only one of them actually dispersed questionnaires. This result may have occurred because of the anonymity problem. It appears that the first obstacle of having the questionnaire offered to a large number of AA members was never conquered. The AA members that did respond presented an image of a well educated. well paid. middle-age individuals who have been successful in their careers. This raises the question of how typical the responses this research 52 received are in comparison to the average AA member. Appendix D shows a comparison between part I and part II of the questionnaire for the AA members. There was very little actual difference in most areas between when they were drinking and now when they are not. Based on this experience. this writer received. a different approach would be in order for research of this nature. The literature indicated a high percent of alcohol problems in neglect and abuse families. The implica- tions from some of the research seems to be that alcohol is the cause or the major cause of the neglect and abuse. In this present research a study of popula- tion I has shown a multitude of individual and family problems. Population I portrays a family picture of a married couple with 3 children about 30 years old with no full-time employment. 10 years of education. an annual income of 311.000. currently experiencing some behavior problems after drinking. and the entire family being socially isolated. When all variables are taken into account. it is not clear if alcohol is a cause or an affect. In these particular cases alcohol appears to be a negative factor but than so does social isolation. unemployment. 53 and low income. If the alcohol use were stopped. the family situation might be improved. but it also appears that other variables need to be changed to bring about permanent change. The AA members by merely attending AA meetings have broken their social isolation. However. not all people having alcohol problems embrace AA as some seem to. or will even attend one meeting. Such is the case with most of the parents in population I. Perhaps then other forms of activity other than AA can be used to try and break the isolation. Parent education classed. church activities. family outings. family counseling. individ- ual counseling. school events. community events. and visiting with neighbors and friends are a few suggest- ions. Section VI To Summarize. The study originally focused on the problems of working with families abusing alcohol and which have child abuse and neglect problems. The pri- mary focus was on alcohol as a cause. The research itself. was plagued by a very small subject sample. However. it became apparent in the study of the literature and in the research that alcohol may be as 54 much an effect as a cause. Social isolation was found to be the most conclusive variable present in the neglect parents. More research is needed to pro- vide a usable scale for social isolation to use in the courts and other agencies as a predictor. APPENDIX A 55 APPENDIX A Preface to Parent Questionnaire Attached to this sheet is a five page questionnaire that has been carefully designed to collect information for research focused on helping families. This research is being co-ordinated thru Michigan State university. School of Criminal Justice. We are asking participating members of AA. who are parents to voluntarily fill out the questionnaire. All information obtained will remain in confidence and no names or other identifying informa- tion is requested. This is also tru in regards to the location of the AA meeting. We are only interested in families in general. not any specific location or person. Also attached is a stamped. addressed envelope. Once the questionnaire is completed. if you will mail it. we can then process the information. We do need the envelope mailed by April 22. 1982 in order to process the information. Thank You. \I 0‘ U'i 43' U N I-' O 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 56 QUESTIONNAIRE Age: Sex: M F Marital status: 8 M D Number of children: Religion: Church attendance: Per-cent of sundays in church: Church attendance: Per-cent of sundays in church as child Education: Years completed: Elementary College High School Occupation: Work history: Per-cent of the time employed: Present estimated yearly income: As a child. were both of your parents present in the home? YES or NO If answer is NO. which parent was present? M or F Number of siblings: How many are older than you?__ Did either of your parents drink alcohol beverages to the extent of causing family or community problems? YES or NO What. if any childhood activities were you involved in? a. Sports Number of years b. Scouts Number of years c. Band Number of years d. 4H Number of years c. Others Number of years At what age. (if you do drink) did you start? 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. The 27. 57 As a child were you raised in a: CITY SMALLTOWN City: 5.000 or over in pop. Smalltown: 2.500 to 5.000 RURAL AREA Rural Area: Less than 2.500 Is your present address in a: CITY SMALLTOWN RURAL AREA How many times each week do you visit with friends or relatives out of your home? How many times each week do you visit with friends or relatives in your home? What per-cent of the time do you spend alone? If you need help with a problem. do you go to others or do you ”get by” on your own? a. If you do go to others for help. how many each. of the following categories of people do you rely on when you need help. (For example: If you did not go to parents. brothers. or sisters. children or relatives. but you do go to two different friends. you would put the number 2 by friends and a zero 9 by the other categories) Parents Brothers or Sisters Friends Children Other Relatives Do you have a telephone? a. How often each week do you speak with friends or relatives on the phone? If you have a phone. Do you have your own working automobile? How often during a week are you able to leave your home either in your own automobile or in someone else's? Do you presently belong to organized groups such as the Masons. Knights of Columbus. Eagles. VFW. Bowling Leagues. Ect.? If so. please name. following questions are in regards to your children. Ages and school grade of your children. (No names) AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE 28. 29. 30. 31. 32- 33. 58 In school would you indicate the grades your children are receiving for each child. a. Far above average b. Above average c. Average d. Below average e. Far below average Do you feel the behavior of your children at home. in the community. and in school is: a. Normal. with no unusual problems b. Below normal. with more than usual number of problems with some negative reports from the community and school c. Far below normal. with suspension problems in school. contact from the police and control problems at home Activities that your children are involved in: Such as sports. scouts. band. 4H. or others. If so. please name. Do your children attend church? YES NO If yes. how often? What per-cent of each day would you estimate your child is away from the home (other than school)? a. What do they do when they are away? How often do you discipline your children by spanking? a. Never________ b. Less than once a month c. Once a month “‘ d. Once a week e. Once a day f. Several times a day 59 QUESTIONNAIRE - PART II This part of the interview questions pertain to your past. If you have had a drinking problem. we would like you to answer these questions to the best of your ability. as they pertain to you at the time drinking was a problem. Thank You. 1. Number of children: 2. Church attendance: Per-cent of sundays in church: 3. Occupation: 4. Work history: Per-cent of the time you were employed: 5. Past estimated yearly income: 6. Was your address in a: CITY SMALLTOWN RURAL AREA 7. How many times each week did you visit with friends or relatives out of your home? 8. How many times each week did you visit with friends or relatives in your home? 9. What per-cent of the time did you spend alone? 10. If you needed help with a problem. did you go to others or did you “get by" on your own? a. If you did go to others for help. how many each. of the following categories of people did you rely on when you needed help. Parents Brothers or Sisters Friends Children Other Relatives 11. Did you have a telephone? a. How often each week 315 you speak with friends or relatives on the phone? (If you had a phone) 12. 13. 14. The 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 69 Did you have your own working automobile? How often during a week were you able to leave your home either in your own automobile or in someone else's? Did you belong to organized groups such as the Masons. Knights of Columbus. Eagles. VFW. Bowling Leagues. Ect.? If so. please name. following questions are in regards to your children. Ages and school grade of your children. (no names) AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE AGE GRADE In school would you indicate the grades your children were receiving for each child. a. Far above average d. Below average b. Above average e. Far below average__ c. Average Did you feel the behavior of your children at home. in the community and in school was: a. Normal. with no unusual problems b. Below normal. with more than usuaI number of problems with some negative reports from the community and school c. Far below normal. witR suspension problems in school. contact from the police and control problems at home Activities that your children were involved in: Such as sports. scouts. band. 4H. or others. If so. please name. Did your children attend church? YES NO If yes. how often? What per—cent of each day would you estimate your child was away from the home (other than school)? a. What did they do when they were away? How often did you discipline your children by spanking? a. Never d. Once a week b. Less than once a month e. Once a day f. Several times a day c. Once a month APPENDIX B 1. Question 9 2. Question 10 3. Question 14 61 APPENDIX B Definitions of Questionaire Terms and Scoring Occupation: Three categories were used to identify occupations. A. Professional: any occupation re- quiring at least 2 years of college B. Skilled: any building or con- struction trade re- quiring prior train- ing 0 C. Unskilled: manual type work re- quiring no refined skills or training. Per-cent Time Employed: Full employment (100%) is based on 40 hour week. This question requires a YES or NO answer. To score the question for statistical analysis. the value of 1 was assigned to the answer NO and 2 to the answer YES. APPENDIX C 62 APPENDIX C Population I - Cycle of Problems Based on information from questionaire Petitioned to Juvenile Court Oldest child reaches age 16 START HERE 7| Neglect or Reported Investigation Abuse and QR Social Isolation Unemployment Low income Drinking Problel Oldest child has problem in school Subject Born \ Subject's parents experience alcohol related problems .1 Subject Age 22 First child born Subject reaches 16 Starts to drin Drops out of school 10th grade APPENDIX D 63 APPENDIX D A comparison of part I and part II of the questionaire for population II is made in this appendix. the 21 questions are used. unusable information or unreliable information. Item Church attendance Employment Visits per/wk. out of home Visits per/wk. in home Isolation Score Has car Has phone Organizations belong to Population II Pop.II (at the present time) 2n.uz 83% 3.6 1.7 100% 100% 1.8 Only 9 of The other 12 contained either When Drinking 33 80.5% 2.1 100% 100% .6 Using the standard error of the difference a T score of +.89 was computed for this comparison. This supports the null hypothesis of no difference between the scores. Bibliography 64 Bibliography Behling. D.W.. "Alcohol Abuse as Encountered in 51 Instances of Reported Child Abuse.“ Clinical Pediatrics. 18. 1979. Birrell. R.G. and Birrell. J.H.. ”The Maltreatment Syndrome in Children: a Hospital Survey.“ Medical Journal Aust.. 2. 1968. Booz. Allen and Hamilton. "An Assessment of the Needs of and Resources for Children of Alcoholic Parents.“ Prepared for the U.S. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Springfield. Virginia Nation- al Technological Information Service. 1974. Browning. Diane and Boatman. B.. ”Incest Children at Risk." American Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 134:1. January. 1977. Byles. John. ”Violence. Alcohol Problems and Other Problems in Disintegrating Families.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Vol. 39. No. 3. 1978. Cahalan. Don and Cisin. Ira. “American Drinking Practices: Summary of Findings from a National Probability Saggle." Journal of Studies on Alcohol. No. 29. 19 . Day. Barbara. “Alcoholism and The Family". Marriage and Family Living. August. 1961. Delsordo. J.D.. "Protective Casework for Abused Children". Children. Vol. 10. 1963. DiJulio. K. and Heinemann. ”Assessment and Care of the Chronically Ill Alcoholic Person". In Estes N. and Heinemann. Alcoholism. The C.V. Mosby Co.. Saint Louis. 1977. p. 246. Erlanger. H.B.. ”Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing: A Reassessment". American Sociological Review. Vol. 39. 1974. Estes. Nada and Heinemann. Edith. Alcoholism. The C.V. Mosby Co.. Saint Louis. 1977. 65 Gelles. R. and Straus. M.. “Violence in the American Family“. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 35. No.2. 1979. Gil. D. G.. Violence against Children: Physical Child Abuse in the United States. Harvard university Press. Cambridge. 1970. Goodwin. D. W.. “Alcohol Problems in Adoptees Raised Apart from Alcoholic Biological Parents“. Arch. General Psychiatry. Vol. 28. 1973. Haberman. Paul. “Childhood Symptoms in Children of Alcoholics and Comparison Group Parents“. Journal of Marriage and the Fami:y. Vol. 28. 1966. Hoffman. H.. “County Characteristics and Admission to State Hospital for Treatment of Alcoholism“. Psychol. Rept.. Vol. 35. 1974. Hoffman. H. and Noem. A.A.. “Alcoholism Among Parents of Male and Female Alcoholics“. Psych. Rept.. v01 0 36 I 1975 “ Hoffman. H. and Noem. A.A.. “Social Background Variables. Referral Sources and Life Events of Male and Female“. Psychol. and Rept.. Vol. 37. 1975. Johnson. H. and Morse. H.A.. “Injured Children and Their Parents“. Children. Vol. 15. 1968. Kinney. Jean and Leaton. Gwen. Loosenin The Grip. The C. V. Mosby Co.. Saint Louis. 1 8. Loether. H. and McTavish. D.. Inferential Statistics For Sociologists. Allyn and Bacon. Boston. 1974. Lowry. T. P. and Lowry. A.. “Abortion As a Preventive for Abused Children“. Psychiatric Opinion. Vol. 8. 1971. Mulford. Harold. “Drinking and Deviant Drinking U.S.A. 1922“. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Vol. 25. 19 . Orme. Terri and Rimmer. John. “Alcoholism and Child Abuse“. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Vol. 42. No. 3. 1981. 66 Penick. E.. Read. M.. Crowley. P. and Powell. B.. “Differentiation of Alcoholics by Family History“. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Vol. 39. No. 11. 1978. Polansky. N.. Chalmers. M.. Buttenwiesser. E. and William. D.. “Isolation of the Neglectful Family“. American Journal of Orthopsychiatric. Vol. #9. I979 . Schuckit. M.. Gunderson. E.. Heckman. N. and Kolb. D.. “FAmily History as a Predictor of Alcoholism in U.S. Navy Personal“. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Vol. 37. No.‘Il. 1976. Silverstein. Alvin and Silverstein. Virginia. Alcoholism. J.B. Lippincott Co.. Philadelphia. 1975. Sommers. Lawrence. Atlas of Michigan. Michigan State University Press. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 197?. Steele. B.F. and Pollock. C.B.. “A psychiatric study of parents who abuse infants and small children“. In Helfer R.E. and Kempe. C.H.. The Battered Child. university of Chicago Press. Chicago. 1975. Templer. Donald. Ruff. Carol and Ayers. Joyce. “Essential Alcoholism and Family History of Alcoholism“. uarterl Journal of Studies of 'Alcoholism. Vol. 53. 1973: Wilson. Clare and Orford. Jim. “Children of Alcoholics“. Journal of Studies on Alcohol. Vol. 39. No. l. 1978. Young. L.R.. Wednesday's Children. McGraw - Hill. New York. 1964. Zeichner. Amos and Pihl. R.G.. “Alcohol Behavior Contingencies and Human Aggression“. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Vol. 88. April. I97 . "vmrmimES