NCJ Number
216372
Journal
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency Volume: 43 Issue: 4 Dated: November 2006 Pages: 326-356
Date Published
November 2006
Length
31 pages
Annotation
Using data from a national sample of 1,423 adolescents, this study examined how the effects of key family variables on delinquency depend on 2 indicators of a community's level of disadvantage: its objective level of community poverty and its perceived inadequacy as a place to raise children (as rated by parents).
Abstract
Study findings support the hypothesis that the effects of family circumstances on juvenile delinquency increase significantly when families live in disadvantaged communities. This pattern held true for both measures of community disadvantage used in the study. These findings are consistent with some of the analyses reported in several prior studies. The authors advise that failure to consider community disadvantage as a moderator does not undermine the importance of family influences on delinquency; however, it does miss an opportunity to identify contextual factors that moderate the effects of family. Future research should not only seek to confirm these findings but also use data that allows for a time lag between the parenting and crime measures, since the current study had to rely on measures of family problems and crime that came from the same wave of data. The study used data from the National Survey of Children (NSC), a panel study of U.S. adolescents and their families. NSC data were supplemented with data from the 1980 census. The NSC data were used to measure five family variables: parent-child attachment, parental monitoring, parental reinforcement of prosocial behavior, parents' use of physical punishment, and parental coercion. The two measures of community disadvantage were available in the second wave of the NSC. The NSC also obtained data on juveniles' self-reported involvement in vandalism, assaults producing injuries, theft from stores, and drug use. The study used a number of control variables to address concerns with spuriousness. 6 tables, 6 notes, and 71 references