178285

DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FIC

E

OF JUSTICE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

IJOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator September 1999

Family Disruptionand Delinquency

Terence P. Thornberry, Carolyn A. Smith, Craig Rivera,David Huizinga, and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber

From the Administrator

Despite a multitude of happy excep-tions, it is a sad truth that childrenin families disrupted by divorce orseparation have a greater chance ofexhibiting problem behavior, includingdelinquency, than children beingraised by two parents. This Bulletinexamines the impact that multiplechanges in family structure have onan adolescent’s risk of seriousproblem behavior.

Research teams in 3 cities interviewed4,000 youth and their caretakers toanalyze the prevalence of delinquentbehaviors and drug use and thenumber of family transitions the youthhad experienced. The researchersfound that these young people hadfaced a substantial number of familytransitions, which can result indecreased financial security andincreased stress and conflict. InRochester, NY, and Denver, CO, thenumber of transitions had a significanteffect on delinquency and drug use,with the Pittsburgh, PA, data showingthe same trend, although not at astatistically significant level.

The findings reported here add toour knowledge about families andchildren at risk and give us a broaderunderstanding of delinquency and itscauses. Society cannot guarantee anintact, stable family for every child,but we can—and must—make everyeffort to counteract the negativeeffects of family disruption.

Shay BilchikAdministrator

This Bulletin is part of the Office of Ju-venile Justice and Delinquency Prevention(OJJDP) Youth Development Series, whichpresents findings from the Program of Re-search on the Causes and Correlates ofDelinquency. Teams at the University atAlbany, State University of New York; theUniversity of Colorado; and the Universityof Pittsburgh collaborated extensively indesigning the studies. At study sites inRochester, New York; Denver, Colorado;and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the threeresearch teams have interviewed 4,000participants at regular intervals for adecade, recording their lives in detail.Findings to date indicate that preventingdelinquency requires accurate identifica-tion of the risk factors that increase thelikelihood of delinquent behavior and theprotective factors that enhance positiveadolescent development.

The composition of families is oneaspect of family life that is consistentlyassociated with delinquency. Childrenwho live in homes with only one parentor in which marital relationships havebeen disrupted by divorce or separationare more likely to display a range of emo-tional and behavioral problems, includingdelinquency, than children from two-parent families (Wells and Rankin, 1991).

Since 1970, the proportion of Americanhouseholds that have children who live

with both parents has declined substantially.In 1970, 64 percent of African American chil-dren lived with two parents, compared with35 percent in 1997; comparable figuresfor white children are 90 percent and74 percent, respectively (Lugaila, 1998).According to some estimates, as manyas 40 percent of white children and 75percent of African American childrenwill experience parental separation ordivorce before they reach age 16 (Brayand Hetherington, 1993) and many ofthese children will experience multiplefamily disruptions over time (Furstenbergand Cherlin, 1991).

As alarming as these figures are, theydo not address the impact of familytransitions on individual children. Thesetransitions can set into motion changesin residence, financial conditions, familyroles, and relationships along with in-creased stress and conflict in the home.All of these factors have major implica-tions for children’s adjustment (Bumpassand Sweet, 1989; Shaw, Emery, and Tuer,1993). While some studies have found thatthe number of family transitions is linkedto delinquency (Capaldi and Patterson,1991; Fergusson, Horwood, and Linsky,1992), there is little information on theimpact of multiple family transitions onserious adolescent problem behaviorsuch as delinquency and drug use,

2

Number of Family Transitions

Figure 3: Number of Family Transitions—Pittsburgh

Per

cent

age

of Y

outh

Age

s 11

–15

Figure 2: Number of Family Transitions—Denver


Per

cent

age

of Y

outh

Age

s 14

–18


especially in representative samplesthat include at-risk youth who experi-ence both problem behaviors and familytransitions. The central question of thisanalysis is: Are adolescents who experi-ence multiple changes in family structuremore likely to be involved in delinquencyand drug use than adolescents who livein more stable families?

MethodsTo address this issue, data were

drawn from the three longitudinalprojects of OJJDP’s Program of Researchon the Causes and Correlates of Delin-quency: the Rochester Youth Develop-ment Study, the Denver Youth Survey,and the Pittsburgh Youth Study. All threeprojects used prospective longitudinaldesigns that followed the same individu-als from childhood or early adolescencethrough early adulthood. Overall, thethree projects selected probabilitysamples totaling 4,000 urban youth. Ateach site, the youth and a primary care-taker were interviewed separately in pri-vate settings at established intervals.The specific designs of the projects havebeen reported in other OJJDP publica-tions, especially Browning et al. (1999).

In these studies, delinquency was mea-sured by self-reports of involvement in avariety of delinquent behaviors rangingfrom petty theft to aggravated assault;youth also indicated their use of illegaldrugs ranging from marijuana to heroin.In the analysis that follows, the responsesfor self-reported delinquency and druguse were cumulated over a 4-year periodcovering middle adolescence.

For the Rochester project, family tran-sitions were counted by comparing familystructure in adjacent interviews withboys and girls between the ages of 13 and17 (up to a maximum of eight transitionsusing 6-month interviews). For example,if a youth lived with both biological par-ents during the first interview and withthe biological mother only at the secondinterview, a transition occurred. If themother’s partner subsequently movedinto the household, a second transitionoccurred. A similar strategy was used inthe Denver project for boys and girls ages14 to 18 for the sample members whowere born in 1974 (up to a maximum offour transitions using annual interviews).In the Pittsburgh project, which includedonly boys, retrospective reports of thenumber of changes in caretaker statusoccurring between the ages of 11 and 15

Figure 1: Number of Family Transitions—Rochester

Per

cent

age

of Y

outh

Age

s 13

–17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5+

3

were obtained from the parent respon-dents for the seventh-grade cohort (nopredetermined maximum number of tran-sitions). The maximum possible numberof transitions varied across the threesites because of these differences in de-sign and measurement strategies.

ResultsThe youth in these urban samples

experienced a substantial number offamily transitions during adolescence.In Rochester, about two-thirds of thesample (64.5 percent) experienced atleast one change in family structureover the 4-year period and about 45percent experienced two or more transi-tions (see figure 1). Almost half of theDenver youth (49 percent) had one ormore family changes and 29 percent hadtwo or more (see figure 2). Family instabil-ity is less pronounced in Pittsburgh;about 30 percent of the boys experi-enced one or more family transitions(see figure 3).

The number of family transitions hada clear and statistically significant effecton the prevalence of delinquency anddrug use for the Rochester youth (seefigure 4). About two-thirds (64.1 percent)of those who experienced no changes infamily structure reported delinquency;this rate increased steadily as the num-ber of transitions increased, reaching apeak of 90 percent for youth who experi-enced five or more transitions. A stron-ger pattern was seen for drug use—about 28 percent of adolescents with nochange in family structure reported us-ing drugs, but that rate increased to al-most 60 percent for those who experi-enced five or more transitions.

In Denver (see figure 5), the preva-lence of delinquency increased signifi-cantly with an increase in family transi-tions, from 61 percent for youth with notransitions to a peak of 85 percent foryouth with three or more transitions.About one-third (31 percent) of adoles-cents with no family transitions useddrugs, and 58 percent of those with threeor more transitions used drugs.

In Pittsburgh (see figure 6), the rela-tionships between family transitions andboth delinquency and drug use were notstatistically significant, but the trend isthe same as that observed in Denver andRochester. While 64 percent of juvenileswho experienced no transitions reporteddelinquency, 80 percent of those whoexperienced three or more transitions

Pre

vale

nce

(Per

cent

)

Figure 4: Prevalence of Delinquency and Drug Use by Number ofFamily Transitions—Rochester


Figure 5: Prevalence of Delinquency and Drug Use by Number ofFamily Transitions—Denver

Figure 6: Prevalence of Delinquency and Drug Use by Number ofFamily Transitions—Pittsburgh

Pre

vale

nce

(Per

cent

)



Pre

vale

nce

(Per

cent

)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1 2 3+

Drug Use

Delinquency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3+

Drug Use

Delinquency

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 1 2 3 4 5+

Drug Use

Delinquency

4

reported delinquency. About 27 percent ofyouth with no family transitions reporteddrug use, and more than one-third (37.5percent) of those with three or more tran-sitions used drugs.

A more refined analysis (results notshown) using the Rochester data (Smith,Rivera, and Thornberry, 1997) examinedthese issues in greater depth to ensurethat the basic results reported in thisBulletin from data that compare only twovariables—family transitions and delin-quent behavior—are still accurate whenother factors are taken into account.First, in addition to measuring the pre-valence of delinquency and drug use(the data reported in figure 4), the fre-quency of involvement in delinquencyand drug use was examined. Second,the number of family transitions that oc-curred near the beginning of the studywas compared with delinquency anddrug use later in the study. This ensuresthat the predictor variable—experiencingfamily transitions—actually occurs be-fore the outcome variable—delinquencyor drug use. Finally, the effects of gender,family poverty, family structure at thebeginning of the study, parental supervi-sion, and earlier delinquency or drug usewere controlled when the relationshipsbetween family transitions and delin-quency and drug use were reexamined.This helps ensure that the relationshipsreported earlier (see figure 4) were notdue to these other variables. (See Smith,Rivera, and Thornberry, 1997, for theseresults.) In all of these comparisons, theresults were the same as those reportedhere: a greater number of family transi-tions was significantly related to a higherrate of delinquency and drug use.

Summary andConclusions

In urban samples with poor and ethni-cally diverse youth, many family transitionswere evident throughout adolescence. Inaddition, many other youth experiencedfamily transitions at earlier ages. Using thePittsburgh data, Stouthamer-Loeber (1993)showed that 67 percent of the sample hadexperienced at least one family transitionbetween birth and age 15—a high level offamily disruption.

Overall, the data reported here indi-cate a consistent relationship between agreater number of family transitions anda higher level of delinquency and druguse. The magnitude of the differences

ReferencesBray, J.H., and Hetherington, E.M. 1993.

Families in transition: Introduction andoverview. Journal of Family Psychology7(1):3–8.

Browning, K., Huizinga, D., Loeber, R.,and Thornberry, T.P. 1999. Causes andCorrelates of Delinquency Program. FactSheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.

Bumpass, L., and Sweet, J.A. 1989.Children’s experience in single-parentfamilies: Implications of cohabitation andmarital transitions. Family Planning Per-spectives 21(6):256–260.

Capaldi, D., and Patterson, D.M. 1991.Relation of parental transition to boys’adjustment problems: I. A linear hypoth-esis, II. Mothers at risk for transitions andunskilled parenting. Developmental Psy-chology 27(3):489–504.

Fergusson, D.M., Horwood, L.J., andLinsky, M.T. 1992. Family change, parentaldiscord and early offending. Journal ofChild Psychology and Psychiatry and AlliedDisciplines 33(6):1059–1075.

Furstenberg, F.F., Jr., and Cherlin, A.J.1991. Divided Families: What Happens toChildren When Parents Part. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Hetherington, E.M. 1993. An overviewof the Virginia Longitudinal Study of Di-vorce and Remarriage with a focus onearly adolescence. Journal of Family Psy-chology 7(1):39–56.

Lugaila, T. 1998. Marital Status and Liv-ing Arrangements: March 1998 (Update).U.S. Census Bureau Current PopulationSurvey Report P20–514. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

McLoyd, V. 1990. The impact of eco-nomic hardship on black families and chil-dren: Psychological distress, parenting,and socioemotional development. ChildDevelopment 61(2):311–346.

Moffitt, R.A. 1995. The effect of the wel-fare system on nonmarital childbearing.In Report to Congress on Out-of-WedlockChildbearing. Hyattsville, MD: U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, pp.167–176.

Shaw, D.S., Emery, R.E., and Tuer, M.D.1993. Parental functioning and children’sadjustment in families of divorce: A pro-spective study. Journal of Abnormal ChildPsychology 21(1):119–135.

between youth with no family transitionsand those with many family transitionswas similar across the three cities, andthe relationships were statistically signifi-cant in Rochester and Denver. These re-sults suggest that multiple family transi-tions are a risk factor for delinquency.

These findings have implications forthe prevention and treatment of delin-quency and drug use. As indicated, familytransitions may have a number of conse-quences for adolescent adjustment. Forexample, adolescents who experience on-going stress may have difficulty managinganger and other negative emotions, andthis may contribute to their involvementwith delinquency or drugs. Little is knownabout the relationships among these fac-tors, but this suggests the need for fur-ther research on assessment, screening,and treatment needs in this populationof youth.

On a societal level, there is evidencethat economic hardship and lack of ac-cess to opportunity and resources under-mine marital and parental functioning andthat poverty has had a particularly ad-verse impact on the initiation and stabil-ity of marriages among families of color(McLoyd, 1990; Wilson, 1987). The welfaresystem may also discourage marriage be-cause of concerns about benefits (Moffitt,1995).

A range of outcomes is possible foradolescents who experience family transi-tions. Additional information is neededon children who thrive despite severalchanges in family circumstances; it is im-portant to focus on the potential for resil-ience among these children. It is evidentthat some family separations reduce con-flict and stress. For example, overt mari-tal conflict may be greatly distressing tochildren; the stress may be reduced whenthe partners separate from one another.In addition, some members of the ex-tended family (such as a concerned step-parent or grandparent) who become moreinvolved in an adolescent’s life can pro-vide additional nurturing or other re-sources, such as financial help, that offsetthe impact of the transition. Researchon the aftermath of conflict and divorcesuggests a number of protective factors,including academic and social compe-tence and structured school environ-ments, that can promote resilience in ado-lescents who experience family transitions(Hetherington, 1993). Further researchwill illuminate other areas for policy andintervention.

5

Acknowledgments

Terence P. Thornberry, Ph.D., is Professor and former Dean at the School ofCriminal Justice, University at Albany, Albany, NY, and Director of the RochesterYouth Development Study. Carolyn A. Smith, Ph.D., is Associate Professor at theSchool of Social Welfare, University at Albany, and a Coprincipal Investigator ofthe Rochester Youth Development Study. Craig Rivera is a Ph.D. candidate at theSchool of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, and a research assistant for theRochester Youth Development Study. David Huizinga, Ph.D., is a Senior ResearchAssociate at the Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder,and Director of the Denver Youth Survey. Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Ph.D., isCodirector of the Life History Studies Program at Western Psychiatric Institute andClinic, University of Pittsburgh Medical School, and Associate Professor of Psychia-try and Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

Research for the Rochester Youth Development Study, the Pittsburgh Youth Study,and the Denver Youth Survey is supported by OJJDP under grants 96–MU–FX–0014,96–MU–FX–0012, and 96–MU–FX–0017, respectively. The Rochester YouthDevelopment Study is also supported by grants from the National Institute on DrugAbuse and the National Science Foundation. The Pittsburgh Youth Study is alsosupported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health. The Denver YouthSurvey is also supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Smith, C.A., Rivera, C., and Thorn-berry, T.P. 1997. Family disruption anddelinquency: The impact of changes infamily structure on adolescent develop-ment. Unpublished report prepared forthe U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention.

Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 1993. Boys’ His-tory of Caretakers. Unpublished report #3of the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Pittsburgh,PA: University of Pittsburgh.

Wells, L.E., and Rankin, J.H. 1991. Fami-lies and delinquency: A meta-analysis ofthe impact of broken homes. Social Prob-lems 38(1):71–83.

Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvan-taged: The Inner City, the Underclass, andPublic Policy. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDPand the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such ashow you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDPmaterials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments andquestions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000800–638–8736301–519–5212 (fax)E-Mail: [email protected]

PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 178285Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300

178285

Documents