Hay

**Compounded Risk: The Implications for Delinquency of Coming from a Poor Family that Lives in a Poor Community** Carter Hay, Edward N. Fortson, Dusten R. Hollist, Irshad Altheimer, Lonnie M. Schaible

Standard practice in researching the relationship of poverty and delinquency has been to focus on the individual family’s poverty level. This study by Hay et al. looks at the relationship of delinquency and the level of poverty in the community in which the family lives. In studying adolescent development, juvenile delinquency and poverty are common subjects of interest. Classic theories such as social disorganization theory, strain theory, and theories of lower class culture conflict, “generally predict a positive relationship between poverty and delinquency.” However, results of prior research have been inconsistent. Specifically, two influential reviews took opposite stances on the subject. Tittle (1978) claimed that poverty and individual delinquency are not related. Conversely, Braithwaite (1981) concluded that the poverty-delinquency relationship was one of the few that is supported by empirical evidence. Moreover, most research is based on the assumption that the effects of poverty are strictly based on family poverty and are the same regardless of the level of poverty in the community. Two important implications in this is that there is significant variation in level of poverty in poor families in the U.S. (20% live in high concentrations of poverty; 80% live in communities with less poverty, and 50% of the U.S. poor live in communities where most household incomes are above poverty level) and research based on sociological theories should look at the effects of community, for instance studies should focus on the poverty of the community and not solely on the poverty of the individual family in relation to delinquency. Hay et al. argue that while previous studies look at poverty in relation to individual delinquency as standard practice more attention needs to be made to poverty in the community. A majority of studies examining the poverty-delinquency relationship ask the question, “Do juveniles from poor families commit more delinquency than juveniles from non-poor families?” Hay et al. not only asks this question, but they also hypothesize that, “community poverty amplifies the effects of family poverty on delinquency.”

**Prior Research** In the 60‘s and 70‘s self-report became a methodology used in examining the poverty-delinquency relationship. Conclusions from studies using self-report showed either a weak correlation or no correlation which contradicted what classic theories suggested. This contradiction in findings could be due to the fact that there was no real relationship between poverty and individual delinquency or that data in research prior to 1970 reflects legal bias which changed with civil rights movements. Another argument in explaining these contradictions is that early self-report studies themselves were flawed. They examined crimes thought to be trivial or not crimes at all. Subjects of studies were students thought to be at low risk for delinquency, living in rural or suburban areas. Individuals of extremely poor underclass were either excluded from the study or not identified because measures failed to identify them. More recent studies addressed problems of how delinquency and poverty were measured and found that:
 * lower class adolescents were overrepresented among serious offenders
 * unemployment and welfare status had greater effects on serious crime
 * poverty effects are most pronounced when experiencing poverty on a long-term basis
 * relationship between poverty and delinquency is non-linear

**The role of community poverty** Not unlike classic sociological theories of Cohen (1955), Shaw & McKay (1942), and Wilson (1987), this study looks at the dependent factor of the level of poverty in the community in relation to delinquency. Specifically, does community poverty amplify the effects of family poverty on delinquency? Cohen’s strain theory suggests that children in poor families are at risk for delinquent behavior due to the family’s inability to socialize them to succeed in school. Therefore children result to delinquent behavior as a response. Shaw & McKay’s view of the role of community poverty was similar. They suggested that youth from poor families in disadvantage communities, “often lack a common set of ideals and standards, therefore preventing the cooperative social action needed to suppress delinquency” (Hay et al. 2007 p.596). Wilson (1987) argued that poverty whether in the family or community needs to be considered together in combination. Additionally, youth in poor communities are not only at risk for delinquency, but also premarital pregnancy, and dropping out of school. This is due to the fact that residents who achieve success migrate to more desirable communities leaving behind residents whose lack of social values promotes crime, disorder, and drug use as a way of life. In considering community poverty effects on delinquency two research priorities are:
 * 1) Community level research should be done to examine the link between community-level rates of poverty and crime
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Considering the link between poverty and individual delinquency, family poverty should no longer be examined as if it occurs in isolation from a broader community environment. “some live in very poor communities while others do not”

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Hypotheses/Methods** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Hay et al.’s study looks at the level of family poverty and delinquency in relation to community poverty levels when community poverty is high delinquency is amplified. They obtained data from the National Survey of Children and the 1980 census. In this study indicators of family poverty are: income, pa rental education, parental unemployment, and receipt of welfare. Categories of delinquency included vandalism, assualts in which someone was injured, stealing from a store, use of marijuana, use of drugs other than marijuana excluding alcohol and tobacco, and contact with police where child was questioned about their behavior.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Results** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Hay et al. found that there was no significant effect of family poverty on delinquency, but the effect of family poverty increases when community poverty is higher. Therefore, “the effects of poverty on delinquency are partly dependent upon the level of poverty in the surrounding community” (Hay et al. 2007 p. 602). Additionally, parental unemployment plays a major factor in child delinquency when community poverty in higher. They found that overall family poverty only has a modest effect on delinquency, but “significantly interacted with community poverty” (Hay et al. 2007 p. 602).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">**Discussion** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Families do not exist in “social vacuum” they are part of larger social context and community is a significant part. Future studies in this area can obtain data more easily due to the fact that more information is routinely gathered from large geographic samples and advanced statistical techniques (i.e. hierarchical linear modeling) are possible (Hay et al. 2007 p. 603). The findings of Hay et al. suggest that crime prevention programs should put more emphasis on reaching children from high-risk families that reside in extremely poor communities. Rather than improving individual social and cognitive development of children, programs should help address problems of raising children in poor communities who are at greater risk of being influenced by delinquent subcultures. Essentially, Hay et al. found that, “poverty is consequential for individual-level delinquency.” However this relationship is more complex than earlier studies suggest. The poverty-delinquency relationship should be studied in the context of the community as represented by classic theories of Cohen, Shaw & McKay, and Cloward & Ohlin.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">** Examples ** <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">[|AVANCE] (a-vahn-ceh) is a great example of a program that focuses on improving community and culture of low income families. Their goal is to provide services to help not only youth, but their parents as well. They provide services to families in Texas by focusing on children’s educational development and at the same time promote personal and economic success of families.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13.33px;">Another example of improving outcomes of youth in poor communities is Big Brothers Big Sisters. Jean Baldwin Grossman and Joseph P. Tierney conducted a study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program. They found that providing a mentor to youth promoted positive social behaviors such as lower instance of alcohol and drug use, lower instance of physical violence, and an increase in student GPA. This program gives a good example of options that are available to youth living in poor communities so that they can have positive role models. Having positive relationships can help promote positive social behaviors to combat delinquent subcultures in their communities.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Grossman, Jean Baldwin and Joseph P. Tierney. [|“Does Mentoring Work? An Impact Study of the Big Brothers Big Sisters Program.”] //Evaluation Review//, Vol. 22, No. 3, June 1998, pp 403-426

Hay, C., Fortson, E., Hollst, D., Altheimer, I., & Schaible, L. (2007). Compounded risk? The implications for delinquency of coming from a poor family that lives in a poor community. //Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36,// 593-605.