Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1 ± 9

Family social capital and delinquent involvement John Paul Wrighta,*, Francis T. Cullena, Jeremy T. Millerb a

Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, M1 210389, 600 Dyer Hall, Cincinnati, OH 45221-0389, USA b Maximus Inc., 7927 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 600S, McLean, VA 22102, USA

Abstract Much research implicates parenting in the etiology of delinquency. We draw on Coleman's [Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.] social capital perspective to test hypotheses that relate family ``investment'' in youth to the production of personal and social capital that, in turn, inhibits misbehavior. Using the well-known National Youth Survey (NYS), we find that family social capital produces the types of social and personal capital envisioned by Coleman, reduces delinquency across time, moderates the effects of misbehavior, and is associated with general positive effects across the life course. The implications associated with the social capital perspective are discussed. D 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The social capital perspective is emerging as an important avenue for theoretical inquiry (see, especially, Sampson & Laub, 1993; Hagan & McCarthy, 1997a,b). Originally formulated by Coleman (1990), social capital focuses attention not on individual variables, such as personality, but on how the quality, content, and structure of social relationships affect the transmission of resources (``capital'') across generations that shape opportunities and life trajectories. As Sampson and Laub (1993, p. 18) observe, social relations are the means through which ``social investment'' is made or not made. ``If these social relations are characterized by interdependence'', continue Sampson and Laub, ``they represent social and psychological resources that individuals can draw on as they move through life transitions that traverse larger trajectories'' (pp. 18 ± 19).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-513-556-5829; fax: +1-513-556-3303. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.P. Wright).

Hagan and McCarthy (1997a) contend that social capital theory offers promising avenues of theoretical development. First, they argue that the perspective can foster theoretical integration by ``bringing together a number of theories that too often have competed for the exclusive attention of criminologists'' (p. 235). Second, they suggest that social capital theory focuses attention on ``institutional sources Ð including work, family, school, neighborhood, and community Ð that contribute to the explanation of crime and delinquency'' (p. 235). Third, they propose that the theory moves beyond static explanations of crime by ``encouraging attention to the ways in which social capital accumulates'' (p. 236). That is, social capital theory ``lengthens the study of crime by emphasizing the cumulative significance of critical events and transitions. . . in an expanded consideration of life course trajectories'' (p. 236). Although fertile with many possibilities, social capital theory has been applied systematically only infrequently to date. Noteworthy exceptions can be cited. Thus, Sampson and Laub (1993) make explicit use of the concept in their age-graded theory of

0047-2352/01/$ ± see front matter D 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 4 7 - 2 3 5 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 1 - 4

2

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9

informal social control. Relationships marked by social capital become increasingly salient to individuals, deepen role reciprocity and obligations, and, in turn, heighten the basis for informal social control (see also Laub et al., 1998). Similarly, Sampson (1997) and Hagan and McCarthy (1997a) have linked depletion of social capital in inner city families and communities to high rates of crime and violence (see also Short, 1997). Further, Hagan and McCarthy (1997a,b) link a lack of social capital in the family to the youth becoming homeless and, while on the street, to their participation in criminal conduct. Despite these contributions, however, the use of social capital theory to inform empirical analyses remains limited. In this context, social capital theory is used to inform the examination of the factors that protect youth from involvement in delinquent activities. First, the effects of social capital in the institution of the family Ð specifically, the investment of families in children Ð are examined. According to this position, social capital protects the youth in multiple ways from delinquency. Second, further analyses examine whether social investment operates through factors identified by social control and social learning theories. Setting aside debates about the compatibility of the entire structures of these perspectives (see, e.g., Costello, 1997; Matsueda, 1997), social capital theory maintains that families that invest in their children are more able to create social bonds and to foster prosocial learning. Social capital, in short, fosters informal control while also increasing conventional moral values and decreasing access to delinquent peers. Third, it may be the case that the effects of the multiple influences of family social capital are cumulative; i.e., family investment in children sets in motion a process whereby protection against crime deepens. In this view, the family is not simply viewed as a static or passive socializing unit, but, through parents, is actively engaged in steering youth away from criminogenic risks (see also Sampson, 1997; Sampson & Laub, 1994 p. 51; Cullen, 1994). As a result, family social capital is potentially a critical element in determining whether youth are enmeshed on a trajectory into or away from a life in crime. Family social capital Investing in children As noted, the concept of social capital is distinguished by its focus on the quality of the relationships between (or among) people. This, in contrast to human capital Ð the economic term that refers to the skills and knowledge attained by individual actors Ð

makes the concept of social capital distinctively sociological. According to Coleman (1990, p. 302), ``unlike other forms of capital, social capital inheres in the structure of relations between persons and among persons. It is logged neither in individuals nor in physical implements of production.'' It is an ``aspect of a social structure'' that facilitates ``certain actions of individuals who are within the social structure'' (p. 302; see also Hagan & McCarthy, 1997a; Sampson, 1997). For our purposes, it is noteworthy that Coleman (1990, pp. 590 ± 597) identifies the family as a key institution through which social capital is transmitted. Specifically, Coleman mentions three mechanisms through which families transmit capital: through time and effort invested by parents, through affective ties between parents and their youth, and through clearly articulated guidelines concerning behaviors considered acceptable and unacceptable. These mechanisms are addressed below. First, in his analysis, Coleman provides examples of how the ``intensity'' of parent ± child interactions can ``aid children's social and intellectual development'' (p. 595). One critical factor highlighted by Coleman is the ``time and effort'' that parents invest in their children (e.g., talking with them, working on homework). Coleman also notes that in modern society, structural changes in the family can result in parents having little time to spend with their children either because they are physically absent (i.e., at work) or psychically absent. Second, in families characterized by high social capital, the ultimate aim of investing time and energy into offspring is to create individuals who are socially competent, psychologically adjusted, and behaviorally appropriate. According to Amato and Booth (1997) and Coleman (1990), one of the mechanisms employed within families to achieve this aim is to establish and maintain lasting emotional attachments. Thus, part of the immediate and future ``payoff'' derived from family investment is the emotional bond that is forged through supportive family interactions. For Coleman, a strong family attachment acts as a conduit through which effective socialization occurs; i.e., though which conformist values are expressed and rules for behavior are understood (see also Rice, 1990). Where Coleman considers time a prerequisite for the transference of family social capital, he considers emotional attachments as the avenues through which norms and information are passed from parent to child. Third, the content of family socialization practices is also important. As Hagan and McCarthy (1997a,b) note, certain forms of capital may actually facilitate criminal involvement, such as having antisocial values or delinquent peers. On the other hand, Cole-

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9

man makes the point that strong moral values against self-indulgent behavior play an important role in limiting individual actions that threaten future family investments and relationships. From his perspective, parents build into the youth moral inhibitions against imprudent behavior by communicating clear rules proscribing actions that they view as potentially harmful. Coincidentally, other theorists have also pointed to the need for parents to recognize the antisocial behavior of their youth and to disapprove of the destructive and disruptive actions their children may engage in (Patterson & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). In sum, Coleman argues that parental investments in time and effort, the affective bonds they create and maintain, and the prosocial guidance they offer, alter the likelihood that the well-supported youth will engage in delinquency or acquire antisocial peers. Thus, for Coleman, the effects of family social capital are general and cumulative; i.e., family social capital affects most facets of child development, with youth who have been heavily invested in accruing comparatively greater benefits over their life course (Parcel & Menaghan, 1994). General and cumulative effects General effects The quality of family interaction appears to generate sustained effects across a broad domain of behaviors (Barrera & Li, 1996). The youth who benefit from investments made in them by their family are likely to be attached to their parents, to hold prosocial beliefs, to do well in school, and to avoid the acquisition of delinquent peers (Farrell et al., 1995; Amato & Booth, 1997). As a result, families high in social capital work to sponsor prosocial behavioral patterns within their youth and work to insulate their youth from the detrimental effects of associating with delinquent peers and delinquent involvement. Thus, the impact of capital investment is multifaceted, in that investments made in youth impact their development at both the personal and social levels (Radke-Yarrow & ZahnWaxler, 1986). Cumulative effects The general effects of quality family interactions are but one part of the social capital equation. The second part Ð the part that distinguishes it from other theories Ð is that the impact of capital investment on the youth is thought to be cumulative (Parcel & Menaghan, 1994). For example, the attachment between a youth and a parent serves as one protective factor against misbehavior (Hirschi, 1969; Rankin & Wells, 1990; Rankin & Kern, 1994). Additional pro-

3

tective factors, however, are also posited to reduce further the likelihood of delinquent involvement. The point is that the more resources youth have to draw on, the less likely they are to disinvest themselves from supportive relationships and institutions (Wright, 1996; Nagin & Paternoster, 1994). The process of capital accumulation is directly analogous to Sampson and Laub's (1993) view on cumulative advantage. In essence, Sampson and Laub argue that prosocial adolescent behavioral trajectories result in the accumulation of various forms of social capital over time. The acquisition of social capital, such as strong interpersonal attachments, quality employment, or prosocial friendship networks, entrenches individuals in conforming pathways throughout the remainder of their life course (Jessor, 1993). The more conventional social resources an adolescent has to draw on for support and guidance Ð such as family, school, friends, or employers Ð the less likely he/she is to engage in delinquency. The more advantaged the adolescent becomes over time in terms of relationships and skills, the less likely delinquent friendship networks are to manifest and the less likely delinquency is to occur (Glueck & Glueck, 1950; Nagin & Paternoster, 1994; Wright & Wright, 1994). Thus, social capital should reduce offending over the life course, mitigate the potential deleterious effects of antisocial behavior, and be associated with long-term positive adjustment. Hypotheses The preceding discussion leads to several testable hypotheses that relate family social capital to adolescent development and behavior. First, Coleman notes that the purpose of family capital investment made in the youth is to facilitate the acquisition by the youth of other forms of personal and social capital. In this vein, a family will invest time, effort, and resources in its children with the goal to forge an intergenerational link that embeds the youth into relationships of mutual trust and obligation Ð what Coleman refers to as ``closure.'' Coleman makes explicit reference to certain, but not all, potential outcomes associated with family investment. Perhaps most importantly, Coleman (1990, p. 310) notes that the internalization of norms against misbehavior Ð itself a product of family investment Ð ``constitutes a powerful, but sometimes fragile, form of social capital''. Norms against acting selfishly, impulsively, or without thought to the consequences help to maintain the ``equilibrium'' necessary in reciprocal, trusting relationships. Thus, family capital investment should result in significantly higher levels of moral beliefs against involvement in delinquent behavior (Johnson,

4

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9

1979; Rollins & Thomas, 1979; Massey & Krohn, 1986; Amato & Booth, 1997). Second, Coleman (1990) also argues that family investment should have positive effects on the youth's level of commitment to school and their subsequent success in school. The evidence in favor of this pathway appears extensive. Involved families have been found to produce children who are more academically committed, obtain better grades, and acquire greater amounts of education (Steinberg et al., 1989). In turn, academically committed and successful adolescents report engaging in fewer delinquent acts and experiencing fewer behavioral problems (Hirschi, 1969; Thornberry et al., 1991; Ward & Tittle, 1994; Maguin & Loeber, 1996). Apparently, the family's effort to promote a commitment to education in their adolescent leads not only to greater educational success but also to less delinquency. This formulation represents another byproduct of family capital investment that creates protective trajectories away from delinquency (Nagin & Paternoster, 1994). Third, family social capital should have direct effects on reducing delinquent peers and on reducing delinquent involvement. This position is supported by Warr's (1993) earlier analysis of these data where he found that time spent with parents reduced the formation of delinquent peer networks and thus functioned as a barrier to illegal behavior. This process is what Coleman would expect, since peers represent a significant source of social capital, either prosocial capital, or as noted by Hagan and McCarthy (1997a,b) as a form of criminal capital. Finally, Coleman also links family capital to the long-term adjustment of youth. Adolescents with substantial social and personal resources are likely to accrue comparatively greater advantages across their life course, such as higher levels of education, job satisfaction, and better health (Coleman, 1990). Thus, it is likely that prior levels of family social capital will be associated with indicators of positive adjustment across the life course.

Methods Sample Data for this study come primarily from the second (1977) wave of the well-known National Youth Survey (NYS) (Elliott et al., 1985). The NYS is a longitudinal national probability sample of 1,725 youth aged 11 ± 17 in 1976, 12 ± 18 in 1977, and 18 ± 24 in 1983. Previous analyses of these data have detected no serious bias associated with panel attrition or panel conditioning for certain key vari-

ables (Elliott et al., 1985). The second wave of data is used primarily because for most adolescents, this is the time when they are in high school or at the end of their compulsory educational career. We also use measures taken from the 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1983 waves of the survey. Moreover, measures of prior misconduct are included to control for persistent heterogeneity in offending and to correct for potential misspecification. Measures Family social capital The variable of family social capital is assessed using three indicators. First, a three-item measure assesses how much time the youth spent ``talking, working, or playing with your family'' on weekends and during the afternoons and evenings on the weekdays. This measure is consistent with empirical indicators of social capital identified by Coleman (1990, p. 595), such as ``parents and child talking about personal matters'' and the mere presence of parents in the household. Again, Coleman (1990) agues that time spent with children is a major factor affecting the investment of resources in these children. The second indicator of family capital measures family attachment. Seven items assess ``how important'' it is for respondents to have done things with their family, to have a family that does lots of things together, to have parents they can talk to and who comfort them, to have parents who think they do things well, and to have parents with whom they get along with. As noted before, Coleman views strong, affective bonds as the conduit through which interdependencies are created. Finally, Hagan and McCarthy (1997a,b) and Coleman (1990) maintain that it is important to take into account the content or forms of capital, since some forms of capital, such as delinquent friends, can sponsor misbehavior. Turning again to Coleman, for capital to restrict harmful behavior, it must establish boundaries for what is considered acceptable and unacceptable conduct. Boundaries that limit the free expression of self-interest ``strengthen families by leading members to act selflessly in the family's interest'' (notes Coleman, 1990, p. 311) and are brought about by internal norms or ``. . . through external rewards for selfless actions and disapproval for selfish actions (emphasis added).'' Therefore, included in the measure of family capital are fourteen items that assess the extent to which the adolescent views how disapproving of delinquency their parent(s) are. The individual items cover a range of behaviors from nonserious acts, such as stealing something worth less than US$5, to serious acts, such as hitting someone or selling hard drugs.

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9

The psychometric properties of our family capital scale, which is composed of twenty-four items, indicates that the scale has an acceptable reliability (a = 0.85). Moreover, a factor analysis of the twentyfour items extracted four factors with eigenvalues over 1.0. An examination of the scree plot and the differences between successive eigenvalues, however, indicate that the pattern of inter-item correlations can be accounted for by a single factor. Admittedly, it would have been preferable to have had access to measures that could have probed more deeply into the content of family-related activities, especially as they relate to parents. Even so, as will be reported, the measure of family capital has effects consistent with what Coleman would predict (i.e., moral beliefs, educational outcomes, delinquency) and has better validity than the measures Coleman used (both parents present in the home). Thus, some confidence is warranted that the family capital scale is a valid measure of the concept of family capital. Other variables Moral beliefs Moral beliefs is measured by a thirteen-item scale. The scale captures the extent to which respondents strongly agree to strongly disagree about the importance of telling the truth to their parents and teachers even if it means getting into trouble, with ``playing dirty in order to win'', with their willingness to ``break rules to be popular'', and with the importance of doing their own schoolwork. Collectively, these items measure internalized norms against various forms of subtle and overt forms of deception and misbehavior (a = 0.85). School success School success is measured by a single item that ascertained from the youth their grade point average, ranging from 5 = mostly A's to 1 = mostly F's. School commitment A four-item summated the scale that captures how much time youth spend, on average, studying during the afternoon, evenings, and weekends. One item also assessed the importance of schoolwork (a = 0.75). Delinquent peers The NYS is well known for its strong measures of delinquent peers (Warr, 1993). As such, we employ a regularly used nine-item measure of delinquent peers. Respondents were asked to report the proportions of their friends that had committed various delinquent and criminal acts, such as using alcohol, selling hard drugs, and stealing something worth more than US$50 (a = 0.82).

5

Delinquency measures The NYS is also well known for its self-reported measures of delinquent behavior. Because we are interested in the immediate and long-term effects of family social capital on misbehavior, we utilize the delinquency scales from 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1983. Each scale captures the rate of respondents' delinquent and criminal involvement in the preceding year across a wide range of behaviors, such as breaking and entering, theft, assault, selling drugs, and robbery. Respondents were asked to report on a nine-point scale how many times in the past year they had committed any of these delinquent and criminal behaviors. Scale reliabilities ranged from a = 0.85 in 1976 to a = 0.72 in 1983. Long-term outcomes The longitudinal design of the NYS allows us to assess the long-term effects of family social capital. Indicators of social adjustment were therefore selected from the 1983 wave to assess potential life course benefits associated with prior levels of social capital. Since Coleman argues that social capital should have diverse and lifelong effects on the health and welfare of individuals, two indicators of misbehavior were included: a thirteen-item druguse scale (a = 0.69) and a fourteen-item criminal friends scale (a = 0.87). Also include were two indicators of physical health: how frequently the respondent engages in exercise and a single-item measure of self-reported health. Finally, also included was a four-item measure of job role commitment (a = 0.85) Control variables In certainty of the analyses, controls for demographic factors were included. Age, for example, was measured in years; race was coded 0 = white and 1 = minority; and gender was coded 0 = male and 1 = female. Results Building social capital Table 1 presents the results of the OLS models that predict variation in various forms of human and social capital. Included are controls for demographics as well as for prior delinquency to combat misspecification bias. Across all equations, the measure of family capital produced significant, and in certain cases moderate, effects. As hypothesized by Coleman, family capital was moderately and positively associated with increased moral beliefs concerning the wrongfulness

6

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9

Table 1 Family capital and the production of personal and social capital (b reported) Independent variables

Moral beliefs

Time studying

Grades

Delinquent friends

Family capital Age Race (1 = minority) Gender (1 = female) Delinquency R2

0.355 * 0.018 ÿ 0.151 * 0.107 * ÿ 0.213 * 0.265

0.181 * 0.217 * 0.111 * 0.094 * ÿ 0.125 * 0.103

0.103 * 0.187 * ÿ 0.056 0.099 * ÿ 0.105 * 0.067

ÿ 0.271 * 0.015 ÿ 0.093 * ÿ 0.040 0.250 * 0.195

* P < .05, two-tailed test.

of delinquent behavior (b = 0.355); was associated with increased time studying and better grades; and was inversely related to the acquisition of delinquent friends (b = ÿ 0.271) Moreover, the effects of family capital were, in the majority of equations, stronger than the effects generated by delinquent involvement, or were at least at par. The long-term effects of family capital on delinquency The next analysis turns to an examination of the effects of family capital on delinquent involvement and changes in delinquent involvement over time. The NYS contains delinquency measures that are retrospective Ð i.e., ask about behavior in the past year Ð which confounds temporal ordering. Adjustments to this problem were introduced by modeling delinquency from the 1978, 1979, 1980, and 1983 waves of the NYS, while keeping our measure of family capital restricted to the 1977 wave. This strategy allows for the assessment of the long-term effects of family capital on reducing delinquent involvement. Moreover, to assess change in behavior across waves, a measure of prior misbehavior was incorporated into the equation. This strategy allows for the estimation of changes in delinquency across time and controls for the influence of persistent heterogeneity in offending. The results of the OLS models predicting delinquency and changes in delinquency are shown in Table 2. The effects of family capital on delinquent

conduct (1) are significant across the waves, (2) are inversely related to misbehavior, and (3) appear relatively stable through 1983. The OLS models that estimate changes in levels of delinquency, noted by (C), indicate that the effects of prior levels of family capital are associated with significant reductions in delinquent involvement over time. Although the effects of prior misbehavior clearly reduce the magnitude of effects generated by family capital, the estimates remain significant through 1983. The cumulative advantage of family capital Thus far, the analyses have revealed that family capital creates adolescent social capital and reduces youthful misbehavior over time. These findings, however, paint only a partial picture of the possible effects of family capital. One of the core ideas behind the capital perspective is that investments made in the youth arm them with personal and social skills that accumulate advantage over time. Adolescents with a comparative advantage in social capital will continue to avoid people, situations, and behaviors that may jeopardize or mortgage their skills and relationships. This proposition is tested by modeling the relationship between family capital (1977) and indicators of comparative advantage, in terms of health and employment, and risk, in terms of drug use, and criminal friends in 1983.

Table 2 The effects of family capital (time 1) on delinquency and changes in delinquency across time (b reported) Delinquency (time period) Independent variables

1978

1979

1979 (C)a

1980

1980 (C)a

1983

1983 (C)a

Family capital (1977) Age Race (1 = minority) Gender (1 = female) Prior delinquency R2

ÿ 0.251 * 0.064 * 0.073 * ÿ 0.197 * n/a 0.132

ÿ 0.248 * 0.077 * 0.040 ÿ 0.201 * n/a 0.133

ÿ 0.080 * 0.034 ÿ 0.002 ÿ 0.072 * 0.652 * 0.499

ÿ 0.222 * 0.125 * ÿ 0.062 * ÿ 0.108 * n/a 0.109

ÿ 0.101 * 0.119 * ÿ 0.084 * ÿ 0.037 0.459 0.294

ÿ 0.186 * ÿ 0.171 * 0.064 ÿ 0.231 * n/a 0.107

ÿ 0.118 * ÿ 0.207 * 0.050 ÿ 0.197 * 0.309 0.194

a

(C) reflects models that estimate changes in levels of delinquency from one measurement wave to the next. * P < .05, two-tailed test.

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9

7

Table 3 The effects of family capital (1977) on indicators of social adjustment in 1983 (b reported) Social adjustment in 1983 Independent variables

Criminal friends

Drug use

Exercise

Health

Job role commitment

Family capital (1977) Age Race (1 = minority) Gender (1 = female) Delinquency (1977) R2

ÿ 0.220 * ÿ 0.202 * ÿ 0.063 * ÿ 0.088 * 0.226 * 0.154

ÿ 0.200 * ÿ 0.121 * ÿ 0.078 * ÿ 0.045 0.236 * 0.129

0.068 * ÿ 0.019 ÿ 0.021 ÿ 0.185 * ÿ 0.015 0.037

0.104 * 0.014 ÿ 0.010 ÿ 0.100 * 0.014 0.018

0.141 * ÿ 0.008 0.172 * ÿ 0.180 * 0.051 0.087

* P < .05, two-tailed test.

Table 3 presents the findings from the analyses. Controlling for age, race, gender, and prior delinquency shows that social capital measured in 1977 predicted significantly lower levels of adult criminal friends, adult drug use, higher levels of self-reported exercise, higher levels of self-reported health, and higher levels of job role commitment in 1983. Although the effects are small to modest in magnitude, they are consistent and they withstand the effects of prior delinquent involvement. Thus, it appears that social capital is a salient feature in the life course trajectories of adolescents, with effects that continue into the pre-adult and mid-adult years. Discussion Coleman's social capital theory unites many of the unique aspects of social learning and social control theories. Evidence presented here suggests that the protective pathways that emanate from family capital are particularly strong and that, in turn, youth who are invested in are more likely to have internalized beliefs against delinquent involvement, do better in school, and are less likely to acquire delinquent friends. Clearly, this process involves issues of control, such as attachment to family, and social learning, such as the internalization of prosocial norms. While useful as a method for explaining the social capital perspective, to focus solely on the unification of control and learning theories misses Coleman's clear emphasis on the role of choice and rational decision making. Families, for example, simply do not function to teach their youth that delinquency is harmful, nor do they simply restrict the opportunities for the youth to engage in delinquency with other delinquent youth. Instead, under Coleman's scheme, families high in social capital invest in their youth in diverse ways so as to complete the intergenerational transmission of social capital acquisition. Stated another way, families invest in their youth because they have chosen to sacrifice the time, the effort, and

the energy required to increase their offspring's life chances. The series of decisions encompassed in this process requires families to make substantial investments in personal and social resources to hopefully benefit their child(ren) later in life. Even so, Coleman's perspective also links family functioning Ð i.e., the ability of families to transmit capital across successive generations Ð to features of the social structure (see also Hagan & McCarthy, 1997a,b). Parents, for example, deeply engulfed by the stresses that accompany living in poverty or those who use, sell, or are dependent on drugs are less likely, less inclined, and have less capital to forward to their youth than parents who are better educated, with better jobs, and with lifestyles that have already accumulated social advantage. Coleman's social capital perspective may offer theoretical guidance in studies linking social structure with the reproduction of social capital namely because it brings together diverse and often competing theories of behavior and social stratification (Hagan & McCarthy, 1997a,b). Nonetheless, the far reaching effects of family social capital appear to differentiate delinquent youth from nondelinquent youth. The process, termed cumulative advantage, links investments made in youth to their life trajectories towards or away from delinquent involvement. Young people with a comparative advantage in capital resources are less likely to disrupt their social bonds to their family or to other institutions by engaging in deleterious behavior or by associating with delinquent others. The current findings lend substantial support to the cumulative advantage thesis. As such, the analyses found that (1) family capital produces other forms of social capital; (2) family capital reduces delinquency over a six-year period; and (3) family capital exerts effects across a range of outcomes associated with prosocial adult development. These findings, we believe, deserve greater attention as they seemingly imply important life course effects. Youth with an abundance of social capital early in life appear to be on and to maintain a stable life course trajectory that channels them away from

8

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9

illegal and risky behavior and that places them on a road towards general well being as an adult. Even when individuals high in social capital deviate, however, it appears that past levels of social capital protect and mitigate against the potentially severe consequences associated with delinquency. In line with the findings from Samson and Laub's (1993) re-analysis of the Glueck's data, our findings also suggest that the acquisition of social capital may divert youth, even youth high in criminal potential, away from criminal involvement. Under this reasoning, social capital may be an important consideration in understanding turning points away from crime and delinquency. Future research should seek to verify the patterns we detected and should use samples of young children followed over longer periods of time. Given the nature of the NYS data, the age range involved for study includes youth with prior delinquent experiences and youth with already established delinquent peer networks. By moving the analyses back in time Ð i.e., before the onset of delinquency and before friendship networks have been solidified Ð a more conservative and temporally proximate test of Coleman's hypotheses could be obtained. Future analyses, however, should include other endogenous variables that could be linked theoretically to family capital investment. Due to the limitations inherent in secondary data analyses, we were able to include only a limited number of intervening variables from other behavioral domains. Finally, although not systematically incorporated throughout our paper, these findings also draw attention to the social processes that underlie the formation of delinquent peer group networks and misbehavior. Instead of attributing delinquent peer networks or engaging in delinquency as the sole product of selfselection mechanisms rooted in intractable individual differences (see Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), these results highlight the social affects of family investment in channeling youths towards or away from problem behaviors (see Sampson & Laub, 1993). The empirical findings garnered through these analyses suggest that a dynamic system, rooted in family social capital, is at work that either protects youths from delinquent peers (Warr, 1993) or that inoculates youths from engaging in illegal behavior, or, as is most likely the case, both. Either way, Coleman's social capital perspective appears to inform the broader criminological debate surrounding the importance of social environment on developmental patterns. References Amato, P. R., & Booth, A. (1997). A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barrera, M., & Li, S. A. (1996). The relation of family support to adolescents' psychological distress and behavior problems. In: G. G. Pierce, B. R. Sarason, & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of Social Support and the Family ( pp. 313 ± 344). New York, NY: Plenum. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Costello, B. (1997). On the logical adequacy of cultural deviance theories. Theor Criminol 1, 403 ± 428. Cullen, F. T. (1994). Social support as an organizing concept for criminology: presidential address to the academy of criminal justice sciences. Justice Q 11, 527 ± 559. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., Ageton, S. S. (1985) . Explaining Delinquency and Drug UseNewbury Park, CA: Sage. Farrell, M. P., Barnes, G. M., & Banerjee, S. (1995). Family cohesion as a buffer against the effects of problem-drinking fathers on psychological distress, deviant behavior, and heavy drinking in adolescents. J Health Soc Behav 36, 377 ± 385. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. California: Stanford University Press. Hagan, J., & McCarthy, B. (1997a). Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. Hagan, J., & McCarthy, B. (1997b). Anomie, social capital, and street criminology. In: N. Passas, & R. Agnew (Eds.), The Future of Anomie Theory ( pp. 124 ± 141). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings. Am Psychol 48, 117 ± 126. Johnson, R. (1979). Juvenile Delinquency and its Origins: An Integrated Theoretical Approach. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: good marriages and the desistance process. Am Sociol Rev 63, 225 ± 238. Maguin, E., & Loeber, R. (1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In: M. Tonry, & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research ( pp. 145 ± 264). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Massey, J. L., & Krohn, M. D. (1986). A longitudinal examination of an integrated social process model of deviant behavior. Soc Forces 65, 106 ± 134. Matsueda, R. L. (1997). `Cultural deviance theory': the remarkable persistence of a flawed term. Theor Criminol 1, 429 ± 452. Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1994). Personal capital and social control: the deterrence implications of a theory of individual differences in criminal offending. Criminology 32, 581 ± 606. Parcel, T. L., & Menaghan, E. G. (1994). Parents' Jobs and Children's Lives. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. Patterson, G. R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1984). The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Dev 55, 1299 ± 1307. Radke-Yarrow, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (1986). The role of

J.P. Wright et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 1±9 familial factors in the development of prosocial behavior: research findings and questions. In: D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior. New York: Academic Press. Rankin, J. H., & Wells, L. E. (1990). The effects of parental attachments and direct controls on delinquency. J Res Crime Delinquency 27, 140 ± 165. Rankin, J. H., & Kern, R. (1994). Parental attachments and delinquency. Criminology 32, 495 ± 515. Rice, K. G. (1990). Attachment in adolescence: a narrative and meta-analytic review. J Youth Adolesc 19, 511 ± 538. Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1979). Parental support, power and control techniques in the socialization of children. In: W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary Theories About the Family (Vol. 1, pp. 317 ± 364). New York, NY: The Free Press. Sampson, R. J. (1997). The embeddedness of child and adolescent development: a community level perspective on urban violence. In: J. McCord (Ed.), Violence and Childhood in the Inner City ( pp. 31 ± 77). New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1994). Urban poverty and the

9

family context of delinquency: a new look at structure and process in a classic study. Child Dev 94, 523 ± 540. Short, J. F. Jr. (1997). Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime. Boulder, CO: Westview. Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. S. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial maturity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Dev 60, 1424 ± 1436. Thornberry, T. P., Lizotte, A. J., Krohn, M. D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, J. J. (1991). Testing interactional theory: an examination of reciprocal causal relationships among family, school, and delinquency. J Crim Law Criminol 82, 3 ± 35. Ward, D. A., & Tittle, C. R. (1994). IQ and delinquency: a test of two competing explanations. J Quant Criminol 10, 189 ± 212. Warr, M. (1993). Parents, peers, and delinquency. Soc Forces 72, 247 ± 264. Wright, J. P. (1996). Parental support and juvenile delinquency: a test of social support theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Cincinnati. Wright, K. N., & Wright, K. E. (1994). Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymakers Guide. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Family social capital and delinquent involvement

Using the well-known National Youth Survey (NYS), we find that family social capital produces the .... delinquent friendship networks are to manifest and the less likely ..... predicted significantly lower levels of adult criminal friends, adult drug ...

104KB Sizes 0 Downloads 231 Views

Recommend Documents

BSD Family Involvement Handbook.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. BSD Family ...

Social Capital and Racial Inequality
Oct 1, 2017 - Data from the NLSY79 are used to estimate a job search model in which individual productivity is distinguished from social capital by.

Inequality, Fairness and Social Capital
12 Jan 2018 - email: [email protected]. ... validity, experiments thus allow for a clear identification of causal effects and underlying ..... It is made clear at the very beginning of the experiment that subjects will interact with the same partne

Campus Family Involvement Policy 2014 SPAN.pdf
There was a problem previewing this document. Retrying... Download. Connect more apps... Try one of the apps below to open or edit this item. Campus Family ...

David Weir Family Involvement Policy - Revised 4--2017.pdf ...
Page 1 of 3. David Weir Preparatory Academy. Family Involvement Policy. Required for Federal Compliance Approved April 11, 2017. PART I GENERAL EXPECTATIONS. [Note: Each school in its School Family Involvement Policy* must establish the school's. exp

Social Capital and the Allocation of Development Projects
Mobile: 1-917-929-5965. Fax: 1-217-244-5712 .... opportunities for community members to share information and develop credible sanction threats. Organizational density facilitates ... 6 The project was the second in a series of three World Bank-funde

Social Capital Its Origin and Application in Cooperative Organization ...
... such as anthropology, evolutionary science, psychology, and. sociology. ... 3 Refer to Surah Al Ma'idah (verse 2): “O you who have believed, do not ... NET.pdf. Social Capital Its Origin and Application in Cooperative Organization - IESTC.

Media Freedom and Social Capital - Taylor & Francis Online
Sanghoon Lee. Department of Economics, Hannam University, Daejeon, Republic of Korea. ABSTRACT. This article examines the relationship between media freedom and social capital by using cross-country panel data. The hypothesis of the current study is

Credit Scores, Social Capital, and Stock Market ...
dataset—the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel/Equifax data—to estimate average ... Balloch, Nicolae, and Philip (2015) use an Internet panel that is likely not representative of the U.S. ..... of households directly own corpo

Ageing, social capital and the Internet
Apr 8, 2008 - home-owning, English-speaking women and men in good health. They made ... years and 9% older than 65 access the Internet, compared with.

Social Capital and Technology Development in the ...
Social capital is critical to technology development since it promotes ... Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are ...... Page 7 ...

Microfoundations of social capital
May 4, 2012 - measure is positively related to the share of subjects in the group that contributes.3. Third, our findings ..... were offered further assistance via phone or e-mail.17. Participants did not receive ... market 2007,13th report), and dai

Community Partnerships and Resources Volunteer Involvement Focus ...
Academic Domain. Advancement Via Individual ... Career Domain. Naviance. Career Cruising ... the best practices to most effectively support students in their ...

PDF-Book The Family: Diversity, Inequality, and Social ...
Page 1. PDF-Book The Family: Diversity, Inequality, and. Social Change PDF-Full Online. Books detail. Title : PDF-Book The Family: Diversity, Inequality, q and Social Change PDF-Full Online isbn : 0393933954 q.