J Interpers Violence 2002 McMahon 1002 19

http://jiv.sagepub.
com/
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/17/9/1002
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/088626050201700906
2002 17: 1002 J Interpers Violence
Jennifer McMahon and Jody Clay-Warner
Gender
Child Abuse and Future Criminality: The Role of Social Service Placement, Family Disorganization, and
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

can be found at: Journal of Interpersonal Violence Additional services and information for
http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/17/9/1002.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- Sep 1, 2002 Version of Record >>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2002 McMahon, Clay-Warner / CHILD ABUSE AND CRIMINALITY
This study examines the extent to which family disorganization moderates the effect of social ser-
vice placement on juvenile and adult arrests. Using Widoms prospective data containing 749
substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect, the authors test hypotheses relating to two mea-
sures of family disorganization: family separation and family moves. They find that removing an
abused or neglected child fromthe home increased the likelihood of adult arrest for children who
experienced a recent family separation. Placement reduced likelihood of arrest for males who
experienced frequent moves and increased risk of adult arrest for females who experienced fre-
quent moves. The authors conclude that gender differences in placement outcomes should be
explored, and they discuss the implications of this research for social service agencies.
Child Abuse and Future Criminality
The Role of Social Service Placement,
Family Disorganization, and Gender
JENNIFER MCMAHON
JODY CLAY-WARNER
University of Georgia
The serious consequences of child abuse and neglect are well documented.
Victims of child abuse or neglect often suffer from poor attachment forma-
tion (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989), academic problems (Oats, 1989),
behavioral problems (Salter, Richardson, & Kairys, 1985), and feelings of
betrayal that may lead to anger, hostility, and distrust of others (Wolfe, 1999).
Considerable attention has also been given to the link between child abuse
and neglect and subsequent criminal behavior (e.g., Smith & Thornberry,
1995; Widom, 1989a; Zingraff, Leiter, Myers, & Johnsen, 1993).
In cases of child abuse, social service workers have the difficult task of
deciding how to intervene so as to protect the child from harm (Thoburn,
1988). One of the most important decisions to be made in this regard is
whether to remove the child fromthe home. In most instances, social service
workers seek to keep the family intact and recommend out-of-home place-
ment only when there is a clear risk to the childs immediate safety
(Steinhauer, 1991). In some cases, the social worker determines that the
threat of continued abuse or neglect is so great that placement is the only
option.
1002
Authors Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2001 meetings of the
Southern Sociological Society in Atlanta, Georgia.
JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE, Vol. 17 No. 9, September 2002 1002-1019
2002 Sage Publications
at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on June 29, 2014 jiv.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Other times, however, the consequences of the child remaining in the
home are unclear. In these cases, social service workers must weigh the emo-
tional costs of placement against the risk of abuse/neglect in the home. In
doing so, they often take into account family and social characteristics
(Abner, 1980; Katz, Hampton, Newberger, Bowles, & Snyder, 1986). Place-
ment may also have long-term consequences for the child, however. For
example, because research indicates that experiencing abuse and neglect
increases a childs risk of future criminality (e.g., Widom, 1989b), to the
extent that placement reduces the childs exposure to the abusive environ-
ment, placement may also reduce the risk of future criminality. Research has
found, however, that placement has little effect on the likelihood that the
abused or neglected child will engage in criminal activity (Jonson-Reid &
Barth, 2000; Runyan & Gould, 1988; Widom, 1991a; Widom & Maxfield,
1996). We suggest that although placement may not have direct effects on
criminality, family characteristics moderate the role of placement in deter-
ring future criminal behavior. Here we consider the role of family
disorganization.
Specifically, we examine the effects of out-of-home placement when chil-
dren have experienced family separation and frequent family moves. We
begin by discussing the link between child abuse/neglect and criminality and
then review the literature on the role of out-of-home placements in the child
abuse/neglect-criminality relationship. We then use data collected by Widom
(1994) to examine the effect that removing an abused or neglected child from
his or her home has on the likelihood of future arrests.
The Relationship Between Child Abuse/Neglect and Criminality
Early research reported a strong relationship between child abuse/neglect
and future criminality (Alfaro, 1981; Bolton, Reich, & Gutierres, 1977;
Geller &Ford-Somma, 1984; Lewis, Shanok, Pincus, &Glaser, 1979). More
recent research finds that although the relationship is not as strong or direct as
once believed, the link between abuse/neglect and criminal behavior does
exist. In her prospective study of victims of childhood abuse and neglect,
Widom (1989b) found that abused or neglected children had higher rates of
juvenile arrests than did the nonabused comparison group, although the dif-
ference between the groups was not as large as reported in previous studies.
Smith and Thornberry (1995) found that 45% of the maltreated sample in
their study had an official report of delinquency, whereas 31.7% of the non-
maltreated comparison group had an official arrest record (see also Zingraff
et al., 1993).
McMahon, Clay-Warner / CHILD ABUSE AND CRIMINALITY 1003
Examining juvenile violent offenses, Widom (1991b) found that, overall,
the abused and neglected children did not have significantly higher rates of
offending than did those in the comparison group. Abused and neglected
females, however, had significantly higher violent juvenile offenses com-
pared to females in the comparison group, whereas there were no differences
in the rates of reported violent juvenile offenses for the abused or neglected
males compared to the nonabused males (Widom, 1991b). Widom (1990;
Widom&Maxfield, 1996) also reported that the abused and neglected group
had significantly higher rates of adult arrests than the comparison group as
well as higher overall rates of violent offending.
These studies, however, do not indicate that all or most abused or neglected
children commit crimes. Instead, a number of factors affect the relationship
between abuse and criminality (Smith & Thornberry, 1995; Widom, 1989b,
1989c, 1989d, 1990, 1991a, 1991b; Zingraff et al., 1993). For example,
Widom(1989b) and Zingraff et al. (1993) found that the type of maltreatment
affected rates of arrest for violent crime. Certain family characteristics, such
as the presence of an alcoholic father, also significantly increased risk of
arrest (Widom, 1991c). One less examinedfactor is out-of- home placement.
Child Abuse/Neglect and Criminality:
The Role of Out-of-Home Placement
Few studies have examined whether placement may also protect a child
from future criminal involvement (Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000; Runyan &
Gould, 1988; Widom, 1991a; Widom & Maxfield, 1996). Widom (1991a;
Widom & Maxfield, 1996) found that arrest rates for victims removed from
their homes and placed in a different setting (i.e., foster home, relatives
home, etc.) were similar to the arrest rates of victims who remained in their
homes. However, placement characteristics were associated with differential
arrest rates. For example, those who were placed at a younger age had the
lowest rates of arrest. Furthermore, children who spent less time (4 to 6 years)
in their first placement had the highest arrest rates. Children who had experi-
enced four or more placements and those who had behavior problems had the
highest rates of arrests.
1
Similar to Widom, Runyan and Gould (1988) found no significant differ-
ence in the total number of juvenile offenses committed by abused and
neglected children who received in-home care from social service workers
and those who were placed into foster care for at least 3 years. They did find,
however, that the foster care children were at an increased risk for committing
1004 JOURNAL OF INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE / September 2002
assaults and that the risk of delinquency, in general, for the foster care group
increased as the number of placement moves increased.
Jonson-Reid and Barth (2000) found that children with a reported incident
of maltreatment were more than twice as likely as those in the general popula-
tion to enter the California Youth Authority (CYA), which is Californias
juvenile justice system for serious young offenders. They also found that the
level of services (no services vs. in-home care vs. placement) received by the
maltreated children had no effect on criminal outcomes. They did find, how-
ever, that race and gender moderated the effects of placement on delinquency.
Although African American youths were at the greatest risk of incarceration,
African American children who received social services after the investiga-
tion of the maltreatment incident had lower rates of incarceration than those
who received no services. Conversely, maltreated Caucasian children who
were placed into foster care had higher rates of incarceration than those who
received no services and those who received in-home care. There were no dif-
ferences in the rates of incarceration for maltreated Hispanic children receiv-
ing different levels of social services.
Overall, Jonson-Reid and Barth (2000) found that the abuse incident had a
greater effect on the likelihood of incarceration for females than for males.
The rate of entry into CYAfor females with documented abuse histories was
almost 3 times higher than those without abuse histories (.2/1000 compared
to .07/1000); the rates of entry for boys with child welfare histories was twice
that of the general population (2.9/1000 compared to 1.4/1000). They also
reported that maltreated females who had higher social service involvement
had higher rates of incarceration. In contrast, there was little difference in the
rates of incarceration for maltreated males who received different levels of
social service involvement.
Although research finds that there are no overall differences in arrest out-
comes for abused and neglected children who remain in their homes com-
pared to abused and neglected children who are removed from their homes
(Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000; Runyan & Gould, 1988; Widom, 1991a;
Widom & Maxfield, 1996), Jonson-Reid and Barth (2000) found significant
differences when other factors were taken into consideration. They focused,
however, on the effects of race and gender and did not take family characteris-
tics into consideration. The present study builds on Jonson-Reid and Barths
findings by examining the role of family disorganization in moderating the
relationship between placement and prevention of criminality. Specifically,
we ask whether frequent moves and recent family separation affect the suc-
cess of social service placement in preventing future criminal behavior.
Hypotheses: Explaining the Effects of Placement and
Family Disorganization on Likelihood of Arrest
A home in which abuse/neglect occurs is often characterized by insecure
attachments between parents and children. When parents are abusive or
neglectful, children learn adaptive attachment behaviors that make it difficult
to form healthy relationships with childhood peers and later with other
adults. Both neglectful and punitive parenting, which are related to the devel-
opment of poor attachment patterns, have been found to be correlated with
delinquency (Farrington & West, 1990). Murray (1996) described poorly
attached children as lacking a sense of agency or secure sense of self, which
may manifest itself through behavioral disorders and delinquency (p. 55).
Although the first year is considered to be a particularly important period for
the development of these secure attachment patterns, attachment continues to
be important throughout childhood. In fact, although the child develops his or
her initial model of attachment through the relationship with parents, this
model is open, so the child assimilates experiences with other attachment fig-
ures into the model (Crittendon &Ainsworth, 1989). Family disorganization
may, however, disrupt the development of secure attachments because par-
ents are either physically or emotionally unavailable. Placement may also
affect these attachments, as removing the child from the home could either
weaken existing attachments or provide a more stable environment in which
the child may develop secure attachments. In light of the role that poor attach-
ment may play in criminality, it is important to examine the effects that both
family disorganization and placement may have on crime commission.
Parental divorce or separation and the death of a family member are stress-
ful life events that can damage social and emotional relationships between
family members (Wolfner & Gelles, 1993). Children whose parents are
divorced or separated are exposed to their parents marital discord
(Cummings & Davies, 1994), and, as a result, they may become hostile and
aggressive. The divorce or separation may also disrupt their relationships
with their parents (Erel & Burman, 1995), further damaging attachment
bonds. In particular, parents may be physically and/or emotionally absent
and therefore unable to provide the child with the necessary sense of security.
At the same time, the parents who are divorcing or who have suffered the loss
of a loved one may also become so overwhelmed that they fail to see the
effects that the situation is having on their children. Thus, when such family
separation occurs, the needs of the child may go unfulfilled and attachments
suffer.
Despite the stress caused by such events, Widom (1991c) reported that
family separation is not directly linked to criminality. Research, however, has
shown that divorce, separation, and a death in the family are actually factors
that significantly contribute to child abuse and neglect (Wolfner & Gelles,
1993). Abuse/neglect is likely to prevent the development of secure attach-
ments, leading to an increased risk of criminal involvement. Thus, removing
an abused or neglected child fromhis or her home under these conditions may
prevent further abuse or neglect, provide the child with a more stable environ-
ment in which attachments with alternate caregivers may develop, and reduce
the risk of future criminality. We predict the following:
Hypothesis 1: Placement will reduce the likelihood of arrests more for abused
or neglected children who have experienced recent family separation than for
those who have not experienced recent family separation.
Another indication of family disorganization is frequent residential
mobility. Moving two or more times within 1 year has been linked to child-
hood emotional, behavioral, and academic problems (Wood, Halfon,
Scarlata, Newacheck, & Nessim, 1993). Frequent moves may also impede
the development of social ties with alternative caregivers. This is particularly
important for abused or neglected children, who often suffer from poor
attachment formation. Also, frequent residential mobility affects community
ties (Raviv, Keinan, Abazon, & Raviv, 1990). According to Hirschis (1969)
social bond theory, strong social and community ties (i.e., to friends, teach-
ers, neighbors, etc.) instill feelings of belonging to the community and obli-
gation or pressure to adhere to the communitys norms and values. Frequent
family moves, however, may hinder the development and maintenance of
social bonds. When abused or neglected children who have experienced fre-
quent moves are placed in a more stable environment, they may be able to
establish the necessary social bonds that help to deter criminal behavior. Con-
versely, removing an abused or neglected child who has not experienced fre-
quent family moves may destroy existing social bonds, placing the child at a
higher risk for criminal behavior.
Hypothesis 2: Placement will reduce the likelihood of arrests more for abused
and neglected children whose family experienced frequent moves prior to the
abuse or neglect incident than for abused or neglected children who did not
move frequently.
Given the findings that both placement and abuse/neglect may have dif-
ferential effects on male and female criminality (Jonson-Reid and Barth,
2000; Widom, 1989b, 1991b), we also conduct separate analyses for males
and females, although we do not make specific predictions about gender
differences.
METHOD
Sample
The data used for this study were collected by Cathy Spatz Widom(1994),
with support from the National Institute of Justice, and made available
through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
(ICPSR). The data set contains detailed information from official juvenile
and adult court records on 908 substantiated cases of abuse/neglect commit-
ted against children under the age of 12 in a midwestern metropolitan area
between 1967 and 1971. Included in these records was information about the
victim and offender as well as the results of the court investigation of the
abuse or neglect incident. Widom then examined official juvenile and adult
arrest records in 1987, 1988, and 1994 to determine which of the participants
were involved in criminal activity. In the original social service report, there
is placement information for 749 of these individuals; these persons consti-
tute the sample used in the current analyses. Forty-nine percent of the partici-
pants are male, and 33%are non-White (Black or Hispanic). Almost all of the
participants had passed through the years of peak offending by the end of the
data collection (Widom & Maxfield, 1996).
Variables
The dependent variables for this study are binary measures of arrest. Juve-
nile arrest includes any official arrest for an offense committed while the indi-
vidual was under the age of 18 (excluding traffic offenses). Twenty-six per-
cent of the participants had at least one juvenile arrest. Adult arrest includes
any official arrest for an offense committed while the individual was over the
age of 18 (excluding traffic offenses). Thirty percent of the participants had at
least one adult arrest.
The independent variables are placement, family separation, and frequent
moves. Widomcoded these data based on information contained in the origi-
nal court records detailing the abuse or neglect incident. In cases of multiple
or ongoing abuse, the variables were coded in relation to the particular inci-
dent that brought the abuse/neglect case to the attention of the courts. Place-
ment indicates whether or not the individual was removed from his or her
home by a social service agency. Eighty-one percent of the children were
placed. Family separation represents a divorce, separation, or death occur-
ring around the time of the abuse or neglect incident.
2
Thirty-eight percent of
participants had experienced a family separation. Frequent moves indicates
whether the childs family moved two or more times during the year prior to
the abuse or neglect incident. Twenty-four percent of the participants experi-
enced frequent moves.
We include controls for gender (0 =female, 1 =male) and race (0 =White,
1 = non-White). The original data set does not include information on age at
time of abuse or socioeconomic status. Therefore, we could not control for
these factors.
RESULTS
We conducted binary logistic regression analyses using one-tailed signifi-
cance tests when testing directional hypotheses and two-tailed tests for all
other analyses. In all of the regression models, both control variables were
significant, indicating that males and non-Whites had higher rates of juvenile
and adult arrest. Placement was marginally significant in the main effects
model presented in Table 1 (p < .1).
3
Placement was unrelated to adult arrest
in both main effect models.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that placement will reduce the likelihood of arrests
more for abused or neglected children who have experienced a recent family
separation than for those who have not experienced a recent family separa-
tion. The results failed to provide support for the hypothesis (see Table 1).
Although the regression model for adult arrests indicated a marginally signif-
icant interaction (B = 1.13, p = .054),
4
a closer examination of the effects
demonstrated that placement is associated with an increased risk of adult
arrest for those who have suffered a recent family separation. By partialing
out the main effects, we calculated the odds ratio associated with the interac-
tion term(see Kleinbaum, 1994). Children who were placed following a fam-
ily separation were 1.8 times more likely to be arrested as adults than those
who had experienced a family separation but were not placed. The interaction
effects were similar for males and females.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that placement reduces the likelihood of arrests
more for abused or neglected children whose family experienced frequent
moves prior to the abuse or neglect incident than for abused or neglected chil-
dren who did not move frequently. In reviewing juvenile arrests, we found the
results provide support for this hypothesis (B = .89; p < .05, one-tailed).
Children who had experienced frequent moves and were placed were 38%
less likely to be arrested as juveniles than those who were placed but had not
experienced frequent moves. Overall, placement reduced the likelihood of
juvenile arrests by 28% for those who had experienced frequent moves (see
Table 2).
1
0
1
0
TABLE 1: Unstandardized Coefficients (Beta) and Odds Ratios (OR) From Logistic Regression Predicting Effects of Placement and Family
Separation on Likelihood of Arrest
Juvenile Arrest Adult Arrest
Main Effects Interaction Model Main Effects Interaction Model
Variable Beta OR Beta OR Beta OR Beta OR
Gender 0.75 2.12*** 0.75 2.12*** 1.44 4.22*** 1.45 4.23***
Race 0.83 2.29*** 0.83 2.29*** 0.66 1.92*** 0.65 1.92***
Placement 0.41 1.51* 0.44 1.56* 0.33 0.72 0.56 0.57**
Family separation 0.24 0.79 0.08 0.92 0.13 1.14 0.87 0.42
Placement Separation 0.18 0.84 1.13 3.09*
Model
2
45.78*** 45.87*** 82.73*** 86.86***
*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01. All two-tailed tests.

a
t

A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
u

I
o
a
n

C
u
z
a

o
n

J
u
n
e

2
9
,

2
0
1
4
j
i
v
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

1
0
1
1
TABLE 2: Unstandardized Coefficients (Beta) and Odds Ratios (OR) From Logistic Regression Predicting Effects of Placement and Frequent
Family Moves on Likelihood of Arrest
Gender 0.75 2.11*** 0.75 2.12*** 1.44 4.23*** 1.44 4.23***
Race 0.82 2.27*** 0.83 2.29*** 0.64 1.91*** 0.64 1.91***
Placement 0.35 1.42 0.56 1.74** 0.29 0.75 0.30 1.20
Frequent moves 0.33 0.72 0.42 1.52 0.03 1.03 0.01 1.10
Placement Frequent Moves 0.89 0.41* 0.02 1.02
Model
2
46.72*** 49.63*** 82.25*** 82.23***

a
t

A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
u

I
o
a
n

C
u
z
a

o
n

J
u
n
e

2
9
,

2
0
1
4
j
i
v
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Conducting the analysis separately for males and females, however, dem-
onstrated that the significant effect of the interaction termis due to the protec-
tive effect of placement for males who were placed following frequent moves
(p < .01). Males who experienced frequent moves and were placed were 68%
less likely to have a juvenile arrest than were males who experienced frequent
moves and were not placed (see Table 3). The interaction was not significant
for females in the juvenile model (see Table 4).
There was no significant interaction effect for adult arrests. However, test-
ing this hypothesis for females only, the results were marginally significant
(p = .064).
4
These marginally significant results, however, were not in the
predicted direction. The results indicated that females who were placed fol-
lowing frequent family moves were almost twice as likely to have an adult
arrest as those who were not placed (see Table 3). Testing this hypothesis for
males only, the results significant for adult arrests (p < .05, one-tailed) in the
predicted direction. Males who had frequent family moves and were placed
were 49%less likely to be arrested as adults than were males whose families
had moved frequently but had not been placed.
DISCUSSION
We found that removing an abused or neglected child from the home
increases the likelihood of arrest under certain circumstances yet reduces
the likelihood of arrest under other circumstances. We found that place-
ment may act as a contributing factor to criminality for abused or neglected
children who have experienced a recent family separation. Abused or
neglected children who experienced a family separation and were removed
fromtheir homes were almost twice as likely to have an adult arrest as abused
or neglected children who experienced a family separation and were not
removed.
These results suggest that removing a child from his or her home follow-
ing a family separation may create further instability in the childs life.
Although the parents may be unable to care for the childs emotional needs at
this time, the childs siblings, friends, neighbors, or teachers may provide the
child with the support that he or she needs. If the abused or neglected child is
removed from the home, however, the child will likely be removed from this
support system, thus increasing the risk of criminality.
On the other hand, an abused or neglected child who has experienced a
family separation may benefit fromreceiving in-home social service care. In
this situation, the child could use the existing social support systemwhile the
social service worker implements a plan to prevent further abuse or neglect.
1
0
1
3
Family Moves on Likelihood of Arrest for Males
Race 1.08 2.94*** 1.11 3.04*** 0.76 2.15** 0.78 2.12***
Placement 0.19 1.21 0.63 1.88* 0.08 0.93 0.20 1.22
Frequent moves 0.29 0.75 1.22 3.37* 0.04 1.04 0.98 2.66
Placement Frequent Moves 1.77 0.17*** 1.10 0.34*
Model
2
26.59*** 33.09*** 12.21** 15.04***
Family Moves on Likelihood of Arrest for Females
Race 0.47 1.59* 0.47 1.60* 0.38 1.46 0.39 1.47
Placement 0.47 1.60 0.42 1.52 0.63 0.54** 0.96 0.38***
Frequent moves 0.35 0.70 0.58 0.56 0.01 1.01 1.24 0.29
Placement Frequent Moves 0.27 1.31 1.64 5.14*
Model
2
5.67 5.77 6.27* 13.79***

a
t

A
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
u

I
o
a
n

C
u
z
a

o
n

J
u
n
e

2
9
,

2
0
1
4
j
i
v
.
s
a
g
e
p
u
b
.
c
o
m
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

Future research should focus on this issue by examining the effectiveness of
in-home social service care for abused and neglected children who have
experienced a family separation.
In the second hypothesis, we examined the effectiveness of placement
when a child had experienced frequent family moves. As suggested by
Hirschis (1969) social bond theory, we expected that placement would be
more effective when children had experienced frequent family moves. We
found that placement serves as a protective factor for abused or neglected
males whose family experienced frequent moves in the year prior to the abuse
or neglect incident, whereas placement may be deleterious for females who
have experienced frequent moves. Placement significantly reduced likeli-
hood of both juvenile and adult arrest for males who had experienced fre-
quent moves. For females, the interaction termwas not significant in the juve-
nile arrest model, indicating that placement was no more or less effective
when the abused or neglected child had moved frequently than when the child
had not moved frequently. The interaction term approached significance in
the adult arrest model, but the effect was not in the predicted direction. For
females, placement following frequent family moves increased their risk of
adult arrest by almost 200%. Although this finding only approached signifi-
cance, the magnitude of the effect is quite large. The size of this effect, in con-
cert with Jonson-Reid and Barths (2000) report that females faced a greater
risk of incarceration as level of social service involvement increased, sug-
gests that future research should consider this issue. In particular, research
could examine whether other options, such as in-home social service care and
family counseling, may be more appropriate for some females who have
experienced abuse or neglect and frequent family moves. Any research, of
course, must consider not only the effectiveness of placement alternatives in
preventing future criminality but also the ability of these alternatives to pre-
vent future abuse or neglect, as this is the clear priority of any social service
intervention.
The fact that placement in a presumably more stable environment proved
beneficial for males but detrimental for females suggests that the existence of
social bonds may be less critical in the deterrence of female criminality.
Research has found, however, that the absence of social bonds is equally
important in predicting male and female delinquency (Giordano,
Cernkovich, &Pugh, 1986). Thus, it may be that females are better able than
males to maintain existing social bonds despite frequent moves. It may also
be that females are better able than males to establish newsocial bonds, such
as when a family move involves changing schools and/or neighborhoods. We
are aware of no research that directly addresses the differential development
and maintenance of social bonds among male and female children and sug-
gest that this may be an area for future exploration.
Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
One limitation of the present study is that the data (Widom, 1994) repre-
sent official reports of child abuse or neglect occurring between the years of
1967 and 1971. Although it was necessary to use cases of abuse or neglect
reported more than 30 years ago to examine the sample for both juvenile and
adult arrests, this presents a fewproblems for the present analysis. First of all,
these cases were reported before the mandatory child abuse reporting laws
were enacted (Widom, 1989b). Therefore, these files represent only the most
serious cases of child abuse or neglect. This sample of reported child abuse
and neglect cases may be somewhat different from a sample of unreported
cases. As a result, the findings of the present study cannot be generalized to
the entire population of abused or neglected children. Instead, the present
findings are only representative of the most serious cases of child abuse or
neglect.
Another limitation of the present research is that the data used for this
study relied on official arrest records to measure the amount of involvement
in criminal activities. Relying on official arrest records represents the crimi-
nal offenses of abused or neglected children who got caught engaging in
criminal activities and underestimates the actual extent of criminal behavior.
This is a limitation shared by much of the research in this area (e.g., Jonson-
Reid & Barth, 2000) and can be addressed only through the use of self-
reported or family-reported measures of criminal behavior.
Finally, our study is limited by the information contained in the adminis-
trative records. First, information on socioeconomic status (SES) was not
available. Because official records rarely contain SES data, similarly
designed studies have also been unable to control for SES (Johnson-Reid &
Barth, 2000; also see Widom, 1991b, 1991c, which used these data). It is
likely, however, that these data overrepresent lower SES children because
these cases are more likely to come to the attention of authorities, particularly
before mandatory reporting. Thus, we cannot determine the extent to which
increased financial resources might alter the effects reported in this research.
Due to the nature of the administrative data, we were also unable to examine a
number of family characteristics that may mediate the effectiveness of place-
ment in deterring criminal activity as well as influence the placement deci-
sion, such as parental or sibling criminal involvement, parental alcoholism,
family size, and family belief systemor religion. As a prospective design that
uses only substantiated cases of child abuse/neglect, however, these data are
not influenced by subject recall or retelling of past events to fit future conse-
quences. Thus, these data are widely recognized as the best available source
of information on the child abuse-delinquency relationship (Zingraff et al.,
1993).
Overall, our results indicated that the effect of placement on criminality
may depend on the presence of family disorganization, as measured by recent
family separation and frequent family moves. We also found that the overall
pattern of effects differs for males and females. Youths whose families expe-
rienced a recent separation, such as through divorce, marital separation, or
death in the family, were found to be at a greater risk of adult arrest if they
were removed from the home. On the other hand, placement had different
effects for males and females when the family experienced frequent moves.
This finding is consistent with Jonson-Reid and Barths (2000) report that
placement has different effects on male and female criminality while further
specifying factors that moderate this relationship. We also recognize that
other family characteristics and situational factors, such as quality of place-
ment, may influence the effect of placement on criminality, and we encour-
age researchers to investigate these issues. Such research will assist social
service workers in their placement decisions, allowing them to consider the
need to eliminate immediate physical and psychological harm as well as
reduce the risk of future harm resulting from involvement in criminal
behavior.
NOTES
1. The behavioral problems include general conduct issues that do not necessarily constitute
delinquency. To ensure that the behavioral problems did not reflect preexisting delinquency,
Widomremoved those youths whose placement was in a home for delinquents fromher analysis.
Behavioral problems remained a significant predictor of later criminality.
2. Widomdoes not elaborate on the coding of the recent family disruption variable in either
the code book or published descriptions of the data. Thus, there is no indication as to the specific
time frame necessary for a family disruption to be considered recent.
3. We report a marginally significant main effect for placement in the juvenile arrest model
(p = .08). Widom(1991a, 1991c) reported, however, that placement is not related to arrest rates.
Widoms results were based on bivariate analyses and thus may vary fromthe results found in the
multivariate models presented here.
4. A two-tailed test of significance was used because the effects were not in the predicted
direction.
REFERENCES
Abner, J. L. (1980). The involuntary child placement decision: Solomons dilemma revisited. In
G. Ger, C. Ross, & E. Zigler (Eds.), Child abuse: An agenda for action. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Alfaro, J. (1981). Report on the relationship between child abuse and neglect and later socially
deviant behavior. In R. J. Hunner &Y. E. Walker (Eds.), Exploring the relationship between
child abuse and delinquency (pp. 175-219). Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun.
Bolton, F. G., Reich, J., & Gutierres, S. E. (1977). Delinquency patterns in maltreated children
and siblings. Victimology, 2, 349-359.
Crittenden, P. M., & Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachment theory. In D.
Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and
consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 432-463). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (1994). Children and marital conflict: The impact of family
dispute and resolution. New York: Guilford.
Erel, O., &Burman, B. (1995). Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 108-132.
Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1990). The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development: A
long-term follow-up of 411 London males. In Criminality: Personality, behaviour and life
history. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Geller, M., &Ford-Somma, L. (1984). Violent homes, violent children: Astudy of violence in the
families of juvenile offenders. Report prepared for the National Center on Child Abuse and
Neglect. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey State Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile
Services.
Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S., &Pugh, M. (1986). Friendships and delinquency. American Jour-
nal of Sociology, 91, 1170-1203.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jonson-Reid, M., &Barth, R. P. (2000). Frommaltreatment report to juvenile incarceration: The
role of child welfare services. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(4), 505-520.
Katz, M. H., Hampton, R. L., Newberger, E. H., Bowles, R. T., &Snyder, J. C. (1986). Returning
children home: Clinical decision making in cases of child abuse and neglect. American Jour-
nal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 253-262.
Kleinbaum, D. G. (1994). Logistic regression: A self-learning text. New York: Springer.
Lewis, D. O., Shanok, S. S., Pincus, J. H., & Glaser, G. H. (1979). Violent juvenile delinquents:
Psychiatric, neurological, psychological, and abuse factors. Journal of the American Acad-
emy of Child Psychiatry, 18, 307-319.
Murray, L. (1996). Personal and social influences on parenting and adult adjustment. In S.
Kraemer &J. Roberts (Eds.), The politics of attachment (pp. 43-61). London: Free Associa-
tion Books.
Oats, R. K. (1989). The consequences of child abuse and neglect. Early Child Development and
Care, 42, 57-69.
Raviv, A., Keinan, G., Abazon, Y., & Raviv, A. (1990). Moving as a stressful life event for ado-
lescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 130-140.
Runyan, D. K., &Gould, C. L. (1988). Foster care for child maltreatment: Impact on delinquent
behavior. In G. T. Hotaling & D. Finkelhor (Eds.), Coping with family violence: Research
and policy perspectives (pp. 224-237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Salter, A., Richardson, C. M., & Kairys, S. W. (1985). Caring for abused preschoolers. Child
Welfare, 64, 343-356.
Smith, C., & Thornberry, T. P. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and
adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33(4), 451-481.
Steinhauer, P. D. (1991). The least detrimental alternative: A systematic guide to case planning
and decision making for children in care. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Thoburn, J. (1988). Child placement: Principles and practice. Brookfield, VT: Wildwood
House.
Widom, C. (1989a). Does violence beget violence? Acritical examination of the literature. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 106(1), 3-28.
Widom, C. (1989b). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160-166.
Widom, C. (1989c). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology, 27(2),
251-271.
Widom, C. (1989d). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior: Research design and findings on
criminality, violence, and child abuse. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59(3), 355-
367.
Widom, C. (1990). Childhood victimization and violent offending. Violence and Victims, 5(1),
19-35.
Widom, C. (1991a). The role of placement experiences in mediating the criminal consequences
of early childhood victimization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 195-209.
Widom, C. (1991b). Childhood victimization: Risk factor for delinquency. In M. E. Colton &S.
Gore (Eds.), Adolescent stress: Causes and consequences (pp. 201-221). NewYork: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Widom, C. (1991c). Avoidance of criminality in abused and neglected children. Psychiatry, 54,
162-174.
Widom, C. (1994). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior in a Midwest metropoli-
tan area of the United States (1967-1988) [Electronic data file]. Compiled by the Depart-
ments of Criminal Justice and Psychology, Indiana University. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-Univer-
sity Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Widom, C., & Maxfield, G. (1996). A prospective examination of risk for violence among
abused and neglected children. In C. F. Ferris &T. Grisso (Eds.), Understanding aggressive
behavior in children. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Wolfe, D. A. (1999). Child abuse: Implications for child development and psychopathology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolfner, G. D., & Gelles, R. J. (1993). A profile of violence toward children: A national study.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 197-212.
Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarlata, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of family relo-
cation on childrens growth, development, school function, and behavior. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 270, 1334-1338.
Zingraff, M. T., Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., &Johnsen, M. C. (1993). Child maltreatment and youth-
ful problem behavior. Criminology, 31(2), 173-202.
Jennifer McMahon recently received her B.S. with honors from the University of Geor-
gia, where she double majored in criminal justice and psychology. She is currently the
intake and intervention specialist at the Gwinnett Sexual Assault Center and Gwinnett
Childrens Advocacy Center.
Jody Clay-Warner is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Georgia.
Her research interests include violence against women, procedural justice, and victim-
ology. Reports of her most recent research have appeared in Violence and Victims and
Social Psychology Quarterly.

J Interpers Violence 2002 McMahon 1002 19

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

J Interpers Violence 2002 McMahon 1002 19

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

http://jiv.sagepub.

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- Sep 1, 2002 Version of Record >>

Você também pode gostar