Economic Factors in Michigan Delinquency 9780231881289

Table of contents :
PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
CONTENTS
TABLES
FIGURES
I: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
II: METHODS OF STUDY
III: STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SELECTED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS
IV: MAXIMUM CORRELATIONS AND THE PROBLEM OF CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIPS
V: IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER ACTION
APPENDIX
INDEX

Citation preview

ECONOMIC FACTORS IN MICHIGAN DELINQUENCY BY ECONOMIC WAR

P A U L

ANALYSIS

PRODUCTION

EDITED

BY

W I E R S

SECTION, MUNITIONS BOARD, WASHINGTON,

W I L L I A M

N .

BRANCH D.C.

FUSON

I N S T R U C T O R IN SOCIOLOGY, U N I V E R S I T Y OF MICHIGAN

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW

YORK

•

I 9 4 4

T h e publication of this book has been made possible by the Michigan Child Guidance Institute Fund, University of Michigan

COPYRIGHT

1944

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, N E W FOREIGN AGENT: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,

YORK Humphrey

Milford, Amen House, London, E.C. 4, England, and B. I. Building, Nicol Road, Bombay, India MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

To G. J. W.

AND

J. W.

PREFACE A SCIENTIFIC description of juvenile delinquency has long been regarded by social scientists and social technicians as a prerequisite to the development of more efficient programs of control. Scientific studies of this subject fall broadly into two classifications: ( i ) studies of delinquent personalities; and ( 2 ) studies of the external variables associated with delinquent behavior. Evidence of the first type has come mainly from genetic psychologists, psychiatrists, and from child guidance clinics. Evidence of the second type has been accumulating from various sociological studies, stemming largely from the work of Clifford Shaw in Chicago. But because juvenile delinquency first attracted attention as a phenomenon of urban life, most of the scientific attention devoted to it to date has tended to focus upon urban situations. The present study is an endeavor to broaden the field. It is an attempt to apply careful statistical methods to an analysis of the recorded juvenile delinquency cases reported by the courts of an entire state during two nonsuccessive periods of two years each, 1927—28, 1931—32, respectively, bracketing the onset of the Great Depression. Since juvenile court jurisdictions in Michigan in 1 9 3 0 ranged in size from Wayne County with nearly 2,000,000 population to Oscoda County with less than 2,000, and there were 23 out of the 83 jurisdictions that had less than 10,000 population each, it was necessary, in order to avoid the statistical unreliability inherent in small populations, to group the delinquency figures according to some principle of uniform applicability. Any principle of grouping that might have been chosen would have been open to objections. The one actually used was population density. On this basis the state's 83 counties were divided into 19 groups (and individual units when density exceeded 200 per square mile). Broadly speaking the question that M r . Wiers sought to solve was this: Given the recorded delinquencies in these ig

vi

PREFACE

unit areas for four years reduced to a per capita basis, what variations in social and economic indices obtainable from the 1930 census and from state records are associated with variations in the delinquency rate? T h e answer to that question was to run in terms not of local neighborhoods or communities, but in terms of child population groupings of 10,000 or more. In such population groupings of children 1 0 - 1 6 , inclusive, in a state like Michigan, where conditions vary all the way from mass production urban centers such as Detroit to the timber and mining counties of the Upper Peninsula, what relationships, if any, exist between the delinquency rate and such veriables as percentage of urban population, average income, percentage of unemployed, percentage of women employed, home ownership, size of family, parental neglect, percentages of Negroes and of foreign-born, percentage of church members, the incidence of adult crime, and so on? T o seek the answer to these questions one by one was, of course, merely a preliminary. F o r many of these social and economic indices go hand in hand with each other. M a n y of them are especially related to urbanization. Furthermore, it is theoretically possible that the conditions they represent may be cumulative in their effects on children. M r . Wiers, therefore, set himself the task of trying to untangle some of these interrelationships by partial correlation techniques and to measure the cumulative results with multiple correlations. H i s work constitutes the first attempt known to the sponsors to provide a state-wide statistical picture of the economic backgrounds of juvenile delinquency in the United States. A s other studies both of personality maladjustments and of deviant social conditions are showing, no simple answers could be expected to emerge from his study. But it does point the way to the need of further studies of a more detailed character. A n d it should help to dispel some of the over-simplified popular misconceptions about the relationships between juvenile delinquency and economics.

PREFACE

vu

T h e study itself was planned while M r . Wiers, an instructor in economics at the University of Michigan, was acting as statistician f o r the Delinquency I n f o r m a t i o n Service of the University. It was begun a year or so later when he had joined the Michigan Central Statistical Bureau at Lansing; and it was finally completed while he was teaching economics at the University of Minnesota. W a r conditions have made inadvisable the publication of much of the detailed statistical material prepared by M r . W i e r s and many of the charts and graphs included in the original manuscript. H i s own preoccupation with his present duties in the Economic Analysis Section, Munitions Branch, W a r P r o duction Board, Washington, made the final revision of the manuscript a slow process which might have been prolonged for the duration had the author not graciously consented to share the responsibility of revision with M r . William N . Fuson, instructor in sociology, University of Michigan, who has acted as editor of the research report which follows. LOWELL JUILHARD CARR Associate P r o f e s s o r of Sociology University of M i c h i g a n F o r m e r Director, M i c h i g a n Child G u i d a n c e Institute CLARK TIBBITTS Lecturer in Sociology, University of M i c h i g a n Director, R a c k h a m Institute of H u m a n A d j u s t m e n t WILLARD C . OLSON P r o f e s s o r of Education and Director of Research in Child D e v e l o p m e n t University E l e m e n t a r y School, University of M i c h i g a n R . L . JENKINS, M. D. Chief of Psychiatry, Illinois Institute of J u v e n i l e R e s e a r c h F o r m e r Psychiatrist, M i c h i g a n Child G u i d a n c e Institute December,

1943

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS THE PURPOSE and scope of this book have been so well presented by Lowell J . Carr and his colleagues that further comment is unnecessary. However, in fairness to those who have helped at various stages in the preparation and revision of the manuscript, emphasis upon the summarized nature of the presentation is justified. Once the broad outlines of the study were established, an empirical statistical approach was used. Over 3,500 simple, partial, multiple, and curvilinear correlation coefficients and beta coefficients were computed. Graphical techniques were also employed. Professor Carr struggled with this mass of data and the author from the beginning. I hope the book will not disappoint him as a measure of his success with both. The original manuscript was also read and many helpful suggestions made by Dr. Clark Tibbitts of the University of Michigan and Professor Monachesie of the University of Minnesota. T h e nature of the study required the use of data from a large number of sources. Much of this was from unpublished records of state departments and agencies. In particular the author is indebted to M r . Gilbert R. Haigh, then of the State Central Statistical Bureau; M a j o r Robert Marsh of the Boys' Vocational School; and Miss M a r y Swaney of the Girls' Training School. From its inception, the study has been carried out under the auspices of the Michigan Child Guidance Institute. Publication has been financed by the Institute. In particular, thanks are due to M r . William N. Fuson who edited the original manuscript. Credit for the extensive computations involved is largely due to M r s . Paul Wiers; and I am indebted to Mrs. Gladys Selzer for typing the final manuscript. Paul Wiers December, 1943

C O N T E N T S

I:

II:

III:

IV:

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

OF

I

STUDY

IO

S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S OF S E L E C T E D SOCIAL ECONOMIC

FACTORS

MAXIMUM

CORRELATIONS

CURVILINEAR

V:

AND SUMMARY

AND 21

AND THE

PROBLEM

OF

RELATIONSHIPS

IMPLICATIONS

FOR F U R T H E R

40

ACTION

45

APPENDIX

49

INDEX

53

T A B L E S

1.

C O U N T Y G R O U P CHARACTERISTICS, 1930 C E N S U S

2.

RELATION

OF

POPULATION

DENSITY

TO

2

DELINQUENCY

RATES, 1 9 2 0 - 1 9 3 7 3.

3

M I C H I G A N C O U N T I E S G R O U P E D ACCORDING TO P O P U L A T I O N D E N S I T Y I N T O U N I T S FOR U S E IN C O R R E L A T I O N

ANALYSIS

WITH

JUVENILE

DENSITY

OF

POPULATION

AND

RATE

OF

DELINQUENCY 4.

15

H O M E C O N D I T I O N S OF B O Y S A D M I T T E D T O B O Y S ' V O C A T I O N A L SCHOOL, J U L Y

I, 1 9 3 4 - J u N E

30, 1937

32

X

TABLES

5.

A C O M P A R I S O N OF L I N E A R A N D C U R V I L I N E A R C O R R E L A T I O N COEFFICIENTS

6.

43

GEOGRAPHICAL

CONCENTRATION

OF

DELINQUENT

CHIL-

DREN IN M I C H I G A N 7.

DELINQUENCY

49

R A T E S FOR C E R T A I N

PERIODS

INTERCORRE-

L A T E D BY A R E A S 8.

49

N U M B E R OF C H I L D R E N IN F A M I L I E S OF B O Y S C O M M I T T E D TO M I C H I G A N BOYS' VOCATIONAL SCHOOL

9.

10.

RELATION

OF D E L I N Q U E N C Y

50

R A T E S TO E M P L O Y M E N T

OF

CHILDREN

50

STATISTICS U S E D AS SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICES

51

FIGURES I. II.

L E V E L S OF P O P U L A T I O N D E N S I T Y BY C O U N T I E S IN M I C H I G A N H O W C O U R T H E A R I N G S T E N D TO V A R Y W I T H

POPULATION

D E N S I T Y IN N O N M E T R O P O L I T A N C O U N T I E S III.

IV.

V.

HOW

DELINQUENCY

R A T E S PER

17

1,000 AGED

WITH POPULATION

D E N S I T Y IN N E W Y O R K

BUSINESS

FLUCTUATIONS

CYCLE

IN

S T A T E CORRECTIONAL

INSTITUTIONS,

HOW

AND

DELINQUENCY

TOGETHER

INCOME

10-16

VARY

STATE

18

COMMITMENTS

TO

1895-1938 TAX

I3

RETURNS

30 VARY 42

I:

INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

EACH YEAR in M i c h i g a n more than 25,000 children under 1 7 years of age come into contact with juvenile courts or law enforcement agencies f o r various f o r m s of delinquency. Of these 25,000 children, f r o m 4,000 to 6,000 normally face recorded delinquency charges in the 83 juvenile courts of the state. M o r e than 3,000 children are on p r o b a t i o n — o r what passes f o r prob a t i o n — a t any given time, and about 800 boys and girls are sent to correctional institutions, public or private, every year. T o care f o r this small army of juvenile lawbreakers, the people of M i c h i g a n each year spend more than $ 1 , 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 — m o r e than enough to build over 27 miles of standard cement highway each y e a r at p r e w a r prices, or about four Flying Fortresses. H e r e is evidence aplenty of the need to learn what conditions give rise to delinquency, f o r until we know the causes, the cure can be only a h a p h a z a r d trial and error process. T h e study of the causes of juvenile delinquency can be approached f r o m at least two a n g l e s — w e may study the child involved in the delinquent act, or we may study the community which produces the conditions under the influence of which many children commit delinquencies. Studies of the case histories of individual children show with marked regularity that certain environmental conditions are connected with the child's delinquency. T h e present study attempts to show what broad community factors influence juvenile delinquency and how much of the difference in the amount of delinquency f r o m one region of the state to another can be explained by differences in these conditions. Fortunately, f r o m the scientific point of view, Michigan is an ideal state f o r this type of study. Within its boundaries are

INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

found the most diverse social and economic conditions.

Ex-

tremes of urban development are contrasted with isolated rural villages. Rapidly g r o w i n g industrial centers are contrasted with areas experiencing a decline in population and economic activity. T h e r e are, furthermore, numerous areas with conditions which are at various stages between these two extremes. A n analysis of delinquency rates under so wide a variety of conditions should show whether delinquency rates bear any relation to indices of the social and economic environment. T o get a tentative picture of the distribution of delinquency throughout the state, w e may classify the 8 3 counties into four main groups, as f o l l o w s :

1

1 . W a y n e C o u n t y , dominated by metropolitan D e t r o i t 2 . Industrialized counties 3 . Southern agricultural counties 4 . U p s t a t e counties TABLE

I . C O U N T Y G R O U P CHARACTERISTICS, Wayne County

Number of counties Population aged 1 0 - 1 6 T o t a l population density per square mile Percentage of state's area Percentage of total employed engaged in agriculture, fishing, forestry, or mining 1

Industrial Counties

So.Agri. Counties

1930

CENSUS

Upstate Counties

State of Michigan

i

16

26

40

83

225,800

215,900

94,600

85,900

622,200

31O46.7

167.6

41.5

18.3

84.2

1.1

17.9

28.3

52.7

100.0

.9

12.8

44.8

44.4

15.1

T h e bases of classification used here a r e : (a) density of population; and (b) the proportion of total employed who are working in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and mining. T h e industrial group includes all counties except Wayne which have a population density of more than 90 persons per square mile. All cities of 18,000 or more population (1930) are located in these counties. With four exceptions, each has one or more cities of over 25,000 population. T h e southern agricultural group consists of 26 rural counties which, in the main, adjoin industrial counties. T h e 40 upstate counties are lowest in population density and relatively distant from large industrial centers. Agriculture and to some extent forestry and mining constitute the major occupations. T h e upstate group includes all counties in the Upper Peninsula and the northern part of the Lower Peninsula.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY TABLE

2 . R E L A T I O N OF P O P U L A T I O N D E N S I T Y TO D E L I N Q U E N C Y RATES,

Court Years June

3

ending 30

hearings Wayne County

per 1,000

1920-193 7

population

Industrial Counties

aged 10-16

inclusive

So. Agri. Counties

Upstate Counties

Stale of Michigan

13.2 12.7 14.6 13.2 15.8 16.6 16.6 15.1

8.7 7-4 9.0 10.0 10.4 10.8 11.6 11.9

5-2 3.8 3.0 3-7 4.0 4-1 5-1 4.0

6.0 4-7 3.6 4.8 6.6 6.7 7.0 6.0

9.0 8.0 8.8 9.2 10.6 11.1 11.6 10.9

'3-3 11.8 11.6

11.9 9.1 9.6

3-7 3-2 3-5

5-7 5-1 4'

10.3 8.7 8.8

10.6

10.0

5-2

6.0

9.0

Population density—1930 3,046.7

167.6

.8.3

84.2

1921 1922 1923 1924 192s 1926 1927 1928 1929 0 1930 a 1931 1932 1933 1934 0 I93S 1936 ^ »937 J

0

4M

Data not available.

I f we examine the rates 2 f o r court hearings, f o r placement on probation, and f o r admission to correctional institutions, we find in each variety of rate that there is the same descending order f o r the four groups of counties: Wayne County highest, the other industrial counties next, the upstate counties third, and the southern agricultural counties lowest. It is well to note that this order is no accident occurring in a single y e a r ; all the data since 1 9 2 0 show this order to be persistent. 3 In this regularity of the order, and in the size of the differences—Wayne County having rates twice as high as those of the southern agricultural counties—we have striking though crude evidence that the type of community concerned is a significant element in the incidence 2

Number of children involved per y e a r f o r each 1,000 children between the ages of 1 0 and 16 inclusive, 1930. 8 See T a b l e 2, "Relation of Population Density to Delinquency Rates, 1920 to 1 9 3 7 . "

4

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

of juvenile delinquency. W e turn now to the more detailed analysis of the more specific elements in the situation.

NOTE ON METHODS 4 A n y study of the relation of community conditions to the amount of juvenile delinquency must have valid and reliable measures both of the conditions studied and of juvenile delinquency. Several measures of delinquency, based upon different stages in court procedure, might be used. W h a t evidence is available suggests that the most useful index of the relative amount of delinquency in any given county is the rate of court hearings, that is, the number of children heard by the juvenile court each year f o r each 1,000 children in the area. Of course, all delinquency is not detected, and all that is detected is not reported. Hence, this rate does not indicate the precise amount of delinquency. A s this is true in all counties, however, the rate of court hearings shows the relative standing of the several counties with respect to total (including unknown) deliquency better than any other known measure. 5 F o r measures of community conditions, a number of economic and social indices were obtained f r o m Federal Census reports and f r o m the various state departments. B y means of simple linear correlation methods, and to a lesser extent by multiple and partial correlation methods, the relationships between the rate of court hearings and these factors have been computed so that a quantitative judgment can be made concern4

T h i s section is a brief summary of Chapter II, "Methods of Study," to which reference should be made if further details are desired. 5 Subject, of course, to the fact that the more populous and well-to-do counties usually have more and better social agencies for the handling of delinquents outside of court. This fact, however, should decrease the relative proportion of antisocial children who are taken to court in such counties as compared with the poorer counties. In other words, the incidence of antisocial behavior is probably somewhat higher relatively in Wayne and the industrial counties than the mere court statistics show. Evidence supporting this is given in Chapter II, note 5. For a discussion of the reliability of court hearings as measures of juvenile delinquency, see Paul Wiers, "Can Rural and Urban Delinquency Be Compared?" The Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, X X X , (1939), 522-33.

INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

5

ing the relative importance of the various regional conditions in the production of juvenile delinquency. T h i s statistical information is available only f o r the counties as units. H o w e v e r , some of the counties are so thinly populated that their total child populations f o r m inadequate bases upon which to compute reliable rates. Hence, it is necessary to combine the 83 counties into 1 9 county groups, largely on a basis of density of population. 6 T h e time period to which the data r e f e r centers around 1 9 3 0 , the last year f o r which complete census reports were available. SUMMARY

OF

RESULTS

F o r convenience we summarize here the results of the mathematical analysis of the relationships between four series of juvenile deliquency rates—covering approximately 20,000 cases — a n d 45 series of social and economic factors in Michigan. 7 URBANIZATION

AND

INDUSTRIALIZATION

Dense populations characteristic of urban life are closely associated with juvenile delinquency. T h e latter increases markedly as the density rises f r o m 40 to 1 5 0 persons per square mile, but beyond this point there is little increase. G r o w t h in population has little influence upon the rates of delinquency when the density of population is held constant; but a dense population exhibits delinquency whether there is growth or not. Conversely, the greater the proportion of families that live on f a r m s the lower the juvenile delinquency rate. T h i s relationship holds even when the influence of low population density in f a r m areas is taken into consideration. 6

It will be noticed that in rural counties, f o r the most part thinly populated, there are towns; and in the densely populated urban counties there are rural a r e a s . W e a r e forced to ignore these differences in the present analysis as the a v a i l a b l e data are in county-wide f o r m and not broken d o w n f o r rural and urban area9 as such. See the Chapter II, "Methods of S t u d y " f o r f u r t h e r comment. 7 T h e f o u r delinquency series w e r e selected f r o m a considerably g r e a t e r number a v a i l a b l e because they bracketed the onset of the depression and because they correlated closely with other series a v a i l a b l e . A s f o r social and economic factors, 1 5 4 series w e r e investigated. Of these, 45 w e r e f o u n d to show significant results which a r e reported in this study.

6

INTRODUCTION AND

ECONOMIC

SUMMARY

STATUS

Poverty itself does not explain why one county group in Michigan has a higher rate of juvenile delinquency than another. T h e highest rates are found among those counties which have high average incomes even when density of population is controlled. Rough measures of inequality of income show no consistent relationship to juvenile delinquency. HOME

CONDITIONS

Although the relationships are obscured by the influence of other factors, notably income, employment, and age composition, high delinquency rates appear to accompany the appearance of a large proportion of large families. In these Michigan figures, as with Shaw's findings in Chicago, divorce shows little general relationship to delinquency. H o w e v e r , parental neglect of a sufficiently serious nature to reach the attention of the courts is fairly closely associated with delinquency rates. H o m e ownership militates somewhat against delinquency. COMMUNITY

CONDITIONS

Indices of nativity, race, educational facilities, illiteracy, church membership, infant mortality, and adult criminality, all reveal low and unimportant associations with juvenile delinquency. Such connections as do exist appear to be largely the result of a common association with the complex of urban life. MAXIMUM

CORRELATIONS

Economic factors are the variables among those analyzed in the present study which, singly and in combinations of two or three, are most closely related to juvenile delinquency. T h e most closely related single factor is per capita value added in manufacture ( . 8 8 ) . T h e two factors most closely related together to the delinquency rate are the per capita rates of value added in manufacture and the logarithm of the number of income tax returns per capita (multiple correlation coefficient . 9 2 ) . T h e most closely related noneconomic factor also associated with

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

7

an economic variable is average size of family and the per capita value added in manufacture. T h e multiple correlation coefficient f o r these two with juvenile delinquency is . 9 1 . F o r three variables, economic factors again give the closest relationship ( . 9 5 ) . T h e three most closely related together to juvenile delinquency are ( a ) per capita value added in manufacture, ( b ) the logarithm of income tax returns per capita, and (c) the percentage of male workers among all males. T h e indices concerned are listed in Chapter I V . CURVILINEAR

CORRELATION

A tentative hypothesis concerning a possible curvilinear relationship between socio-economic factors and the juvenile delinquency rate is proposed. T h e evidence suggests that up to a population density signalized by the presence of a medium-sized city delinquency rates increase faster than population density, but that beyond that point delinquency rates rise less rapidly than population density. In other words, up to the medium-sized city, the bigger the town the higher the delinquency rate, but beyond the medium-sized city, the bigger the city the stronger the tendency f o r the delinquency rate to level off. Such an hypothesis, of course, must be checked by studies in other states before it can be accepted as a valid generalization. CONCLUSIONS

A few inferences may be drawn f r o m the data reviewed. 1 . Delinquency prevention will not be achieved by a program of slum clearance confined to the largest cities. N o r will the trend toward industrial decentralization be of much assistance so long as it is restricted to the relocation of industries in cities of 60,000 or more population. T h a t is, the biggest cities have proportionately no greater problem on their hands than the smaller cities. But, if the state delinquency rates could be diminished in size to those rates existing in county groups with the most favorable conditions of population density and urbanization, Michigan's number of juvenile delinquents would be re-

8

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

duced by two-thirds, that is, from approximately 5,000 a year to 1,650. 2. Juvenile delinquency will not be eliminated merely by raising the average income of a community. A f t e r all, it is the parent, not the child, who receives and disburses this income. The effects of high income upon delinquency rates will dep.end upon the choices which parents make in their use of these incomes. These choices do not necessarily lead to greater security for the child. Quite conceivably they may result in less stability and greater family disorganization and irresponsibility. Other studies have demonstrated, of course, that most juvenile delinquents come from the poorer strata within any given community. A s suggested above, however, this does not mean that no antisocial behavior ever issues from comfortable homes, but that poorer homes tend to concentrate in disadvantaged areas where deviation pressures are accentuated and where there are fewer obstacles between the antisocial act and a court record. 3. The problem of parental neglect, ranging from physical or mental incapacity through inaptitude, indifference, and desertion to actual contribution to delinquency by precept and example, must be solved if we are to achieve the maximum possible reduction of delinquency rates. A child can hardly be expected to learn to restrain his actions and conform to a pattern of behavior accepted by society when his own parents fail to do so and suffer no untoward consequences. Irresponsibility on the part of adults contributes to irresponsibility and lack of consideration for others among children. 4. We should not deceive ourselves with the once popular and still widely held fallacy that juvenile delinquency is a problem confined to the foreign and Negro elements of the population. Juvenile misbehavior is more widespread. It is not a peculiarity of any nationality or race. N o r does it require the existence of conflicts between foreign and native cultures for its development. Such conflicts may contribute to it on occasion, but it can occur without them.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

9

5. The data show a lack of association, either negative or positive, between educational indices and church membership on the one hand, and the rate of juvenile delinquency on the other. This raises a query concerning the role these institutions actually play in the guidance of youth. In our culture, the school, the church, and the family are the three major sources of supervised character development for the child. If the church and the school are actually playing important roles in the prevention of juvenile delinquency, we should expect to find in these county figures high negative correlations between measures of their activities and delinquency rates. Instead we find no association at all, either negative or positive. The question therefore remains: Are the schools and the churches really as neutral in this fight as this study suggests?

II: METHODS

OF

STUDY

THIS STUDY presents an analysis of the relationship between certain social and economic factors and the rate of juvenile delinquency in Michigan. This chapter ( a ) defines a "relationship," (b) describes how the state is divided for purposes of analysis into 19 subareas, (c) defines "juvenile delinquency," and (d) defines "social and economic factors." W H A T IS A RELATIONSHIP? Science has long been described as an effort to find a cause f o r every effect, and common sense tells us in everyday life that one thing "makes" another thing "happen." In more technical terms we speak of a "cause" when we say that the occurrence of one phenomenon is the necessary and sufficient condition of the occurrence of the second phenomenon, the "effect." Such a simple all-or-none relationship is hard enough to find in the most exact physical sciences, for other conditions enter to complicate the picture. In the social sciences this is even more true, so that the social scientist is forced to resort to description in terms of probabilities. That is, he may say that the occurrence of one phenomenon, A , is accompanied by the occurrence of a second phenomenon, B, in 99 out of 100 instances. This contingent prediction has to satisfy the social scientist at the present time. This is the type of "causal" relationship with which we are dealing. Thus, if we find a certain economic condition is almost invariably associated with a certain incidence of juvenile delinquency, and further that it does not appear reasonable that the condition is a result of that delinquency ( f o r theoretic or temporal reasons), we speak of that economic condition as a cause of juvenile delinquency.

METHODS

OF

STUDY

T h e statistical method of correlation analysis makes it possible f o r us to advance beyond the mere statement of the probability of the occurrence of a certain effect associated with the occurrence of a certain cause. W e may measure the degree of variation in one phenomenon as another also varies in amount. Further, we are able to estimate within limits and with a known degree of probability what the amount of the ' 'effect" will be f o r a given amount of " c a u s e . " In terms of our problem, we are able to say that, f o r example, as population density increases a certain number of persons per square mile, we will find the number of juvenile delinquents has increased to an amount known within certain limits fixed by the degree of confidence we insist upon. In this instance, the density of population is the "cause," or "independent v a r i a b l e " ; the amount of juvenile delinquency is the " e f f e c t , " or "dependent variable." T h e measure of the closeness of relationship, that is, of how well we can predict the effect when we know the cause in situations of this kind, is called a "coefficient of correlation," and is represented by the symbol r. W h e n an r is zero, there is no apparent relationship— the effect varies without regard to what we have hypothetically (and mistakenly in this case) called a " c a u s e . " When an r is near i . o o (either plus or minus), the relationship is very close and we can predict accurately. 1 1

Note on Generalization: With a few exceptions the r's computed for this study are based on 19 paired values (there are a few based on 18). As descriptive statistics of the phenomena related for the given time and place only, these values are adequate; whether large or small they are "what actually happened then and there." We may wish, however, to generalize concerning the relationsip between our many independent variables and juvenile delinquency in such terms as: given anywhere the kind of conditions which were present in Michigan around 1930, what rate of juvenile delinquency would we expect to find in the light of our knowledge of what actually happened in these 19 Michigan areas? Then our knowledge of 19 areas is knowledge of only a sample of all possible areas which might have the postulated "kind of conditions"—causal system. Statistical theory of sampling indicates that- unless a correlation coefficient is as large as r = -5S when derived from a sample of 19, it might once in 100 times be an accident of sampling certain areas out of all possible ones in which there was no consistent (real) relationship present; the five percent level of significance requires an r = 46. With these standards in mind, and aware of other limitations upon this study mentioned elsewhere, we shall call all r's which are,

12

M E T H O D S OF

STUDY

Prediction here refers only to estimating the rate of juvenile delinquency, not to the likelihood of any specific child's committing a delinquent act. W e try to determine what percentage of the population of an area will be delinquent, given certain social and economic conditions. W e analyze and attempt to evaluate the characteristics which apparently lead to either high or low rates in one area relative to other areas. Our measures of various factors do not indicate whether a particular condition such as poverty or illiteracy exists f o r the delinquent only, but rather indicate how prevalent a condition is f o r the population of the area as a whole, both delinquent and nondeliquent. If this condition is of primary importance as a causal factor of delinquency, it is reasonable to expect that where it is prevalent to a high degree, delinquency rates will be high and vice versa. Analyses of cases of individual delinquents help us to understand the chances that a given person or a person of his type will become delinquent. T h e factors which apparently contributed to the delinquent actions of individuals known to be delinquent are analyzed and evaluated. This method of analysis and the method used here are complementary. In an analysis of individual delinquents, we attempt to establish certain hypotheses concerning the factors contributing to delinquency. T h e present study tests the validity of these hypotheses as instruments of social control. It indicates where more intensive research and a reconsideration of the original hypotheses obtained from the analysis of individuals are desirable. S T R A T I F Y I N G MICHIGAN T o study the relationship between juvenile delinquency and social factors in Michigan by correlation methods, it is necesneglecting signs, smaller than .60 "insignificant" so f a r as g e n e r a l i z i n g is concerned, and small so f a r as the relationship described is concerned. T h o s e between .60 and .80 are "significant," but only moderate in closeness of association; when an r is numerically l a r g e r than .go, w e h a v e something! T o be sure, an r = .8o indicates that only 64 percent of the " v a r i a t i o n " in rate of delinquency is " e x p l a i n e d , " but in a context such as the present one, little more can be desired.

FIGURE

I . L E V E L S OF POPULATION D E N S I T Y C O U N T I E S IN

BY

MICHIGAN

Ecologically the state can be d i v i d e d into the metropolitan a r e a ( W a y n e C o u n t y ) , 16 smaller industrialized counties, 26 predominantly agricultural counties, and 40 cutover timber and mining counties, designated on the legend as "upstate." For statistical purposes, h o w e v e r , a finer breakdown is desirable than that represented by the a b o v e f o u r f o l d classification. Hence, the f u r t h e r analysis on which this study is based, namely, the 19 groups, or area-units. See T a b l e 3.

14

M E T H O D S OF

STUDY

sary to divide the state into a series of areas f o r which the rate of juvenile delinquency and the other indices may be found and their covariation over the series analyzed. It is desirable that the population of the units used be more or less the same size to obviate weighting. Each unit should also be homogeneous within itself so f a r as the conditions analyzed are concerned, but different f r o m other units in these respects. A l l units should be as much alike as possible so f a r as any other factors are concerned. T h e area-units, or county groups, used in the present study have been constructed on the basis of population density. 2 T h e 83 counties were first ranked according to 1 9 3 0 population densities; then they were divided into groups such that the 1 9 3 0 child populations would be about 20,000. F o u r counties having 2 5 , 0 0 0 or more children and densities of over 225 persons per square mile are treated as individual unit-areas. A s a result, 1 9 groups of counties are devised. T h e populations of the units are large enough to reduce the chance variation of rates within any unit; they range f r o m 1 1 , 0 0 0 to 3 1 , 0 0 0 children, with exception of Wayne County which has 226,000 children. 3 Complete homogeneity of the units internally is not achieved because the data are limited to county statistics. T h e similarity of the units with respect to factors other than those used as independent variables is, of course, undetermined. 2

A s a criterion of homogeneity, population density leaves much to be desired. Its main sociological implication is in terms of the preponderance of rural or urban culture patterns, but in v i e w of the internal heterogeneity of the areas with respect to population density itself this meaning is somewhat confused. A l t e r n a t i v e procedures would have been any of the f o l l o w i n g : ( a ) the construction of more general social areas following the procedure of C. E . L i v e l y in Ohio and M i s s o u r i ; ( b ) the construction of ecological a r e a s ; or even ( c ) stratification of the state in terms of each independent v a r i a b l e separately—though this latter would preclude the partial or multiple correlation analysis, or even strictly accurate comparisons between the simple correlation coefficients. Since most of the data w e r e available only on a county basis, the method of stratification used here appeared most practicable. 3 It will be observed that there is frequently an a w k w a r d discontinuity between W a y n e County and the next unit, requiring in some instances the omission of the W a y n e County unit to avoid distorting the correlation analysis.

METHODS OF STUDY

15

T A B L E 3 . M I C H I G A N C O U N T I E S G R O U P E D ACCORDING TO P O P U L A T I O N DENSITY WITH

INTO U N I T S

FOR U S E

IN CORRELATION

D E N S I T Y OF POPULATION A N D R A T E OF

ANALYSIS JUVENILE

DELINQUENCY

Group

igjo Population Density

Rate of Juvenile Delinquency (per 1,000 Pop. Aged 10-16 Incl.) 0

Counties Included

I

7-i

4.30

Oscoda Roscommon Montmorency Crawford Kalkaska Schoolcraft Lake

Luce Alcona Ontonagon Mackinac Keweenaw Baraga

II

14.6

6.36

Alger Otsego Ogemaw Missaukee Clare Iosco

Gladwin Chippewa Cheboygan P r e s q u e Isle Iron Newaygo

III

22.9

6.26

Benzie Antrim Arenac Osceola

Menominee Marquette Leelanau Oceana

IV

28.t

5-99

Mecosta Delta Gogebic

Sanilac Wexford Charlevoix

V

34-1

5.83

Manistee Emmet Alpena Livingston

Midland Huron Isabella

VI

38.6

4-33

Barry Montcalm Mason

Dickinson Tuscola

VII

42-5

3-63

Clinton Cass

Lapeer Grand Trav

VIII

46.9

2-59

Hillsdale Allegan

Branch

IX

52.9

4-25

Houghton Van Buren

Gratiot Eaton

X

65.2

407

Ionia St. J o s e p h

Lenawee Shiawasee

XI

94-3

8.50

Monroe Washtenaw

St. C l a i r Ottawa

" C o u r t h e a r i n g s ; a v e r a g e f o r t h e y e a r s 1927, 1928, 1931, a n d 1932.

16

METHODS

TABLE

3

(Continued).

OF

MICHIGAN

STUDY

COUNTIES

GROUPED ACCORDING

TO POPULATION D E N S I T Y INTO U N I T S FOR U S E IN

CORRE-

LATION A N A L Y S I S WITH D E N S I T Y OF POPULATION R A T E OF J U V E N I L E

Group

w Population Density

Rate of Juvenile Delinquency (per ifioo Pop. Aged 10-16 Incl.)

132.3

11.73

XIII

149.6

XIV

163.0

XII

AND

DELINQUENCY

0

Counties

Included

Calhoun Berrien

Jackson

6.84

Saginaw -

Bay

'4-75

Kalamazoo

Macomb

Muskegon

Ingham

XV

I90-4

12.04

XVI

238.4

8.67

Oakland

XVII

297.7

13.25

Kent

XVIII

323.1

15-57

Genesee

XIX

3,4

100

66

26

4

4

100

44

37

9

10

100

52

32

10

6

100

17-9

28.3

52-7

100.0

34-7

15.2

13.8

100.0

94

86

622

Percent of state's area 1.1 Percent of state's population aged 10-16 (1930) 36.3 Population aged 10-16 (1930) (ooo's) 226

216

So. Agri. Counties

for state

Upstate Counties

State of Michigan

T A B L E 7. DELINQUENCY RATES FOR CERTAIN PERIODS INTERCORRELATED BY AREAS VARIABLE A

Court Hearings 1927, 1928, 1931, 1932 1927, 1928, 1931, 1932 1927, 1928 »933. '935 1933. »935 a

VARIABLE B

Court Hearings 1933. 1935 June, 1934 to Dec., 1936 a 1921 to 1928 1921 to 1928 June, 1934, to Dec., 1936 a

CORRELATION

A WITH B .82 •72 •95 .69 •74

Based on reports of the juvenile courts to the Delinquency Information Service of the University of Michigan. AH other series based on the county agents' reports to the State W e l f a r e Department.

APPENDIX

5°

T A B L E 8 . N U M B E R OF CHILDREN IN FAMILIES OF BOYS COMMITTED TO M I C H I G A N Based

on a sample

Number of Children in Family One

4'

Two

39

Three

7i 60

State Total Number of Families (rounded to 000's)a

73 141

Six to Eight Nine or M o r e

Number of Children (rounded to 000's)»

July

1,

1934-

Site-specific Commitment Rate•>

251 199 122

251

7' 39

195 Z71

•374 .520

41 1,804

1.531

39 4

7' 496

Total

SCHOOL

of 46 percent of the first admissions June 30, 1937

Number of Admissions

Four Five

BOYS' VOCATIONAL

725

398

.163 .098

366

.194

282

.213

•275

• U.S. Census Reports, 1930. Children under 21 only. b Rate computed by dividing number of admissions from a given sized family (column 2) by number of children in such sized families (column 4) and multiplying by 1,000.

T A B L E 9. RELATION OF D E L I N Q U E N C Y CHILDREN County Group

R A T E S TO EMPLOYMENT OF

Percent of Children Aged 10-15 Years Gainfully Employed a

Delinquency Rate

'3 18

.6

6.84

.6

14.19

12

.8

11.73

'9

.8

14.19

17

•9 1.0

13.25

»4 16 15

1.2

»4-75 8.67

1-4

12.04

• Based on the percentages employed in cities of 25,000 and over as reported in the 1930 Census. County data on the employment of children are not available.

A P P E N D I X TABLE

5i

1 0 . STATISTICS USED AS SOCIO-ECONOMIC

(In

order

of appearance

in

INDICES

text)

1 . Population density: persons per square mile, 1 9 3 0 . 2. U r b a n i z a t i o n : proportion of population which is resident in urban centers, 1 9 3 0 . 3. Population g r o w t h : percent increase or decrease in population, 1 9 2 0 to 1 9 3 0 . 4. I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n : w a g e earners per capita, 1 9 3 0 . 5. V a l u e added in m a n u f a c t u r e , 1 9 2 9 , per capita, 1 9 3 0 . 6. A g r i c u l t u r a l w o r k e r s as proportion of total w o r k e r s , 1 9 3 0 . 7. Income tax returns, 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 2 8 , per capita, 1 9 3 0 . 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

A v e r a g e w a g e per w a g e earner in m a n u f a c t u r i n g industries, 1 9 2 9 . N e t retail sales, 1 9 2 9 , per capita, 1 9 3 0 . N e t retail sales, 1 9 2 9 , per g a i n f u l l y employed person, 1 9 3 0 . V a l u e added in m a n u f a c t u r e plus v a l u e of f a r m products, 1 9 2 9 , per capita, 1 9 3 0 . V a l u e added in m a n u f a c t u r e plus value of f a r m products, 1 9 2 9 , per employed person, 1 9 3 0 . M e d i a n rental of n o n f a r m tenant homes. A v e r a g e rental of n o n f a r m tenant homes. N u m b e r of children receiving aid during 1 9 2 8 under M o t h e r s ' P e n sion A c t , per capita.

1 6 . Dependent c h i l d r e n : cases opened in 1 9 2 7 and 1 9 2 8 , per capita, 1 9 3 0 . 1 7 . N u m b e r of children in mothers' pension cases in w h i c h a w a r d w a s granted, 1 9 2 5 - 1 9 2 8 , per capita, 1 9 3 0 . 1 8 . V a l u e added in m a n u f a c t u r e -r total wages, 1 9 2 9 . 1 9 . S t a n d a r d deviation of rents of tenant n o n f a r m homes. 2 0 . Coefficient of variation of rents ( 1 9 -f 1 4 ) . 2 1 . V a l u e of taxable property ( a v e r a g e : 1 9 2 9 , 1 9 3 0 ) per capita, 1 9 3 0 . 2 2 . M e d i a n value of n o n f a r m owned homes. 2 3 . G a i n f u l l y employed persons as proportion of total population, 1 9 3 0 . 24. F e m a l e s g a i n f u l l y employed (over 1 0 years, 1 9 2 9 ) as proportion of all females, 1 9 3 0 . 2 5 . M a l e s g a i n f u l l y employed (over 1 0 years, 1 9 2 9 ) as proportion of all males, 1 9 3 0 . 26. F e m a l e s g a i n f u l l y employed as proportion of total g a i n f u l l y employed, 1 9 2 9 . 2 7 . Single males over 1 5 years as proportion of all males, 1 9 3 0 . 28. Single females over 1 5 years as proportion of all females, 1 9 3 0 . 2 9 . C h i l d r e n aged 1 0 - 1 5 employed in cities, 1 9 3 0 . ( S e e A p p e n d i x , T a ble 9 . )

52

APPENDIX Table

io

(Continued)

30. Home owning families as proportion of all families, 1930. 3 1 . Average size of family, 1930. 3 2 . Families of seven or more related members as proportion of all families, 1 9 3 0 . 3 3 . Population aged 7 - 1 7 as proportion of total population, 1 9 3 0 . 34. Divorced persons as proportion of total population, 1930. 3 5 . Cases opened for neglected and dependent-neglected children (both parents) during 1 9 2 7 - 1 9 2 8 , per capita, 1930. 36. Negroes as proportion of total population, 1930. 3 7 . Foreign-born white as proportion of total population, 1930. 38. Native-born white of foreign or mixed parentage as proportion of total population, 1 9 3 0 . 39. Native-born white of native parentage as proportion of total population, 1 9 3 0 . 40. School attenders as proportion of child population aged 7 - 1 7 , 1930. 4 1 . Native-born whites (aged 1 0 or m o r e ) : illiterates as proportion of total, 1930. 42. Books in district and township libraries, 1929, per capita, 1930. 43. Church members, 1926, per capita, 1930. 44. Infant deaths under one week per birth (average: 1929, 1 9 3 0 ) . 45. Admissions to three Michigan prisons, 1931—1935, P e r capita, 1930. 46. Inmates of all prisons, December 3 1 , 1934, per capita, 1 9 3 0 . 47. Logarithms o f : number 7 above. 48. Logarithms o f : number 1 above.

INDEX A d u l t c r i m i n a l i t y , 39 A g e n c i e s , p r i v a t e , 19 A g r i c u l t u r a l counties, see C o u n t i e s A g r i c u l t u r a l o c c u p a t i o n s , 24 A r e a - u n i t s , see C o u n t i e s A y r e s i n d e x , 30 B l a c k , C l a i r , 29n B o y s ' V o c a t i o n a l School, h o m e c o n d i tions o f b o y s a d m i t t e d to, 31, 32 tab., 3 5 » ; n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n in f a m i l i e s o f b o y s c o m m i t t e d , 50 tab. B u s i n e s s c y c l e , 29, 30 fig. C a r r , L o w e l l J., 30« C a u s e a n d effect, 10 Causes, study of, 1 C e n s u s r e p o r t s , 4, 20 C h u r c h , 9, 38; n e u t r a l in fight a g a i n s t d e l i n q u e n c y , 48 C o m m u n i t y c o n d i t i o n s , 1, 4, 6, 36 ff. C o r r e c t i o n a l institutions, c o m m i t m e n t s to, 1, 29, 30 fig. C o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s , statistical method, 1 1 ; t a b l e f o r use in, 1$ C o r r e l a t i o n s , m a x i m u m , 6 ; and p r o b l e m of c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p , 40-44 C o u n t i e s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of u n i t - a r e a s , 2 tab.; r e l a t i o n o f p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y to d e l i n q u e n c y r a t e s in g r o u p s o f , 3, 15 tab.; s t r a t i f y i n g the state, 12 ff.; l e v e l s of p o p u l a t i o n density by, 13 fig.; g e o g r a p h i c a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n , 49 tab. C r i m e , see A d u l t c r i m i n a l i t y ; J u v e n i l e delinquency Curvilinear relationship, between socio-economic f a c t o r s and j u v e n i l e delinquency rates, 7 ; maximum corr e l a t i o n s a n d the p r o b l e m o f , 40-44 D e a c o n , D r . , 39 D e p e n d e n c y , 26 D i s t r i b u t i o n of d e l i n q u e n c y , 2 D i v o r c e , 6, 36

E c o n o m i c conditions, 2, 6, 7, 8, 30; i n d i c e s o f , 2 0 ; statistical a n a l y s i s o f selected f a c t o r s , 21 ff. ; c r i m e a n d p o v e r t y , 2 4 ; see also I n c o m e E d u c a t i o n , 9, 38; schools n e u t r a l in f i g h t a g a i n s t d e l i n q u e n c y , 48 E m p l o y m e n t , 31 ff.; of w o m e n , 32; of c h i l d r e n , 33, 50 tab. E n v i r o n m e n t a l conditions, 1 ; see also F a m i l y ; H o m e conditions F a m i l y , size of, 6, 7, 3 4 ; rôle o f , 9 ; a n d size of c h i l d p o p u l a t i o n , 3 5 ; in r u r a l a n d u r b a n a r e a s , 3 7 ; of b o y s c o m mitted to B o y s ' V o c a t i o n a l School, 50 F a m i l y l i f e , see H o m e conditions F a r m s , 5 ; l o w d e l i n q u e n c y rates, 23 ; see also F a m i l y , size of Foreigners, 8 H e a l t h conditions a n d i n f a n t m o r t a l i t y , 39 H e a l y , D . J., Jr., 29« H o m e c o n d i t i o n s , 6, 8, 30, 31 ff., 3 4 ; b r o k e n homes, 6, 36 H o m e o w n e r s h i p , 6, 34 I l l i t e r a c y , 38 I n c o m e , 24, 3 3 ; effects of h i g h , u p o n d e l i n q u e n c y r a t e s , 8, 3 1 ; inequalities, 2 6 ; and w e a l t h , 2 8 ; redistribution, 47 I n c o m e t a x returns, l o g a r i t h m of numb e r o f , p e r c a p i t a , 6, 7, 24, 42 fig., 46 I n d e x of j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y , 16; statistics used a s socio-economic indices, 51-52 I n d u s t r i a l counties, see C o u n t i e s Industrial decentralization, 7 I n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n a n d u r b a n i z a t i o n , 5, 23, 38 I n f a n t m o r t a l i t y , 39 J u v e n i l e courts, n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n b r o u g h t b e f o r e , e a c h y e a r , 1, 4, 1 9 ;

54

INDEX

J u v e n i l e courts (Continued). stages in procedure of, 1 6 ; hearings, 1 7 fig. J u v e n i l e delinquency, study of causes, 1 ; methods of study, 4, 10-20; results, 5 ; rate of, 1 6 ; in areas of wealth, 1 9 ; rates v a r y independently of population growth, 2 3 ; defined, 3 6 ; school f a i l s to counteract forces impelling toward, 38; and adult criminality, 39; implications for f u r ther action, 4.5 flF.; scientific limitation: adequacy of basic data, 45 ; prediction vs. control, 46; practical limitations, 4 7 ; five inferences, 4 7 ; rates f o r certain periods intercorrelated by areas, 49 tab.; relation of rates to employment of children, 50 tab. J u v e n i l e delinquents, handling of, in and out of courts, 1 8 ; by police and p r i v a t e agencies, 1 9 ; geographical concentration of, 49 tab. L a w enforcement agencies, 1 L i n e a r correlation coefficients, 43 Luden, W a l t e r A., 2911 M a l e workers, percentage of, among all males, 7 M a n u f a c t u r e , per capita v a l u e added in, 6, 7, 2 3 ; inequalities of income, 26 Methods of study, 4, 10-20 Metropolitan area, 2 1 M i c h i g a n , University of, Delinquency Information Service, 49 Mothers' Pension Act, 26 Nationality, 8, 48 N a t i v i t y of population, 36 Negroes, 8, 37 N e w Y o r k State, delinquency rates v a r y with population density, 18 fig. Occupations and delinquency rates, 23

Population, child: interrelation of size of f a m i l y with relative size o f , 3 5 ; large, a rural phenomenon, 37 Population density, 3 tab., n ; changing relationship between delinquency and, 5, 7, 17, 22, 2 4 ; levels of, by counties, 13 fig.; as a criterion of homogeneity, 1 4 R ; and delinquency rates in New Y o r k , 1 8 ; metropolitan areas, 2 1 ; growth, 1920-30, 22 Poverty, see Economic conditions Probation, 1 Property, taxable, 28 Race, 8, 36, 48 Relationship defined, 1 0 Rentals, 25, 27 School, 9, 38; neutral in fight against delinquency, 48 S h a w , 6, 19 Slum clearance, 7 Social conditions, 2 ; indices of, 2 0 ; statistical analysis of selected f a c tors, 21 ff. Socio-economic factors, 7, 43 Socio-economic indices, statistics used as, 51-52 Statistical method of correlation analysis, 1 1 Stermer, J a m e s E., 29n S t r a t i f y i n g the state, 12 ff. Study, of causes, 1 ; methods of, 4, 102 0 ; results, 5 T i m e , concomitant variations through, 29 Upstate counties, see Counties Urbanization, 21 f f . ; and industrialization, 5, 23, 38 Variables, independent: correlation with rate of delinquency, 40 ff., 46

P a r e n t a l neglect and inefficiency, 6, 8, 36, 47 P e a r l , R., 43 Police, 18, 19 Population, race and nativity, 8, 36, 4 8 ; a g e composition, 3 7 ; control of movements of, 47

W a y n e County, population density, 3, 1 3 ; juvenile population, 1 4 ; juvenile court hearings, 1 7 ; concentration of delinquents 49 tab. Women, employment, associated with delinquency rates, 32