Article

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

1-19
ª The Author(s) 2017
The Influence of Family Structure Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
on Delinquent Behavior DOI: 10.1177/1541204017727836
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Cashen M. Boccio1 and Kevin M. Beaver1,2

Abstract
Previous research has linked changes in family structure (especially parental divorce) with invol-
vement in juvenile delinquency. Comparatively less research has attempted to examine the long-
term impact of shifts in family structure on delinquent and criminal involvement. The current study
addresses this gap in the literature by examining the influence of changes in family structure during
adolescence on delinquent involvement both cross sectionally and longitudinally. Our findings
revealed a small and only temporary association between changes in family structure and adolescent
delinquency. We discuss the implications of these results for future research.

Keywords
delinquency, crime, divorce, family structure

The relationship between family structure and delinquency has been extensively studied across a
variety of different fields. In general, research suggests that parental divorce is associated with an
array of negative consequences including psychological problems, reduced mental health, reduced
academic performance and achievement, and increased involvement in juvenile delinquency
(Amato, 2001, 2010; Amato & Keith, 1991a; Brown, 2006; Juby & Farrington, 2001; Price & Kunz,
2003; Rebellon, 2002; Spohn & Kurtz, 2011; Vanassche, Sodermans, Matthijs, & Swicegood, 2014).
Due to the negative consequences associated with parental divorce, some scholars contend that
experiencing parental divorce in childhood or adolescence may be linked with adjustment and
behavioral problems, including criminal behavior, throughout the remainder of the life course
(Amato & Keith, 1991b; Wadsworth, Maclean, Kuh, & Rodgers, 1990).
The association between parental divorce and delinquency is of particular interest due to patterns
of changes in family structure and increases in rates of divorce over the last century. For instance, the
current divorce rate is 16.9 per 1,000 married women in the United States (Anderson, 2016). To put
this number in perspective, as of the year 2000, approximately 43–46% of marriages were predicted
to end in divorce (Schoen & Canudas-Romo, 2006). Divorce rates hovering around 40–45% indicate
that a large number of children will grow up in households compromised by divorce. For example,

1
College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
2
Center for Social and Humanities Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Corresponding Author:
Cashen M. Boccio, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 145 Convocation Way, Eppes Hall,
Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
Email: cb13b@my.fsu.edu
2 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice XX(X)

recent U.S. Census data indicate that approximately 35–37% of U.S. children grow up in nontradi-
tional households with either a single parent or a nonbiological parent (e.g., stepparents or grand-
parents) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016; Vespa, Lewis, & Kreider, 2013). Considering the large number
of children growing up in broken homes, a significant association between parental divorce and later
deviant behavior would suggest that changes in family structure may contribute to an increase in
criminal behavior in the population.

Parental Divorce and Delinquent Behavior

A body of research has examined the relationship between parental divorce and delinquent behavior.
Several meta-analyses examining this research have revealed that there is a positive association
between parental divorce and delinquent behavior, meaning that children with divorced parents are
more likely to be involved in delinquent behavior (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991a; Price &
Kunz, 2003; Wells & Rankin, 1991). One of the first of these meta-analyses revealed that having
divorced parents is associated with any array of negative childhood outcomes (e.g., including
misbehavior, aggression, and delinquency); however, the magnitude of these associations was
relatively small (Amato & Keith, 1991a). In addition, a meta-analysis by Wells and Rankin
(1991) that examined 50 studies found that parental divorce was associated with a 10–15% increase
in the likelihood of delinquent behavior. Taken together, the existing literature seems to indicate that
parental divorce is associated with negative outcomes including delinquency.
While parental divorce has been linked with later behavioral problems, the explanation for this
relationship remains unclear. Numerous scholars have attempted to explain the association
between parental divorce and negative outcomes using psychological or criminological theory.
For instance, scholars from the field of psychology have suggested that the relationship between
parental divorce and negative outcomes can be explained by the family conflict and trauma
experienced by children in broken homes (Amato, 1993). Specifically, these scholars suggest that
experiencing family conflict and a hostile home environment increases stress and anxiety in
children leading to poorer psychological adjustment and negative life outcomes (Amato, 1993).
In contrast, some scholars have argued that the association between parental divorce and negative
outcomes can be explained by parental absence. Parental absence is predicted to be associated with
negative outcomes as it results in the removal of resources from the home leading to lower
socioeconomic status (SES), less parental supervision, less parental attention and support, and
decreased attachment to parents (Amato, 1993; Amato & Keith, 1991a). This subsequent lack of
resources due to parental absence may then impair the custodial parent’s (usually the mother’s)
ability to adequately supervise and provide educational resources for their children leading to
deviant behavior and poorer life outcomes.
The parental absence perspective also falls in line with several criminological theories that have
been suggested to explain the relationship between parental divorce and delinquent behavior (Juby
& Farrington, 2001; Rebellon, 2002; Spohn & Kurtz, 2011). Control theory, for instance, suggests
that experiencing parental divorce impairs the bonds between parents and their children increasing
the likelihood that children will engage in delinquent behavior. Similarly, the removal of a parent
from the household reduces the ability of the parents to exert direct control over their children’s
behavior—freeing the children to engage in deviant behavior. Social learning theory may also
explain the relationship between parental divorce and juvenile delinquency, as children from
divorced families, with reduced levels of parental monitoring, may spend more time associating
with delinquent peers. On the other hand, strain theory, falling more in line with the family conflict
argument, suggests that parental divorce exposes children to strain (both psychological and physical)
and therefore increases the likelihood that they will engage in deviant behavior (Spohn & Kurtz,
2011). All three of these criminological explanations have received some empirical support. For
Boccio and Beaver 3

instance, a study by Rebellon (2002) found that recent parental divorce is associated with lower
parental monitoring, lower conventional beliefs, higher association with delinquent peers, and
higher levels of strain.

Is the Relationship Between Parental Divorce and Delinquency Causal?

While numerous explanations have been proposed for the association between parental divorce and
negative outcomes, the majority of these explanations converge on the assumption that the relation-
ship is causal. These explanations contend that parental divorce either directly or indirectly causes
these negative outcomes to arise. At the same time, they fail to address the possibility that the
relationship between parental divorce and negative outcomes may be spurious, owing to selection
factors. Stated differently, it is possible that parents who divorce are substantively different from
parents who do not divorce and that their children may therefore also be different. Parents who
divorce, for instance, may be more likely to have difficult temperaments, increasing the likelihood of
divorce. Their children may also be more likely to have difficult temperaments (for any number of
reasons, ranging from socialization to genetics), increasing the likelihood of engaging in delinquent
behavior. The end result is that what appeared to be a causal association between divorce and
offspring delinquent behavior could be nothing more than a classic example of confounding.
The studies that have examined this possibility have revealed that the relationship between
parental divorce and negative outcomes is likely causal and largely explained by environmental
factors linked with divorce (Burt, Barnes, McGue, & Iacono, 2008; O’Connor, Caspi, DeFries, &
Plomin, 2000). For example, a study by Burt, Barnes, McGue, and Iacono (2008) examined the
relationship between parental divorce and adolescent delinquency in a sample of adopted and
nonadopted children and revealed that adopted and nonadopted children reported similar levels of
involvement with delinquency after experiencing parental divorce. These findings indicate that the
relationship between parental divorce and adolescent delinquency is primarily the result of envi-
ronmental factors and not confounding by genetics. In line with these findings, a number of studies
conducted by D’Onofrio and colleagues (2005, 2006, 2007) have revealed that much of the asso-
ciation between parental divorce and negative life-outcomes (e.g., psychopathology, substance use,
emotional difficulties, and deviant behavior) can be largely explained by environmental factors
associated with divorce. Importantly, the findings of two of these studies (D’Onofrio et al., 2006,
2007) also provide some evidence that the associations between parental divorce, substance use, and
internalizing problems are at least partially explained by selection factors. As a whole, the findings
from these studies tend to indicate that the relationship between parental divorce and many negative
outcomes, including delinquency, is likely causal; however, the findings of D’Onofrio et al. (2006,
2007) indicate that future studies should still attempt to identify and control for selection factors.

Family Structure Transitions, Stepparents, and Delinquent Behavior

Due to increasing trends of divorce and remarriage, some recent lines of research have examined the
relationship between the number of family structure transitions and negative outcomes. Studies that
have examined further shifts in family structure have found that living with a stepparent is also
associated with increased rates of delinquent behavior (Amato & Keith, 1991a; Brown, 2006;
Coughlin & Vuchinich, 1996; Juby & Farrington, 2001; Rebellon, 2002; Vanassche et al., 2014).
A study by Brown (2006), for example, revealed that moving from a one-parent family to a two-
parent family (with a stepparent) is associated with increased levels of delinquency and lower levels
of school engagement. These findings are somewhat surprising, as the relationship between parental
divorce and negative outcomes is often explained by the structural features of living in a broken
home (e.g., lower levels of supervision and lower household income). As a result, if the negative
4 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice XX(X)

outcomes associated with divorce are the result of parental absence, introducing a second parent into
the household should result in a decrease in delinquent involvement. One possible explanation for
why moving into a household with a stepparent may increase delinquency is that remarriage or
cohabiting with a new partner may redirect the custodial parent’s attention to the new partner and
decrease the amount of attention directed toward their children, leading to less supervision (Pagani,
Tremblay, Vitaro, Kerr, & McDuff, 1998). Another possibility is that moving into a household with
a stepparent may impair the bonds between children and their custodial parent (Schroeder, Osgood,
& Oghia, 2010).
Findings from these studies also appear to indicate that children who live in a household with a
stepparent tend to engage in even more delinquent behavior than children who live in a single-parent
household (Coughlin & Vuchinich, 1996; Pagani et al., 1998). For example, a study by Pagani et al.
(1998) showed that boys who lived with a stepparent engaged in higher levels of delinquency at ages
13–14 than boys in either intact families or single-parent families. A similar study by Vanassche,
Sodermans, Matthijs, and Swicegood (2014) found that girls who live in stepfamilies report
increased participation in delinquent behavior compared to girls in either intact or single-parent
families. The results of these studies seem to indicate that the number of family transitions, and not
just parental divorce, is an important risk factor for delinquent behavior.

The Influence of Parental Divorce on Criminal Behavior in Adulthood

While there is a wealth of research that documents a connection between parental divorce and
adolescent delinquency, comparatively less research has examined the long-term association
between parental divorce and criminal behavior in adulthood. Research in this area would be
valuable as it would be able to shed light on whether parental divorce in childhood and adolescence
has implications for negative outcomes later in the life course. Some scholars have argued that the
deleterious effects of parental divorce are primarily present in the short term (Edwards, 1987). In
contrast, other scholars have contended that the negative effects of parental divorce are long term,
and therefore, parental divorce in childhood should be associated with negative life outcomes in
adulthood (Wadsworth et al., 1990).
Research examining the long-term effects of parental divorce has indicated that parental divorce
has more a pronounced effect on conduct problems (e.g., misbehavior, aggression, and delinquency)
in the short term than in the long term (Amato & Keith, 1991a). A meta-analysis conducted by
Amato and Keith (1991b), however, revealed that the negative influence of parental divorce on
measures of well-being is still present in adulthood. Similarly, one study by Wadsworth, Maclean,
Kuh, and Rodgers (1990) revealed that parental divorce during childhood was associated with
behavioral problems and delinquency at age 21. Another study by Mednick, Reznick, Hocevar, and
Baker (1987) revealed that parental divorce is associated with criminal behavior in young adulthood,
but this association disappeared after controlling for SES and father’s criminal behavior.

The Current Study

Previous research suggests that parental divorce is linked with delinquent behavior. Comparatively
less research, however, has examined the long-term effects of parental divorce and living with a
stepparent on criminal behavior across the life course. This study addresses this gap in the literature
by examining the influence of changes in family structure during adolescence on criminal behavior
in adolescence and adulthood in a large nationally representative sample. This study contributes to
the literature as most previous studies have only examined the association between parental divorce
and delinquent behavior in either adolescence or early adulthood (e.g., 21), while this study uses a
Boccio and Beaver 5

large sample to examine the association between parental divorce and criminal behavior in respon-
dents until their mid- to late-20s and early 30s.

Method
Data
This study uses data from Waves 1 through 4 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to
Adult Health (Add Health). Add Health is a nationally representative longitudinal sample of
American adolescents. Data collection for Add Health began in the 1994–1995 school year, and
three subsequent waves of data have been collected from many of the same respondents (Udry,
2003). The first wave of Add Health included more than 90,000 adolescents enrolled in middle
school and high school and asked questions concerning personal habits, peers, relationships with
parents, family structure, and delinquency. In addition, in the first wave of the survey, parents of
the respondents were also administered a short questionnaire to obtain information on financial
status, family structure, and neighborhood characteristics. The second wave of the survey was
administered in 1996 to approximately 15,000 of the original respondents and asked questions
pertaining to peers, family structure, and delinquent behavior. The third wave of Add Health was
conducted between 2001 and 2002 and included more than 15,000 of the original respondents.
Questions in the third wave were adjusted to be more age appropriate for the sample that was now
between the ages of 18 and 26. For instance, respondents were asked questions concerning
educational attainment, labor market participation, marital status, and criminal behavior. The
fourth wave of the survey was administered to approximately 15,700 of the original respondents
in 2008, when the majority of the respondents were between the ages of 24 and 32, and asked
questions concerning financial status, marital status, criminal behavior, and involvement with the
criminal justice system (Harris et al., 2003).

Measures
Outcome Measures
Delinquency measures (Waves 1– 4). Delinquency was measured at Waves 1–4 using scales con-
structed from items tapping involvement in an array of delinquent and criminal behaviors. The Wave
1 delinquency scale was created using answers to 15 questions pertaining to involvement in delin-
quent behavior over the past year. For instance, respondents were asked how often in the last 12
months they deliberately damaged property, shoplifted, were involved in a physical fight, or sold
drugs.1 These items were standardized and then summed together to create a Wave 1 delinquency
scale (a ¼ .85).2 This scale is coded so that higher values indicate greater involvement in delinquent
behavior. These same delinquency items were used again at Wave 2, allowing us to construct a
Wave 2 delinquency scale using answers to the same 15 items (a ¼ .84).
Delinquency was measured at Wave 3 by using answers to 12 items concerning frequency of
criminal involvement over the last year. For example, respondents were asked how often in the last
12 months they sold drugs, bought or sold stolen property, were involved in a physical fight, or used
someone else’s credit card. These items were standardized and then summed together to create a
Wave 3 delinquency scale (a ¼ .76). This scale is coded so that higher values represent more
frequent involvement in criminal behavior.
Delinquency was measured at Wave 4 by using answer to 14 items designed to tap involvement in
delinquent and criminal behavior over the last year. For instance, respondents were asked how often
in the last 12 months they deliberately damaged property, sold drugs, were involved in a serious
physical fight, bought or sold stolen property, or pulled a weapon on someone. These items were
6 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice XX(X)

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Scales and Variables Included in the Analyses.

Mean (%) Standard Deviation Range N

Wave 1 variables
Parents married
Married (71.04) 11,305
Not married (28.96) 4,608
Delinquency scale –.011 .555 –0.410 to 5.111 18,638
Wave 2 variables
Parents married
Married (68.06) 8,782
Not married (31.94) 4,121
Stepparents
Lives with stepparents (5.38) 752
Does not live with stepparents (94.62) 13,238
Delinquency scale –.010 .538 –0.353 to 5.854 12,903
Wave 3 variables
Delinquency scale –.000 .521 –0.180 to 10.935 13,644
Wave 4 variables
Delinquency scale –.004 .425 –0.357 to 8.430 14,137
Control variables
Age 16.121 1.735 12–21 18,634
Sex
Males (48.99) 9,130
Females (51.01) 9,508
Race
White (63.62) 11,852
Non-White (36.38) 6,776
SES
Low SES (9.02) 1,431
Not low SES (90.98) 14,432
Note. SES ¼ socioeconomic status.

standardized and then summed together to create a Wave 4 delinquency scale (a ¼ .67). The
delinquency scales used in this study are similar to delinquency scales that have been used previ-
ously with the Add Health data (Guo, Roettger, & Shih, 2007; Wright, Beaver, DeLisi, & Vaughn,
2008). The descriptive statistics for the delinquency measures and the other measures included in
this study are presented in Table 1.

Family Structure Measures

Parents married Wave 1. Family structure was measured at Wave 1 by using answers to 1 item asked
in the parental questionnaire. Specifically, parents of the respondents were asked to indicate their
marital status. Responses to this item included single, married, widowed, divorced, and separated.
To measure whether respondents’ parents were married, these responses were collapse into
married ¼ married and not married ¼ single, divorced, widowed, and separated. This item is coded
so that 0 ¼ not married and 1 ¼ married.3

Parents married Wave 2. Family structure was measured at Wave 2 by using responses to 1 item
designed to assess the respondents’ household structure. At Wave 2, respondents were asked to
indicate all of the members of their household (up to 17 household members) and then asked to
Boccio and Beaver 7

indicate their relationship to each of these household members. Family structure is indicated as
“parents married” if respondents indicated that both their mother and father reside in the same
household. This item is coded so that 0 ¼ not married and 1 ¼ married.

Lives with stepparents Wave 2. Family structure was further assessed by including a measure of
whether respondents lived with stepparents at Wave 2. Whether a respondent lived with stepparents
was measured by using responses to 1 item designed to tap household structure. Respondents were
asked to indicate all of the members of their household (up to 17 household members) and specify
the nature of their relationship to each of these household members. For example, options for the
relationship to household members include mother, father, brother, sister, father’s wife, father’s
partner, mother’s husband, and mother’s partner, among other options. Family structure is indicated
as living with stepparents if respondents indicated that their household contained either their father’s
wife, father’s partner, mother’s husband, or mother’s partner. This items is coded so that 0 ¼ did not
live with stepparents and 1 ¼ lived with stepparents.

Control Variables
Four control variables were included in the analyses. Age was measured as a continuous variable
in years at Wave 1. Gender (0 ¼ female and 1 ¼ male) and race (0 ¼ White and 1 ¼ non-White)
were measured as dichotomous dummy variables. SES was measured using a single item in the
Wave 1 parental questionnaire assessing whether respondent’s families received public assis-
tance. This item is coded so that 0 ¼ did not receive public assistance and 1 ¼ did receive public
assistance.

Analytic Strategy
The analysis for this study proceeded in a number of steps. First, we employed Ordinary Least
Squares regression to examine the relationship between family structure at Wave 1 and delin-
quency at Waves 1–4 in the full sample.4 We then repeated that analysis but used the Wave 2
family structure variable, instead of the Wave 1 family structure variable, on delinquency at
Waves 2–4 in the full sample. Then, we split the sample according to parent’s marital status
at Wave 1. By doing so, we created one sample of respondents whose parents were married at
Wave 1 and another sample of respondents whose parents were not married at Wave 1. After
splitting the sample, we were then able to analyze the influence of changes in family structure on
delinquency separately among respondents whose parents were married at Wave 1 and respon-
dents whose parents were not married at Wave 1. Specifically, this allowed us to observe
changes in delinquency in response to either married parents splitting up between Waves 1 and
2 or separated parents getting back together between Waves 1 and 2. In the second step of the
analysis, we examined the influence of family structure at Wave 2 on current and subsequent
delinquent behavior in respondents who had married parents at Wave 1 while controlling for
Wave 1 delinquent involvement. Third, we examined the relationship between family structure at
Wave 2 and current and subsequent delinquency in respondents with unmarried parents at Wave
1 while controlling for Wave 1 delinquency. Finally, to test if variations in family structure such
as living with a stepparent influence changes in delinquent behavior, we examined the relation-
ship between living with a stepparent and changes in delinquent involvement separately in
respondents whose parents were married at Wave 1 and in respondents whose parents were
unmarried at Wave 1.
8 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice XX(X)

Table 2. OLS Regression Models for the Association between Family Structure at Wave 1 and Delinquency for
Full Sample.

Delinquency Delinquency Delinquency Delinquency

Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3 Wave 4

b b b b b b b b

Predictor variables
Parents married –.078 –.064* –.050 –.042* –.020 –.017 –.036 –.036*
(Wave 1) (.010) (.011) (.011) (.009)
Controls
Age .003 .008 –.020 –.060* –.028 –.094* –.016 –.063*
(.008) (.003) (.003) (.002)
Sex .163 .145* .123 .113* .187 .182* .114 .129*
(.009) (.010) (.009) (.008)
Race .005 .005 .001 .001 .022 .020* .028 .030*
(.009) (.011) (.010) (.008)
SES .053 .028* –.005 –.003 –.020 –.011 .012 .007
(.015) (.017) (.017) (.014)
N 16,704 12,222 12,401 12,893
Note. OLS ¼ ordinary least squares; SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
* p < .05 (two-tailed test).

Results
The analysis began by examining the relationship between family structure at Wave 1 and delin-
quency across Waves 1–4 in the full sample. Table 2 reveals statistically significant relationships
between family structure at Wave 1 and delinquency at Waves 1, 2, and 4. Specifically, the results
presented in Table 2 indicate that respondents with married parents at Wave 1 were significantly less
likely to report involvement in delinquency in three of the four waves of data. The b coefficients for
the relationships between family structure at Wave 1 and delinquency at Waves 2 and 4, however,
are relatively small (b ¼ –.036 to –.042), suggesting that these relationships are likely driven by
sample size (N ¼ 12,222–12,893). These results, therefore, suggest that while family structure
maintains a statistically significant relationship with delinquency at later waves (2 and 4), this
relationship is likely not substantive.
Then, we examined the association between family structure at Wave 2 and delinquency at
Waves 2–4 in the full sample. As can be seen in Table 3, family structure at Wave 2 has statistically
significant associations with involvement in delinquency at Waves 2 and 4. Similar to the previous
table, respondents with married parents were less likely to report involvement in delinquency at
Waves 2 and 4. Once again, however, the b coefficient for the relationship between family structure
(at Wave 2) and delinquency in adulthood (Wave 4) is relatively small (b ¼ –.038), suggesting that
this relationship may be driven by sample size (N ¼ 9,307).
Given that family structure at Waves 1 and 2 appears to be statistically associated with involve-
ment in delinquency across most of the available waves of data, we then examined the relationship
between changes in family structure and subsequent changes in delinquent involvement. First, we
examined the relationship between family structure at Wave 2 and changes in delinquency in
respondents whose parents were married at Wave 1. Table 4 indicates that family structure at Wave
2 has a statistically significant negative association with involvement in delinquency at Wave 2 for
respondents who had married parents at Wave 1 while controlling for Wave 1 delinquency. These
findings indicate that respondents with intact families at Wave 1, who lived with both parents at
Boccio and Beaver 9

Table 3. OLS Regression Models for the Association between Family Structure at Wave 2 and Delinquency for
Full Sample.

Delinquency Wave 2 Delinquency Wave 3 Delinquency Wave 4

b b b b b b

Predictor variables
Parents married –.060 –.052* –.006 –.005 –.036 –.038*
(Wave 2) (.011) (.012) (.010)
Controls
Age –.018 –.053* –.033 –.098* –.015 –.052*
(.003) (.003) (.003)
Sex .123 .113* .189 .179* .127 .145*
(.010) (.011) (.009)
Race –.001 –.001 .024 .021* .023 .025*
(.011) (.012) (.010)
SES .001 .000 .031 .016 .010 .006
(.018) (.020) (.016)
N 11,367 9,108 9,307
Note. OLS ¼ ordinary least squares; SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
*p < .05 (two-tailed test).

Wave 2, tended to report less involvement with delinquency at Wave 2. Although, it should be noted
that the b coefficient for this relationship is quite small (b ¼ –.023) indicating that this relationship,
while statistically significant, may not be substantive. Table 4 also reveals that family structure at
Wave 2 is not significantly associated with subsequent delinquency at Waves 3 and 4 among
respondents who had married parents at Wave 1. These findings indicate that, among respondents
with intact families at Wave 1, living with both parents at Wave 2 is not significantly related to
changes in involvement in delinquency at later waves.
Second, we examined the relationship between family structure at Wave 2 and changes in
delinquent involvement in respondents whose parents were not married at Wave 1. As can be seen
in Table 5, family structure at Wave 2 is not significantly associated with involvement in delin-
quency at Waves 2–4 among respondents whose parents were not married at Wave 1 while
controlling for Wave 1 delinquency. These findings reveal that for respondents with unmarried
parents at Wave 1, living with both parents at Wave 2 did not significantly influence changes in
delinquent involvement either at that wave or later waves.
In the next step of the analysis, we explored the relationship between living with stepparents and
changes in involvement in delinquency. In order to do so, we first examined the relationship between
living with a stepparent at Wave 2 and delinquency among respondents whose parents were unmar-
ried at Wave 1, while controlling for Wave 1 delinquency. Table 6 indicates that living with a
stepparent at Wave 2 is significantly associated with delinquency at Wave 2 among respondents with
unmarried parents at Wave 1; however, this relationship is not significant when controlling for Wave
1 delinquency. In addition, Table 6 reveals that living with a stepparent at Wave 2 is not significantly
associated with involvement in delinquency at Waves 3 and 4 in respondents whose parents were
unmarried at Wave 1. These findings indicate that shifting family structure from having unmarried
parents at Wave 1 to living with a stepparent at Wave 2 does not significantly influence changes in
delinquent involvement.
Finally, we examined the relationship between living with a stepparent at Wave 2 and changes in
delinquent involvement among respondents whose parents were married at Wave 1. Examination of
Table 7 reveals that living with a stepparent at Wave 2 is positively and significantly associated with
10
Table 4. OLS Regression Models for the Association Between Family Structure (W2) and Delinquency for Respondents With Married Parents at Wave 1.

Delinquency Wave 2 Delinquency Wave 3 Delinquency Wave 4

b b b b b b b b b b b b

Predictor variable
Parents married –.088 –.049* –.040 –.023* .011 .006 .024 .013 –.016 –.012 –.006 –.005
(Wave 2) (.020) (.017) (.022) (.021) (.017) (.016)
Delinquency — — .552 .549* — — .184 .184* — — .119 .153*
(Wave 1) (.009) (.012) (.009)
Controls
Age –.015 –.043* –.024 –.070* –.036 –.109* –.039 –.112* –.010 –.041* –.012 –.048*
(.004) (.003) (.004) (.004) (.003) (.003)
Sex .117 .111* .036 .034* .195 .187* .169 .162* .111 .136* .093 .114*
(.012) (.010) (.004) (.012) (.010) (.010)
Race .017 .014 .008 .007 .017 .015 .014 .012 .010 .011 .008 .009
(.013) (.011) (.014) (.014) (.011) (.011)
SES –.034 –.013 –.082 –.030* –.075 –.028* –.092 –.034* –.006 –.003 –.016 –.007
(.030) (.025) (.032) (.032) (.026) (.026)
N 8,166 8,166 6,695 6,695 6,756 6,756
Note. OLS ¼ ordinary least squares; SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
*p < .05 (two-tailed test).
 Table 5. OLS Regression Models for the Association between Family Structure (W2) and Delinquency for Respondents With Unmarried Parents at Wave 1.

Delinquency Wave 2 Delinquency Wave 3 Delinquency Wave 4

b b b b b b b b b b b b

Predictor variables
Parents married .004 .002 –.003 –.002 .041 .025 .040 .024 –.013 –.009 –.015 –.010
(Wave 2) (.030) (.025) (.033) (.033) (.030) (.030)
Delinquency — .532 .555* — .138 .148* — .079 .090*
(Wave 1) (.014) (.019) (.017)
Controls
Age –.028 –.077* –.029 –.079* –.023 –.067* –.024 –.070* –.025 –.076* –.025 –.077*
(.006) (.005) (.007) (.007) (.006) (.006)
Sex .135 .117* .043 .038* .172 .156* .152 .137* .172 .166* .160 .154*
(.020) (.017) (.022) (.022) (.020) (.020)
Race –.043 –.037* –.044 –.038* .031 .028 .032 .029 .046 .045* .046 .045*
(.020) (.017) (.022) (.022) (.020) (.020)
SES .020 .015 .012 .009 –.017 –.013 –.019 –.014 .009 .008 .008 .007
(.024) (.020) (.027) (.027) (.024) (.024)
N 3,181 3,181 2,398 2,398 2,538 2,538
Note. OLS ¼ ordinary least squares; SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
*p < .05 (two-tailed test).

11
12
Table 6. OLS Regression Models for the Association between Living With Stepparents at Wave 2 and Delinquency for Respondents With Unmarried Parents at
Wave 1.

Delinquency Wave 2 Delinquency Wave 3 Delinquency Wave 4

b b b b b b b b b b b b

Predictor variables
Stepparents .064 .032* .030 .015 .030 .016 .019 .010 .022 .013 .015 .009
(Wave 2) (.033) (.028) (.036) (.036) (.032) (.032)
Delinquency — .512 .547* — .142 .157* — .089 .101*
(Wave 1) (.013) (.017) (.016)
Controls
Age –.029 –.081* –.028 –.079* –.024 –.072* –.025 –.074* –.023 –.071* –.023 –.072*
(.006) (.005) (.006) (.006) (.006) (.006)
Sex .131 .114* .041 .035* .177 .163* .155 .143* .157 .151* .143 .138*
(.019) (.016) (.021) (.021) (.019) (.019)
Race –.030 –.026 –.034 –.030* .037 .034 .036 .033 .055 .054* .055 .053*
(.019) (.016) (.021) (.021) (.019) (.019)
SES .008 .005 .001 .001 –.010 –.008 –.011 –.008 .011 .009 .010 .008
(.023) (.019) (.025) (.025) (.023) (.023)
N 3,558 3,558 2,669 2,669 2,825 2,825
Note. OLS ¼ ordinary least squares; SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
*p < .05 (two-tailed test).
 Table 7. OLS Regression Models for the Association between Living With Stepparents at Wave 2 and Delinquency for Respondents With Married Parents at
Wave 1.

Delinquency Wave 2 Delinquency Wave 3 Delinquency Wave 4

b b b b b b b b b b b b

Predictor variables
Stepparents .099 .036* .067 .024* –.028 –.011 –.035 –.013 .030 .014 .023 .011
(Wave 2) (.029) (.025) (.031) (.031) (.025) (.025)
Delinquency — .538 .544* — .171 .176* — .126 .161*
(Wave 1) (.009) (.011) (.009)
Controls
Age –.016 –.047* –.025 –.074* –.035 –.109* –.038 –.119* –.011 –.042* –.013 –.051*
(.004) (.003) (.004) (.004) (.003) (.003)
Sex .119 .112* .040 .038* .196 .189* .171 .166* .114 .137* .096 .115*
(.011) (.010) (.012) (.012) (.010) (.010)
Race .017 .014 .003 .003 .018 .016 .014 .012 .013 .014 .011 .011
(.013) (.011) (.013) (.013) (.011) (.011)
SES –.017 –.006 –.060 –.023* –.075 –.029* –.089 –.034* –.004 –.002 –.015 –.007
(.028) (.024) (.030) (.030) (.025) (.025)
N 8,648 8,648 7,055 7,055 7,131 7,131
Note. OLS ¼ ordinary least squares; SES ¼ socioeconomic status.
*p < .05 (two-tailed test).

13
14 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice XX(X)

delinquent involvement at Wave 2 for respondents whose parents were married at Wave 1 while
controlling for Wave 1 delinquency. This finding indicates respondents who lived with a stepparent
at Wave 2 tended to report increased involvement in delinquency at Wave 2. Despite the significance
of this finding, once again, the b coefficient for the relationship between living with a stepparent and
changes in delinquency is small (b ¼ .024) indicating that this relationship may not be substantive.
Further examination of Table 7 also reveals that living with a stepparent at Wave 2 is not signif-
icantly associated changes in delinquent behavior at Waves 3 and 4.

Discussion
Previous research has found evidence of a consistent link between parental divorce and family
structure with involvement in delinquent behavior. Noticeably missing from this research, however,
is a concerted focus on the long-term impacts of changes in family structure on involvement in
criminal behavior. This study addressed this gap in the literature by examining the associations
between parental divorce and changes in family structure in adolescence on involvement in criminal
behavior both cross sectionally and longitudinally. The results revealed four major findings.
First, in line with previous studies, family structure in adolescence (Waves 1 and 2) was found to
be significantly associated with involvement in delinquent behavior. Our findings revealed that
adolescents who lived with both of their parents (at Waves 1 and 2) reported significantly less
involvement in delinquent behavior during adolescence and adulthood. On the surface, these results
are consistent with a body of literature linking parental divorce with both short-term and long-term
effects on delinquent behavior (Amato, 2001; Amato & Keith, 1991a; Wadsworth et al., 1990; Wells
& Rankin, 1991). While our analyses revealed statistically significant associations between family
structure and delinquency in adolescence and adulthood, the outcomes concerning the relationship
between parental divorce and later delinquency are likely driven by sample size. For both Waves 1
and 2 family structure, the b coefficients for the relationship with delinquency at later waves were
relatively small (b ¼ –.036 to –.042) indicating that the significance of these results is likely a
product of the large sample sizes used for these analyses (N ¼ 9,108–12,893). The findings of our
analyses, therefore, reveal that while experiencing parental divorce in adolescence is associated with
adolescent delinquency, it is likely not substantively associated with adult criminal behavior.
The second major finding from our analyses is that experiencing parental divorce during
adolescence (between Waves 1 and 2) was statistically associated with changes in involvement
in delinquent behavior cross sectionally. Specifically, our results revealed that among respondents
whose parents were married at Wave 1, living with both parents at Wave 2 was negatively
associated with involvement in delinquent behavior at Wave 2 when controlling for delinquent
behavior at Wave 1. These outcomes indicate that respondents whose parents were married at
Wave 1 and then separated by Wave 2 displayed an increase in delinquent involvement at this
wave. Further inspection of these results revealed, once again, that the association was likely
driven by sample size (N ¼ 8,166). Our findings also indicate that experiencing parental divorce in
adolescence (between Waves 1 and 2) was not significantly associated with involvement in
delinquent behavior at later waves (3 and 4). Taken together, these results indicate that while
experiencing parental divorce in adolescence is accompanied by a statistically significant tempo-
rary increase in delinquent involvement during adolescence, it is not substantively associated with
changes in criminal behavior in either adolescence or adulthood. This pattern of findings contrasts
with results from previous studies (Amato & Keith, 1991b; Wadsworth et al., 1990) which suggest
that the negative influence of parental divorce on well-being and behavioral outcomes persists into
adulthood. It should also be noted that these statistical models included only a small set of control
variables. As a result, the effects reported herein are likely the highest bound estimates as they
were drawn from models that were not fully specified.
Boccio and Beaver 15

Also of interest, family structure at Wave 2 was not significantly associated with involvement
(or changes) in delinquency among respondents with unmarried parents at Wave 1. These findings
indicate that among respondents with unmarried parents at Wave 1, family structure at Wave 2
(either living with one parent or both parents) did not seem to influence delinquent involvement
either cross sectionally or longitudinally. This pattern of results appears to indicate that while
experiencing parental divorce in adolescence leads to a slight temporary increase in delinquent
involvement, family structure (living with one parent or both parents) among respondents whose
parents were already divorced does not influence delinquency.
Third, our results reveal that moving from an unmarried family to living in a stepfamily in
adolescence (between Waves 1 and 2) is not significantly associated with changes in delinquent
behavior. These findings are in contrast with the findings of several studies that indicate that moving
into a stepfamily is associated with an increase in delinquent behavior (Brown, 2006; Coughlin &
Vuchinich, 1996; Vanassche et al., 2014).
Fourth, the results indicate that living with a stepparent at Wave 2 is positively associated with
changes in delinquent involvement at Wave 2 among respondents whose parents were married at
Wave 1. What this suggests is that moving from a traditional two-parent household to a stepfamily in
adolescence (between Waves 1 and 2) was associated with delinquent behavior cross sectionally.
Although the b coefficient for this relationship was quite small (b ¼ .024) raising concerns that this
significant relationship may be driven by sample size (N¼ 8,648). Our analyses also revealed that
moving from a traditional two-parent household to living in a stepfamily in adolescence is not
significantly associated with delinquent behavior in adulthood. This pattern of findings indicate
that while shifting family structure in adolescence (from a traditional structure to a stepfamily) is
associated with a statistically significant temporary increase in delinquent involvement, it is not
substantively associated with changes in delinquent behavior in adolescence or significantly related
with criminal behavior in adulthood.
The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the first
wave of data was collected when the respondents were between the ages of 12 and 21 limiting our
ability to examine the association between parental divorce and delinquent involvement at earlier
ages. Much of the research examining the negative impacts of parental divorce focuses on
parental divorce at earlier stages in the life course which may have more of an influence on
long-term development. As a result, some of the null findings concerning the longitudinal influ-
ence of parental divorce on delinquent involvement may be the result of assessing parental
divorce at a later stage in the life course (i.e., adolescence) when it may have less on an influence
on development. Similarly, our null findings regarding the association between living with a
stepparent and delinquency may also be explained by measuring family transitions in adolescence
(Wave 2) as opposed to early childhood. Second, due to data limitations, we were not able to
assess the circumstances of parental divorces. Some research indicates that the circumstances of
parental divorce can lead to positive or negative outcomes for children (Amato, Loomis, &
Booth, 1995; Booth & Amato, 2001; Jekielek, 1998; Strohschein, 2005). To illustrate, parental
divorce in a family with a high degree of parental conflict may lead to positive outcomes for
children, whereas divorce in families with less conflict may lead to negative outcomes (Booth &
Amato, 2001; Strohschein, 2005). Consequently, the results of our analyses present a generalized
relationship between parental divorce and delinquent behavior and cannot distinguish which
elements of parental divorce may influence delinquent involvement. Third, our study did not
take into account the possible influence of juvenile delinquency on parental divorce and shifts in
family structure. While parental divorce has been linked with juvenile delinquency, it is also
possible that delinquency can increase the likelihood of parental divorce as a delinquent child
may cause stress and discord in a family environment leading to deterioration in the parents’
relationship (Beaver & Wright, 2007). As a result, since our study did not take into account the
16 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice XX(X)

possible influence of previous delinquency on parental relationships before shifts in family

structure, it cannot determine the direction of this relationship.
Also of note, the analyses for this study were estimated using minimal controls (age, sex, race,
SES), and therefore, these analyses represent a very liberal interpretation of the association between
parental divorce and criminal behavior. Many previous studies examining this relationship have
employed a significantly larger array of controls (e.g., delinquent peers, self-control); however, as
our pattern of our findings seems to indicate that the relationship between parental divorce and later
criminal behavior is likely null, including additional controls would not help to specify the models.
Including additional controls that may confound the relationship between parental divorce and
criminal behavior would only serve to attenuate a relationship that does not appear to exist in our
base models. However, it is still possible that a different pattern of findings may have emerged if we
used a more extensive list of control variables.
The results of this study provide some evidence for a significant association between family
structure and juvenile delinquency, although the findings also appear to indicate that the influence
of shifts in family structure is quite small and only temporary. While experiencing parental divorce
during adolescence may be associated with an increase in delinquent behavior in adolescence, the
influence of parental divorce is likely small and does not persist into adulthood. These results suggest
that future research should attempt to examine whether experiencing parental divorce (or moving into
a stepfamily) at earlier stages in the life course is associated with criminal involvement in adulthood.

Conclusions
In closing, the results of our study suggest that while parental divorce may have an association with
delinquent behavior, it does not appear to substantially influence criminal behavior later in the life
course. At first glance, the implications from these findings may be to suggest that juvenile justice
policy does not need to take into account family structure. This would be too hasty of a conclusion to
draw without further research exploring the nuances of the relationship between family structure and
crime. For example, different family structures may differentially impact delinquent involvement,
depending on the age of the child, the criminality of the biological and stepparents, and the nature of
the sibling relationships. Moreover, our findings do indicate that family structure is related to
juvenile delinquency cross sectionally, indicating that parental divorce has implications for juvenile
justice practices with adolescents. For instance, it may be beneficial to provide counseling for
troubled youth who have just experienced a family transition. However, as the effects of family
structure appear to be only temporary, juvenile justice policies may be better focused in other areas
that may influence criminal behavior across the life course. Regardless of our findings, future
research needs to be conducted concerning the circumstances of parental divorce and shifts in family
structure on delinquent behavior before policy changes are put in place.

Acknowledgments
This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and
Kathleen Mullan Harris, and is funded by grant PO1-HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgement is due to
Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining
data file from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street,
Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (addhealth@unc.edu).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
Boccio and Beaver 17

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. Responses to the majority these items ranged from never to five or more times according to a 4-point scale
(0 ¼ never, 1 ¼ one or two times, 2 ¼ three or four times, and 3 ¼ five or more times) at all four waves.
Several items, however, had dichotomous response categories. As a result, the items included in the scales
needed to be standardized, so that the items in the scale would equally affect the total score for the scale.
2. The items included in the delinquency scales were standardized by being mean-centered before they were
included in the scale. Mean centering allows for the use of items that were measured using different scales
(e.g., 0/1, or 1–4) in the same scale.
3. The marital status of the respondent’s parents was also measured using the household roster available in the
Add Health data at Wave 1. The analyses were estimated using both versions of the marriage variable and
yielded essentially the same results. Therefore, the results of this study are presented using the single item
measure for parental marital status in the parental questionnaire at Wave 1 for simplicity and ease of
interpretation.
4. Ordinary least squares regression was used for all of the analyses of this study.

References
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypothesis, and empirical support. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 55, 23–38.
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children of divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato and Keith (1991) meta-analysis.
Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355–370.
Amato, P. R. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 72, 650–666.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991a). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 110, 26–46.
Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991b). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 53, 43–58.
Amato, P. R., Loomis, L. S., & Booth, A. (1995). Parental divorce, marital conflict, and offspring well-being
during early adulthood. Social Forces, 73, 895–915.
Anderson, L. R. (2016). Divorce rate in the U.S.: Geographic variation, 2015. Family Profiles, FP-16-
21. Bowling Green, OH: National Center for Family & Marriage Research. Retrieved from http://
www.bgsu.edu/ncfmr/resources/data/family-profiles/anderson-divorce-rate-us-geo-2015-fp-16-21.
html
Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2007). A child effects explanation for the association between family risk and
involvement in an antisocial lifestyle. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22, 640–664.
Booth, A., & Amato, P. R. (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce well-being. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 63, 197–212.
Brown, S. L. (2006). Family structure transitions and adolescent well-being. Demography, 43, 447–461.
Burt, S. A., Barnes, A. R., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2008). Parental divorce and adolescent delinquency:
Ruling out the impact of common genes. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1668–1677.
Coughlin, C., & Vuchinich, S. (1996). Family experience in preadolescence and the development of male
delinquency. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 491–501.
D’Onofrio, B. M., Turkheimer, E., Emery, R. E., Heath, A. C., Madden, P. A., Slutske, W. S., & Martin, N. G.
(2006). A genetically informed study of the processes underlying the association between parental marital
instability and offspring adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 42, 486–499.
18 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice XX(X)

D’Onofrio, B. M., Turkheimer, E., Emery, R. E., Maes, H. H., Silberg, J., & Eaves, L. J. (2007). A children of
twins study of parental divorce and offspring psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 48, 667–675.
D’Onofrio, B. M., Turkheimer, E., Emery, R. E., Slutske, W. S., Heath, A. C., Madden, P. A., & Martin, N. G.
(2005). A genetically informed study of martial instability and its association with offspring psychopathol-
ogy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 570–586.
Edwards, J. N. (1987). Changing family structure and youthful well-being: Assessing the future. Journal of
Family Issues, 8, 355–372.
Guo, G., Roettger, M. E., & Shih, J. C. (2007). Contributions of the DAT1 and DRD2 genes to serious and
violent delinquency among adolescents and young adults. Human Genetics, 121, 125–136.
Harris, K. M., Florey, F., Tabor, J., Bearman, P. S., Jones, J., & Udry, J. R. (2003). The national longitudinal
study of adolescent health: Research design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/
design
Jekielek, S. M. (1998). Parental conflict, marital disruption and children’s emotional well-being. Social Forces,
76, 905–936.
Juby, H., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Disentangling the link between disrupted families and delinquency.
British Journal of Criminology, 41, 22–40.
Mednick, B., Reznick, C., Hocevar, D., & Baker, R. (1987). Long-term effects of parental divorce in young
adult male crime. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 31–95.
O’Connor, T. G., Caspi, A., DeFries, J. C., & Plomin, R. (2000). Are associations between parental divorce
and children’s adjustment genetically mediated? An adoption study. Developmental Psychology, 36,
429–437.
Pagani, L., Tremblay, R. E., Vitaro, F., Kerr, M., & McDuff, P. (1998). The impact of family transitions on the
development of delinquency in adolescent boys: A 9-year longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 39, 489–499.
Price, C., & Kunz, J. (2003). Rethinking the paradigm of juvenile delinquency as related to divorce. Journal of
Divorce and Remarriage, 39, 109–133.
Rebellon, C. J. (2002). Reconsidering the broken homes/delinquency relationship and exploring its mediating
mechanism(s). Criminology, 40, 103–130.
Schoen, R., & Canudas-Romo, V. (2006). Timing effects of divorce: 20th century experience in the United
States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 749–758.
Schroeder, R. D., Osgood, A. K., & Oghia, M. J. (2010). Family transitions and juvenile delinquency. Socio-
logical Inquiry, 80, 579–604.
Spohn, R. E., & Kurtz, D. L. (2011). Family structure as a social context for family conflict: Unjust strain and
serious delinquency. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 332–356.
Strohschein, L. (2005). Parental divorce and child mental health trajectories. Journal of Marriage and Family,
67, 1286–1300.
Udry, J. R. (2003). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), wave III, 2001-2002;
wave IV, 2008-2009. Los Altos, CA: The Carolina Population Center.
United States Census Bureau. (2016). America’s families and living arrangements: 2015: Children (table C3).
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2015C.html
Vanassche, S., Sodermans, A. K., Matthijs, K., & Swicegood, G. (2014). The effects of family type, family
relationships and parental role models on delinquency and alcohol use among Flemish adolescents. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 23, 128–143.
Vespa, J., Lewis, J. M., & Kreider, R. M. (2013). America’s families and living arrangements: 2012 population
characteristics. Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau.
Wadsworth, M., Maclean, M., Kuh, D., & Rodgers, B. (1990). Children of divorced and separated parents:
Summary and review of findings from a long-term follow-up study in the U. K. Family Practice, 7,
104–109.
Boccio and Beaver 19

Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H. (1991). Families and delinquency: A meta-analysis of the impact of broken homes.
Social Problems, 38, 71–93.
Wright, J. P., Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. (2008). Evidence of negligible parenting influences on
self-control, delinquent peers, and delinquency in a sample of twins. Justice Quarterly, 25, 544–569.

Author Biographies

Cashen M. Boccio is a doctoral candidate in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at
Florida State University.

Kevin M. Beaver is a professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State
University.