Family structure
Large families and single-parent or reconstituted families have been associated with delinquency although a complex situation has emerged. While large families have been associated with delinquent children this effect is strongly related to household income and supervision – the stress of having a large family on a low income may lead to less supervision ( Utting et al 1993). Some studies have found that fewer offenders come from families living with two natural parents, but there is no evidence to suggest that divorce, separation or single parenthood are criminogenic in themselves, as these are widespread throughout society and not always related to crime. The Home Office study referred to above found those living with two natural parents were least likely to offend and that those living with one natural and one step-parent were most likely to offend
The quality of family relationships
It has been argued that it is the quality of relationships within the family rather than its structure which may affect the likelihood of crime. Many studies found that it is the conflict surrounding separation or divorce rather than family breakdown which may be significant (Rutter 1985, Utting et al 1993). Moreover, a single-parent home may provide the child with a caring and affectionate environment which may be far better than a home where two parents are constantly in dispute and have little time to pay attention to their children. The Home Office study confirms these points, finding that a bad relationship with a father had a strong relationship to offending for both boys and girls.
Crime, unemployment and deprivation
Crime has also been related to social deprivation and, more recently, to the growth of unemployment. Exploring this association is far from easy, and statistical correlations between unemployment rates and crime rates are difficult to establish. Neither set of statistics is totally reliable and studies have failed to find strong or consistent relationships, although later work has found stronger relationships between youth crime and unemployment (Box 1987; Wells 1995). It is also difficult to separate the effects of unemployment from wider economic conditions such as growth and recession and different hypotheses can be advanced as to how these might be related to crime. On the one hand, it could be argued that during a recession, when unemployment rises and some incomes fall, some would have an increased motivation for crime. On the other hand economic growth, when incomes rise, may produce increased opportunities for crime as there are more goods in circulation.
Studies may establish some statistical correlations, but cannot explain them or establish that unemployment or other economic conditions ‘cause’ crime – not all unemployed people are likely to turn to crime and many people who are employed also commit crime.
Crime, the ‘underclass’ and social exclusion
Economic and industrial restructuring have, in recent decades, had an enormous impact not only creating long-term unemployment but also increasing the amounts of low paid, casual employment. Many of those who live in areas which have seen the decline of traditional industries can no longer expect stable full-time employment. This affects their ability to undertake financial and other commitments, such as buying a house or getting married. For young people it may mean a period of extended adolescence prolonging their entry into the world of work. Many of the communities most affected are also geographically isolated, some in housing estates outside towns and cities. This has led to what some see as a situation in which groups and whole communities are effectively excluded from participation in society. This has been further associated with family breakdown, the growth in single-parent families and the growth of an ‘underclass’ with high rates of participation in crime.
The notion of the underclass implies the existence of a distinct class below other social classes and both its existence and its relationship to crime are disputed. To the American commentator Charles Murray, the underclass emerges from an increasing dependence on welfare benefits which leads to the development of a dependency culture. In Britain, he argues, a growing number of people who are able to work but choose not to, live in a ‘different world’ from others. They do not obtain good habits and discipline and their values contaminate ‘the life of entire neighbourhoods’ (Murray 1996:p123). Men in such communities cannot support families, leading to high rates of illegitimacy, and seek alternative, destructive means of proving that they are men. Whole communities are devastated by crime and young men look up to criminal role models.
Whether or not the underclass exists, most agree that industrial restructuring has led to the growth of communities within which the majority of inhabitants are excluded from work and its associated benefits, and that these are also characterised by high amounts of property crime, youth crime and illegal drug use (Davies, Croall & Tyrer 1999).
